Poll: Will the libs join the conservatives?
This poll is closed.
Yes, the libs will join the conservatives on the vote
100.00%
1 100.00%
No, the libs will not join the conservatives on the vote
0%
0 0%
Total 1 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court is primed to KEEP Trump on the Colorado ballot in blockbuster hearing
#1
Supreme Court is primed to KEEP Trump on the Colorado ballot in blockbuster hearing: Liberal justices express deep concerns.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ision.html

Speculation is that the libs on the Supreme Court are going to join the conservatives, possibly making this a 7-2, 8-1, or even a 9-0 vote.

Kentaji Brown Jackson is destroying Colorado's entire argument
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/...9820975281

Justice Gorsuch just took a sledge hammer to Colorado's entire argument for keeping Trump off the ballot:
"How does that work given that Section 3 speaks about holding office, not who may run for office?"
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/...5369465907


Place your bets.
Degrees: BA Computer Science, BS Business Administration with a concentration in CIS, AS Natural Science & Math, TESU. 4.0 GPA 2022.
Course Experience:  CLEP, Instantcert, Sophia.org, Study.com, Straighterline.com, Onlinedegree.org, Saylor.org, Csmlearn.com, and TEL Learning.
Certifications: W3Schools PHP, Google IT Support, Google Digital Marketing, Google Project Management
[-] The following 1 user Likes LevelUP's post:
  • Ares
Reply
#2
States can’t kick Trump off ballot, Supreme Court says in a 9-0 ruling

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04...s-00144673

“An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times,” the court’s principal opinion said. No individual justice was listed as the author of that opinion; instead, the opinion was labeled as “per curiam,” a legal phrase meaning on behalf of the court.

“Nothing in the Constitution,” the opinion continued, “requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”
Degrees: BA Computer Science, BS Business Administration with a concentration in CIS, AS Natural Science & Math, TESU. 4.0 GPA 2022.
Course Experience:  CLEP, Instantcert, Sophia.org, Study.com, Straighterline.com, Onlinedegree.org, Saylor.org, Csmlearn.com, and TEL Learning.
Certifications: W3Schools PHP, Google IT Support, Google Digital Marketing, Google Project Management
[-] The following 1 user Likes LevelUP's post:
  • Charles Fout
Reply
#3
"Section 5 - The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

And Congress has done so by passing

"18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

The Supreme Court never said no insurrection because it was obvious that there was no conviction for insurrection and they always take the easy way out.  In this case that means that disqualification was beyond state authority as clearly stated in Section 5.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Old Guy's post:
  • LevelUP
Reply
#4
(03-06-2024, 08:27 AM)Old Guy Wrote: "Section 5 - The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

And Congress has done so by passing

"18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

The Supreme Court never said no insurrection because it was obvious that there was no conviction for insurrection and they always take the easy way out.  In this case that means that disqualification was beyond state authority as clearly stated in Section 5.

1. There was no insurrection, I know what an insurrection looks like and this wasn't it(also Trump was not involved, but lets leave that aside for a second)

2. Even if he was, there's no Constitutional previsions to remove someone on the ballot for being so. The Suppreme Court did their job of preserving ACTUAL democracy here.
[-] The following 1 user Likes elcastor21's post:
  • LevelUP
Reply
#5
(03-06-2024, 08:27 AM)Old Guy Wrote: "Section 5 - The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

And Congress has done so by passing

"18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

The Supreme Court never said no insurrection because it was obvious that there was no conviction for insurrection and they always take the easy way out.  In this case that means that disqualification was beyond state authority as clearly stated in Section 5.

I agree.

All these recent legal cases surrounding elections and other things are pretty interesting. 

We got quite a few political science majors and law students on the forum.
Degrees: BA Computer Science, BS Business Administration with a concentration in CIS, AS Natural Science & Math, TESU. 4.0 GPA 2022.
Course Experience:  CLEP, Instantcert, Sophia.org, Study.com, Straighterline.com, Onlinedegree.org, Saylor.org, Csmlearn.com, and TEL Learning.
Certifications: W3Schools PHP, Google IT Support, Google Digital Marketing, Google Project Management
[-] The following 1 user Likes LevelUP's post:
  • Charles Fout
Reply
#6
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Democrats are saying it's not over.




Degrees: BA Computer Science, BS Business Administration with a concentration in CIS, AS Natural Science & Math, TESU. 4.0 GPA 2022.
Course Experience:  CLEP, Instantcert, Sophia.org, Study.com, Straighterline.com, Onlinedegree.org, Saylor.org, Csmlearn.com, and TEL Learning.
Certifications: W3Schools PHP, Google IT Support, Google Digital Marketing, Google Project Management
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New York Governor Kathy Hochul admits that the $355 million Trump verdict was a sham LevelUP 11 1,230 02-23-2024, 09:46 PM
Last Post: NotJoeBiden
  Chainsaw Trump wins Argentina presidential election in landslide LevelUP 11 900 02-21-2024, 12:28 AM
Last Post: housecat
  Trump drops $399 branded golden sneakers at Sneaker Con LevelUP 1 403 02-18-2024, 07:23 PM
Last Post: NotJoeBiden
Music Trump Get Impeached Twice, Kanye West and Taylor Swift. We Didn't Start the Fire. LevelUP 1 490 07-17-2023, 08:14 AM
Last Post: P226mem
  The Colorado River Alpha 0 306 08-15-2022, 06:22 PM
Last Post: Alpha
  Student Loan Watchdog Quits, Blames Trump Administration allvia 7 1,559 08-28-2018, 01:18 PM
Last Post: cookderosa
  Supreme Court decision Beacon 29 2,588 06-29-2015, 08:39 AM
Last Post: soliloquy

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)