Supreme Court is primed to KEEP Trump on the Colorado ballot in blockbuster hearing

[LevelUP]

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.

[LevelUP]

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.”

[Old Guy]

"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.

[elcastor21]

"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.

[LevelUP]

"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.

[LevelUP]

So, I guess that ends the cases for 2024, at least.