Posted on 12/27/2023 7:07:09 AM PST by Navy Patriot
Michigan's Supreme Court is keeping former President Donald Trump on the state's primary election ballot.
The court said Wednesday it will not hear an appeal of a lower court's ruling from groups seeking to keep Trump from appearing on the ballot.
The state's high court said in an order that the application by parties to appeal a Dec. 14 Michigan appeals court judgment was considered, but denied "because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The abject fear the democrats have of PRESIDENT TRUMP is almost beyond my compression. I do know, however, that if the democrats fear him so much there most be a HIDDEN REASON we must elect TRUMP to find out what that reason is.
As though we don’t already know.
“there is a Supreme Court they cannot Kangaroo.“
The rats stole the Mi SC 5 years ago but they saw there is no legal grounds to keep Trump off as much as they would like to. The Co SC just looks like the hacks that they are.
Given these undeniable facts there will be moves in many Maoist states,and swing states,to remove him from the November ballot. We'd be foolish to assume that *those* efforts will fail.
Just sayin'...
That is their plan. You’ve nailed it.
The law being used against Trump regarding ‘insurrection’ no longer exists. It was removed by the Senate (by 2/3 vote) in three Acts, and was extinct, legally, before Trump was even elected.
For now, only four Marxist potheads on the Colorado supreme court have succeeded in making complete fools of themselves.
"In the Court of Claims, plaintiffs Robert LaBrant, Andrew Bradway, Norah Murphy, and William Nowling filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of State. The complaint filed in that court contains voluminous allegations concerning Trump's actions before the 2020 Presidential Election, during the time between that election and January 6, 2021, and on January 6, 2021 itself. The complaint alleges that as a result of his actions, Trump “engaged in insurrection,” and that as he had previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States on January 20, 2017, the date he was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, and that Trump was “disqualified from holding ‘any office, civil or military, under the United States.’ ” The complaint further alleges that Congress had not removed this disability, and that the office of President of the United States was an “office” contemplated by the Insurrection Clause. “Consequently, Donald J. Trump is disqualified from, and ineligible to hold, the office of President of the United States.”"Relying on a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court, which considered a similar challenge in that state, the Court of Claims explained that the presidential primary election is administered by the Secretary of State pursuant to MCL 168.614a and MCL 168.615a, but that the overall function of the primary election was to assist the political parties “in determining their respective presidential candidates ․” The Legislature had not crafted any specific prohibitions regarding whom could be placed on primary ballots, “irrespective as to whether the individual may either serve as a general election candidate or ultimately serve as President if elected.” Further, the number of steps involved in becoming a party's candidate for President, along with the fact that any such candidate would also have to win the general election, showed that “declaratory relief is not proper, at least at this time.” And, the Court of Claims explained, even if Trump were to win the general election, Congress could remove any disability that might be created by the Insurrection Clause. The Court of Claims concluded: “Whether former President Trump even becomes the President-elect is such a future event that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that their request for a declaratory judgment is ripe at this time.”
As a separate, additional reason for concluding that “plaintiffs cannot receive the relief of preventing former President Trump from being placed on the primary ballot,”[5] the Court of Claims held that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question. The Court applied the six factors from Baker v Carr, 369 US 186; 82 S Ct 691; 7 L Ed 663 (1962), and concluded that it would be inappropriate for a judicial officer to determine whether Trump was disqualified from holding office under the Insurrection Clause. The Court of Claims held that, given the nature and number of questions that would need to be answered in order to determine whether Trump was disqualified, coupled with the fact that Congress could remove any such disability, it would be inappropriate for a single judicial officer to decide whether Trump was disqualified from holding office under the Insurrection Clause.
Here's the fascinator: IF these chumps tossing pennies are stupid enough to seek cert from Michigan Supreme Court's denial, THIS is the decision that Alito could use to combine with the Colorado Supreme Court's unconstitutional ruling and create an omnibus ruling that bars any further election ballot suits from chumps tossing pennies.
“it would be inappropriate for a single judicial officer “
Lawyers are idiots. In no way does the 14th stipulate or allow for a single judicial officer or multiple judicial officers to make any decisions. That’s not even a consideration when contemplating the 14th.
It is a total non sequitur.
ALL 3 were Rick Snyder appointees (Letica was one of his last appointees); ALL from in-state law schools that don't start with the word "Michigan"; AND Cameron and Riordan are Federalist Society members, and Catholics.
This was not by chance, and it is not by chance that this decision likely now paves the way for TrumpII.
“I do know, however, that if the democrats fear him so much there most be a HIDDEN REASON “
They fear he is going to do to them what they DID TO HIM.
Leaving Colorado’s supreme idiots to blow in the wind.
The Demwits don’t understand if they can do this to Trump, it can be done to their candidates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.