Posted on 12/27/2023 8:33:11 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
The Michigan Supreme Court denied an attempt Wednesday to remove Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, bolstering the chances that the US Supreme Court will soon hear an appeal of a Colorado ruling that disqualified the former president from that state’s primary.
In a brief order, Michigan’s high court said it was “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court” after an earlier appeal sought to make Trump ineligible under the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The plaintiffs claimed Trump’s efforts to overturn President Biden’s victory that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot constituted evidence that he unconstitutionally “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” and may no longer hold office.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Yes.
They took one look at the twisted, faulty ruling from the Coloraso SC and said, “Nope! Don’t want to be remembered for that nonsense.”
They took one look at the twisted, faulty ruling from the Colorado SC and said, “Nope! Don’t want to be remembered for that nonsense.”
Will someone please wake up the “duty” Surrender Monkey and tell him/her to grab a keyboard and start whining?
The rest of the Surrender Monkeys must have left at least one on duty to start talking the “B=Waa but they’ll cheat waa!” mantra.
No, the law cited is no longer in effect. It was removed by the US Senate, by 2/3 vote, over several decades. It no longer can be used.
The Michigan Supreme Court did not actually rule as described.
The application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2023 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
They choose not to even hear the case, denying the application leaving the Court of Appeals decision in place. The Court order: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4b0d49/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/sct/public/orders/166470_142_01.pdf only lists a dissenting opinion and that dissent is that the Justice felt the Court should hear the case, not on the merits of the case. It is an interesting 5 page read.
Justice Welch noted that they were advised of the Colorado decision, but noted “Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan.”
“The appellants have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office.”
There is a comment above that this has to go to the USSC because of dissenting court opinions. That is not correct, each of the cases were decided on the basis of the laws of their state laws.
The dissent also notes the Trump has already filed an appeal with the USSC in the Colorado case.
So to review, this was not a ruling on the merits, but rather a denial to hear the appeal (which the lower court had already ruled in Trump’s favor).
well, they probably figure that one state supreme court beclowning itself on this issue is sufficient ...
17 states trying to remove Trump from 2024 ballot by the democrat party but it’s not election interference huh Moe.
No word from Biden he’s on another vacation.
The Colorado Supreme Court is in clear violation of USC 18 sections 242 and 241. But there will be no charges unless a miracle happens and Trumps lives to win election and be sworn in.
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.