Posted on 12/30/2023 9:24:30 AM PST by libh8er
Donald Trump has expressed concern that the Supreme Court could back attempts by Colorado and Maine to block him from the Republican primary ballot, according to reports.
Both states have moved to exclude Trump over his role in the January 6, 2021, attack by his supporters on the Capitol.
The states have accepted legal challenges to Trump's nomination that cite Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says office holders cannot 'have engaged in insurrection or rebellion'.
Trump has privately expressed concerns that the Supreme Court, to which he appointed three conservative justices while president, may side with Colorado and Maine so as not to appear 'political', The New York Times reported.
Despite the conservative supermajority on the bench the former president is worried the court will rule against him, a source told the Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Correct. The lack of enabling legislation leaves massive due process issues that are being dealt with on an ad hoc basis that simply
Cannot be tolerated lest the presidential electoral system collapse: does the language of the 14th apply to POTUS at
All? is it necessary that the person be convicted of the crime of insurrection?
If not, is it state courts that have jurisdiction to make the determination? Can administrative agencies such as the Maine SOS
Make the determination? What is the standard of proof— the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?
If court proceedings are necessary, who has standing to bring the case?
Is there a right to a trial? Is there a right to a jury trial? Etc etc
These are light years from being minor issues, and I just don’t see SCOTUS opening the door to chaos by allowing SCOC to stand
We pray that the purveyors of lies and deception will be defeated. We pray that truth and righteousness will be admired and aspired to. We pray that those who have been placed in positions of leadership of this land will seek after you in their decisions, words and actions. We pray that those who seek after wickedness and evil will fail in their plots and plans... that they will be routed and will flee.
We pray that multitudes of our countrymen and women will turn to you and the truth will shine in their hearts. We pray that they will not be deluded, and their eyes will be opened and their hearts enlightened.
We ask all this in the most high name of Your Son Jesus Christ. Amen.
double BS
there is no constitutional justification whatsoever for removing PDJT from the ballot. NONE
Consider that we have a president who got one of the earliest hair transplants and has probably had plastic surgery. All that is par for the course for politicians, like lying about one’s health — and like lying in general.
But when I said it’s hard for a guy to walk like that, I meant a male person. Guys don’t have the practice that women do.
Justices appointed by Trump are Trump justices—or had better be
They should be true to the US Constitution.
I don’t think the supreme Court is going to go for this. It would lead down a bad road, and it’s the kind of thing Roberts doesn’t really want.
Someone who is short and feels compelled to masquerade as taller as he actually is and then lies about it... has a personality problem that is not going away.
To say nothing of a spray tan and comb over.
Since he has not been convicted, this would be last step before civil war.
Soap box, ballot box, ammo box.
It would be basically doing away with due process. Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything and he hasn’t even been charged with insurrection. It’s a complete mockery of the law.
Yup. Source is bullbutter.
Ahhhh the Only Trump Crowd has a much more humble tone than eight years ago.
not a constitutional issue?
the dems are citing the Constitution as the basis for doing this
I mean, fNYT (and they are so miserably bad at attempting to generate Swamp gossip clickbait 200 miles away in Gotham, more interested in their lattes and hooking up on Grindr+POS)...
Yet the irony here is sick, as Alito will pair up with Gorsuch and the three Trumpers to craft a 5-4 majority omnibus SCOTUS decision that quells any further attempt to keep President Trump off any ballot, a decision that cites arguments that Trump attorneys made in the CREW Colorado calumny, cites the Colorado Supreme Court Dissent by Justice Samour, and comprehensively cites the remarkably incisive Michigan Court of Appeal's LaBrant, et al v Trump that was just upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court.
As I wrote a month ago:
"Meanwhile, read the Colorado decision, Trump's lawyers were masterful.SCOTUS at some point early 2024 will wrap them all into one or maybe two and smack down the everlasting shit of these Libtards. So instead of preventing TrumpII, these cases will actually provide a win for Trump at exactly the right moment. "
Regardless of SCOTUS, I doubt the Dems will go through with it.
For one thing, it is a really, really bad look - a state preventing its own citizens vote for who they wish.
But there’s a real good thing it could backfire badly if they do go through with it - since the Republican controlled House will have some discretion over whether or not to count a state’s electors. Rep Tom Massie has already warned that Democrat state SOS who attempt this risk ha in their state’s electoral votes ignited in the final tally.
For example, if California and NY kicked Trump off their ballots, 2024 could become a race to 230 instead of a race to 270, almost guaranteeing a Trump victory, since Trump was unlikely to win votes from those states anyway.
And that scenario is not unlikely, given that only the solid blue states would want to kick him off the ballot.
I think all the law-fare is just for show. They want to prepare the public for another stolen election by making a Trump win seem like a long shot when actually it isn’t. The ongoing narrative will be that Trump faces insurmountable hurdles… that way when they steal it the public won’t be surprised.
Because Lincoln won anyway, rendering the challenge moot.
However, you make an interesting assertion, if taken at face value, and viewed in the context you provided, and then the modern-day outcome unspoken (if LaBrant v Trump were upheld) but acknowledged within that context ...
I addressed this in a previous thread, asserting that the Colorado Supreme Court 'decision' itself could itself be considered Incitement to Insurrection, and those jurists responsible for an inchoate offense or outright criminal conspiracy by subverting the Constitution of the United States:
"The Colorado decision is so problematic on so many levels, a rogue state supreme court is nothing new -- Bush v Gore was a ruling to rein in a rogue state supreme court -- but while that court had at least reliance on an existing legislative pathway for their course of action, as Justice Samour's dissent revealed in his brutal smackdown of his fellow Democrats, the majority in the CREW decision weren't just way out over their skis constitutionally, but it could be plainly argued from Samour's dissent, that the Colorado Supreme Court directly engaged in Incitement to Insurrection!
"By concluding that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing, the majority approves the enforcement of that federal constitutional provision by our state courts through the truncated procedural mechanism that resides in our state Election Code.Thus, based on its interpretation of Section Three, our court sanctions these makeshift proceedings employed by the district court below — which lacked basic discovery, the ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and the opportunity for a fair trial — to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim (a complicated one at that) masquerading as a run-of-the-mill state Election Code claim.
And because most other states don’t have the Election Code provisions we do, they won’t be able to enforce Section Three. That, in turn, will inevitably lead to the disqualification of President Trump from the presidential primary ballot in less than all fifty states, thereby risking chaos in our country."
If Trmp is kept off the ballot, it could be 1860 all over again.
If nothing else it is a federal civil rights violation. Depriving some one of his rights without due process of law. Since the criminals are so excited to cite the 14th amendment section 3, they should first look at section 1. If any of this malfeasance holds up under sc scrutiny, it will signal the concrete end of the Constitutional Republic of the United States.
Please tell me when the left has ever let up on lawfare against the leading republican candidate? If it wasn't Trump, it would be DeSantis in the barrel.
The Democrats start screaming about every leading republican candidate and you just swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Try not to think like a sad, little bitch.
Here's a pun: you, are a dope.
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.