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 ...
I take back what I said. I can’t accuse media of laziness but then practice it myself. This is Section 5 of the 14th:
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
That’s not mandatory language. They were not under an obligation to pass legislation
The Colorado decision needs to be reversed. It now up the Supreme Court.
Let the dissent(s) try to justify a claim of rebellion involving Trump. NPR has a transcript of Trump’s January 6th speech.
A man is to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Where do they come up with this bullshit!t?
“ Knowing specifically what has to be done is highly important.
Ability to select good people and only good people is an ability Trump has repeatedly shown he lacks.
And it is also important to keep good people around so they can work to do good.”
Pay attention
Trump earned $9 billion with a B honestly in business its skills attention and talent earned by working both with his generations old family business along with his Finn e degree from Wharton. That’s U Penn. Ivy League. I’m wanting my home talking to someone who doesn’t know that takes attention to detail and whatever other qualities listed you believe trump lacks
Again with this:
And it is also important to keep good people around so they can work to do good.”
People watch too much TV
You believe Trump hired everyone in order to get policy done. No.
Again. Pick up Sun tsu
There was going to be no policy implemented in the first term that this centuries old worldwide swamp was no going to erase
One does not get rid of such a swamp in a couple of years
He had no one to hire from much a system
Did you at least pay attention to what happened to those outside the swamp who were good?
Get a clue
In such a system one hires people in order to learn about the enemy.
I guess if the citizens of Colorado don’t mind Trump not being on the ballot the ok. But if, say, 30% of them want to vote for Trump then there should be a lot of anger among them.
“Conservative super majority on the bench”. 😆
Important to note that
1) Trump was charged and tried and found NOT Guilty by the US Senate in his impeachment trial. That is a trial according to the Constitution as removal of office requires “conviction”.
2) Trump has never been convicted of Insurrection. Colorado’s actions are a violation of Amendment 14 section 1 as the ruling deprives a US Citizen of their right to due process.
There is a very clear and logical reason for ruling against the State of Colorado (and others). Will SCOTUS do so ... lets see.
Bingo!
Garbage!
It is more relevant than most of the "issues". When we elect a President, we are electing the man not his policies. His stands on policies can easily be misrepresented for political gain and then be changed overnight after the election. It happens all the time.
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.
As far as being difficult to “walk like that”... ask a woman. They wear shoes with high heals all the time. There are videos all over the place of DeSantis walking in a weird and somewhat comical way which show the place where the ball of his foot should be within his boots completely flattened out. I want a president who at least has the sense to stuff the end of his boots with tissue paper when he is using lifts.
https://www.tiktok.com/@brelindy1/video/7295490574960839979?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the SCOTUS rejected to rule on any 2020 fraud case brought to them. I believe some of their reasoning was because voting/election issues are state issues and therefore need to be addressed by the state(s).
I have zero confidence in the current SCOTUS shooting down states that remove Trump from the ballot. I can hear them using the same lame "it's a state issue" argument(s) they used in 2020 for voter fraud.
I'm a source, too. I'm telling the Times that Biden personally confessed to stealing the last election, and plans to do it again in 2024.
Now you need to run with my story. After all, a source told you!
bottom line then is:
congress must initiate it
correct ?
The Dobbs case explained how the original ruling was based on an extremely flawed legal foundation.
As a practical matter, what if the Supreme Court puns on this and leaves it up to the states two states now and counting, the math can be pretty clear for Trump‘s ability to win a national election. That said, I don’t think the states have any business whatsoever in deciding who a private political party chooses to Put or not put on their ballot. The Republican party is not a state or federal agency
Ive been a bit of a weasel but I’m putting down my marker: 9-0 on narrow grounds. No dissents, but concurrences that explore the respective justices’ additional
Views on other issues
Not this Court, but I remember how the Court felt after Bush v Gore in 2000, which is why SCOTUS declined to hear Republican Senate candidate Doug Forrester's challenge in 2002 when the New Jersey Supreme Court let state Democrats replace Bob Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg in October 2002 after absentee ballots were coming back and Torricelli was losing badly in the polls due to corruption indictments.
They even let votes for Torricelli count for Lautenberg. I was afraid that SCOTUS was setting up a precedent to allow Democrats to swap out losing candidates late in the election with a replacement candidate who would do better in the last weeks.
-PJ
If the SCOTUS does not shoot down the lawlessness of dem states who remove Trump, the only avenue that remains for republicans would be for republican run states to remove any and all democrat candidates. If they don't, the controlled opposition (republican party) will be even more controlled by the democrat party. When an opposition party in a republic is allowed to dictate who can run against them, the result is a failed constitutional republic. I.e., we are witnessing our constitutional republic turning into a banana republic. God help us!
If they didn’t want to appear political then it seems they could just not take the case and allow the political process including House of Reps to handle it.
Trump did not appoint any conservatives to SCOTUS.
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.