The Supreme Court will decide if Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

MSN ^ | MARK SHERMAN and NICHOLAS RICCARDI

[nickcarraway]

The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.

The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up a case from Colorado stemming from Trump’s role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Arguments will be held in early February.

[JSM_Liberty]

Trump will win 6-3

[RedElement]

Real simple: You cannot challenge a Democrat election victory. They are by definition legitimate.

Corollary: You must challenge a Republican victory. Always illegitimate.

[NorthMountain]

There’s no such thing as a “federal election”. Elections are run by the States; specifically the Legislatures of the several States.

Remember: when you go to cast your ballot you’re not voting for “Smith” for President. You’re voting for a slate of electors pledged to “Smith”, and you’re doing so only because your State Legislature chose to allow you that privilege.

The closest thing we have to a “federal election” occurs when the Electors chosen by the several States meet to cast THEIR votes.

[Michael.SF.]

This SHOULD>/b> be a slam dunk win in favor of Trump. If there are two dissensions or more then the D’s will scream bloody murder (they probably will anyway).but a 9-0 or 8-1 win would shut them up, on this subject at least.

[Political Junkie Too]

If I were on the Supreme Court, here is how I would play this out:

1. Ruling "ripeness," I would say that the lower courts cannot rule on keeping Trump off of the ballot because this isn't a general election and former President Trump hasn't won the primary yet.
2. After the primaries are concluded, I would point out that primaries are party-specific nomination processes, and that even the winner of the primary is not the official candidate until the party's convention selects the candidate it wants to run in the general election.
3. After the convention confirms former President Trump as its nominee, I would rule that Trump is not actually on the ballot, Electors are. Trump's name is a convenient tag to make it easier for the voters, but according to the Constitution it's the Electors who are being voted on, so removing Trump from the ballot is really removing the Electors from the ballot, which is unconstitutional.
4. If former President Trump actually wins the general election, THEN AND ONLY THEN should the Supreme Court review President-elect Trump's qualification to be President via the 20th amendment Section 3: " if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;"
5. At this point, the Supreme Court should hear 14th amendment Section 3 arguments regarding disqualification over insurrection. This finding will then meet or fail to meet the 20th amendment's "fail to qualify" clause and the President-Elect may or may not be disqualified at this time.
6. The beauty of this is the same as when Democrats tamper with the election: the party that wins still wins. If Trump is disqualified after winning the election, the Republican VP takes over as President, instead of the Democrats' plan to remove Trump so that Biden can win the election.

-PJ

[RoseofTexas]

Praying 🙏🏻 they do the right thing and rule according to the constitution and fairness! I just don’t trust any blackrobe. Ive lost faith in our judicial branch 😞

[Michael.SF.]

This SHOULD be a slam dunk win in favor of Trump. If there are two dissensions or more then the D’s will scream bloody murder (they probably will anyway).but a 9-0 or 8-1 win would shut them up, on this subject at least.

[TexasFreeper2009]

there is ZERO chance the supreme court will allow this. Because if they do, red states will immediately start throwing Democrats off the ballots for any reason they see fit.

[Michael.SF.]

Brown-Jackson and Sotomayor would be two, I am guessing, who do you see as the third?

[Jonny7797]

This is a fairly easy case for them. Many states have rejected tossing Trump off the ballot. Many more wont even touch it. 9-0 ruling.

[RedMonqey]

I don’t trust the Roberts court either
They will make a weasel decision that they will insist it doesn’t make “precedent” but will effectively only apply to Trump thus allowing liberal states to knock Trump’s name off their ballots but not apply to future, leftist rioters!

[Fury]

They'll just ignore the ruling and argue that the Supreme Court is illegitimate.

I’ll bet you up to $500 that they do not do that.

[Nifster]

Maybe. Maybe not

[Nifster]

Me either

[telescope115]

Since when has it been illegal to challenge the results of an election?
*******

If a Republican is challenging the results, it’s “illegal”……
If a Democrat is challenging the results, it’s “legal”.

[RedMonqey]

What gets me if Trump is an “insurrectionist”, what about all those politicians who claimed to be part of “The Resistance”?
By the very definition of resistance they are for overturning the duly election of Trump in 2016.
Are they going to be denied elective office?
One could say they never took arms but neither did Trump’s. If “fiery words” are to be the standard then half of the Democratic party is guilty if “insurrection”!

[Revel]

Yeah and Trumps last two picks are not to be trusted.

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

The same group that cannot say abortion is the murder of a child, only states can decide.

The same bunch that said....a slave is propery, send him back.

Yea. Those arbiters of falsehood.

[Does so]

Democracy dies after dark...