[bitt]

p

[Williams]

Uh why did the article emphasize his age?

[alloysteel]

People keep talking about Trump being guilty of “insurrection”. That is a very specific charge, and no prosecuting attorney has brought this charge against Trump to any grand jury ANYWHERE, there is no indictment, the facts have not been heard in court, there has been no ruling of guilt or innocence, and there is no sentence that was ever handed down.

How many ways can anybody say “nothingburger”?

[Hattie]

Why not just wait till after the election? Thanks Supremes for caring so tmuch about your country.

[kabar]

9-0.. It won’t be close. Trump will prevail as will the Constitution.

[MrZippy2k]

USSC Will punt. They will rule that Trump hasn’t been found guilty of insurrection and secondly, he has not been elected to the office - - thus, nothing to litigate right now.

Which will leave the door open to further litigation, once elected, if he’s found guilty of insurrection.

I have $0.12 which I’ll bet double or nothing on

[Sarah Barracuda]

I could go in front of the Supreme Court and get the judges to rule 9-0 in favor of Trump..its this simple..the definition of an insurrection is trying to overthrow the Govt, Trump was president til Jan 20th..so they are saying that Trump tried to overthrow HIMSELF..that is laughable..and secondly the other side will say “Well Trump wanted to make sure the election was not certified” lets say that is 100 percent true, even if the election had been certified, Trump could have sat down in the White House and said “Im not leaving” period end of story..drag him out kicking and screaming he isn’t leaving..the whole idea that Jan 6th was an insurrection is an absolute JOKE when Trump didnt even need to do that, could have just said “Im not leaving” so what are they going to do, drag him out..fine give it your best shot

[Paladin2]

Hearing a case is usually 6 months or so removed from an “opinion” being issued.

[eyeamok]

Today would be a Good day for every republican Governor to unilaterally Remove Biden from the ballot for belong to a Political Party that actually committed Insurrection

[KingofZion]

I predict 9-0 as well. Putting aside the Section 3 issue, there are 2 fundamental problems with the CO and ME rulings: (1) you can’t have different rules for different states. He is either barred from all 50 or none at all. (2) if COnis correct the result will be chaos as red and blue states make disqualification decisions based on politics not facts. We can already see this in TX and FL.

Impeachment is the process designed to address this situation. There was no conviction so it’s finished.

[DownInFlames]

That’s right. Section 5 of the 14th amendment specifically places enforcement under Congress. Since he was acquitted, it’s a closed case.

[Thapsus_epiphany]

So, it turns out the President Trump DOES have ‘standing’ after all.
Interesting…

[devere]

Why wait until February?

[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. A lot of future events still must happen before Trump is close to being President.
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. The issues is still not ripe.
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

[joshua c]

if Trump is guilty of insurrection

why havent they charged him?

they have not been shy about indicting him on any premise

[TexasFreeper2009]

0% chance they will allow it, because otherwise immediately red states will start throwing Democrats off the ballot for the same supposed reason.

I view the BLM riots personally as more of an insurrection then J6! so from my point of view nearly all Democrats can be thrown off the ballot for encouraging the BLM insurrection!