Posted on 12/20/2023 7:32:57 AM PST by Navy Patriot
The U.S. Supreme Court could rule "9-0" for President Donald Trump if he appeals the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling kicking him off the state's 2024 ballot, former White House lawyer Ty Cobb is predicting.
"I think this case will be handled quickly. I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump," Cobb, who has served as a member of the Trump administration legal team, told CNN's Erin Burnett Tuesday after the ruling. "It will be a race to get there. I mean, the Supreme Court, though, will not hesitate to move quickly on this. They know what is at stake."
He also argued that the "law is clear" on the issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
9-0 on a case the entire left has decided to go “all in” about? No way. It will be 6-3 at best. The commie justices will dissent.
I would like to see them ACTUALLY, IN REAL LIFE, curb-stomped.
But is that good enough? It looks to me like Colorado just declared WAR on America, shouldn’t the Republicans in Congress be putting forth legislation stripping ALL Federal Funds from Colorado? Maybe Trump should make it part of his campaign, NO More Federal Funds to rogue States like Colorado...
> The commie justices will dissent. <
Yep. This will be the one and only time they’ll say “states’ rights”.
IMO the best outcome would be 6-3.
Party affiliation is always the deciding factor in these cases. Prove me wrong.
For the three commies, party over principal every time.
Never going to happen. Kagan might be reasonable, but not the “Wise Latina” or Biden’s diversity hire.
“The U.S. Supreme Court could rule “9-0”
Not in a million years
It will be 6-3 or 5-4.
I dont believe the liberal judges would vote against liberalism ever.
We might actually lose this, because Roberts is still compromised and, it’s possible they are still affected by the protests in front of Kavanaugh’s home
Tree hugging tokers will lose.
Ping!
Federalist #68 (Alexander Hamilton):
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
...The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
...They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
There is no room in this process for a court to impose rules and restrictions on the Electors. States that try to influence the outcome of the Electoral College by restricting the people the Electors can choose from is in opposition to what Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68, and is an unconstitutional insertion of a federal office that was explicitly excluded from participating in the Electoral College deliberations.
Article II Section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The Framers intended for the people to vote for smart, influential non-government people to gather to debate, analyze, investigate, and vote for the President, and that this temporary body cannot be made up of people who hold existing offices in the federal or state governments.
If members of the judiciary are excluded from being in the Electoral College, then their power to control the choosing of Electors or whom the Electors can select must be excluded, too, or they might as well just be the Electoral College itself.
Any court that tries to interfere with this body by putting restrictions on its deliberations (like who they can vote for), is plainly unconstitutional and must be struck down unanimously.
-PJ
My concerns are two fold:
1.) The USSC will allow the case to wind through the lower courts.
2.) As presidential primaries are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or Federal legislation, will the USSC say it is an issue to be determined by the individual states?
Would set a nice J6 precedent
Details at https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4204657/posts?page=40#40.
Meh, a million here, a million there. It’s environmentally sound to reduce global warming and deforestation. Now, a million less fraudulant votes have to be printed off and far less bribes have to be paid.
Half of Colorado denied voting rights? Well they weren’t going to make the right choice anyway. Let’s get rid of voting all together and all get in on the ‘right’ side of history.
“I would like to see Colorado stomped 9-0!”
Even that would not be good enough. There needs to be some pushback, consequences and yes, payback, for these cretins wasting everyone’s time and money while trying to get their “tyrant freak” on. If not now, then not later.... because later might be too late. The Marxists are serious in their endeavors. Our side needs to get equally serious in opposing them.
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.