Posted on 01/25/2024 6:28:17 AM PST by CFW
The U.S. Supreme Court has signaled that it’s moving fast with former President Donald Trump’s appeal that seeks to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring him from the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds.
A note accompanying the U.S. Supreme Court’s schedule for Feb. 8, the day the high court is set to hear the first oral arguments in the case, indicates that it intends to announce written opinions on the very same day. While the substance of the opinions has not been revealed, the declaration that they will be published on Feb. 8 is significant as it indicates that the Supreme Court views the case as having significant legal importance and warrants expedited consideration.
The question that the former president’s attorneys presented for consideration in their Jan. 3 petition was whether the Colorado Supreme Court incorrectly ordered President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
thanks for posting as you did. It’s sure often that people want to speak death to situations, I wonder why so many lately, fear creeping in all over
You are so welcome and glad you’re standing in agreement with this :)
To render this decision, they need to refer to the fact that the U.S. Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements one must meet to run for, be inaugurated as, or hold the office of POTUS.
Putting aside the question of whether the quadrennial Jan. 6th joint session of Congress has the power to sanate an otherwise ineligible POTUS candidate (This Guy is of the tentative opinion that it does), SCOTUS will need, in its upcoming opinion, at least to list the actual requirements that are known to exist.
This means it will say: Candidates must be NBCs.
Should it not take this opportunity to educate the U.S. polity as to what, precisely, the Constitutional term, NBC, actually means?
Last night, Mark Levin was scoffing at the notion that illegal aliens can create, with their own testimony, the U.S. jurisdiction necessary to establish 14th Amendment U.S. citizenship for such children as may be born to them after they cross the border.
It occurs to This Guy that Nikki Haley is no better in terms of her right to claim 14th Amendment U.S. citizenship. She might have deserved to be recognized as a U.S. citizen after her father was later naturalized, but at her birth? In any event, she was certainly a nascent Indian citizen, pending whatever paperwork the (subcontinental) nation of India might require of her parents. How is this double-tablespoon measure of foreign spice at birth compatible with U.S. natural-born citizen status?
This is refreshing from Levin, since in 2013 he thought nothing of declaring Canadian-born, paternally Cuban Ted Cruz a U.S. NBC based on his mother’s U.S. citizenship. One might have mistakenly thought that Levin was profferring the following (preposterous) NBC definition:
U.S. Natural Born Citizen: Anyone, born anywhere in the universe, other than those born overseas to two non-U.S.-citizen parents.
If they do, it’s open season on excluding Democrats from all ballots for any race in red states. If Biden attacks Texas for defending their own border from illegal aliens, this may all be moot anyhow.
Agreed. The leftists are robots, but they become creatures of the institution, and institutions don’t like chaos. They read the papers like anyone else and can see the chaos that will ensue if this stands. At least some of the legislative efforts to exclude Biden will be passed. The presidential electoral system will be shattered. 9-0 on narrow grounds, perhaps that the states can’t act in the face of lack of enabling legislation in the 14th Am. And of course the decision will be delivered immediately. This is a case, like Bush v Gore, where resolution cannot be delayed
Not after SCOTUS allows it if they rules in CO’s favor.
Oh. You must mean that grotesquely ugly little troll-like figure. She looks rather like ET. She may NOT be a woman.
FEB 8 is the day of Republican caucuses in Nevada.
WHAT RIGHT does Colorado have to deny their citizens the right to vote for whom they wish???
IF they rule he can be barred, then true justice is dead. This should be such an obvious win for him that it should have never gone as far as the sc to begin with. The lower courts, or whoever is trying to keep him off the ballot should be punished in some way for their asinine attempt to stifle the opposition
DO NOT know haw far back you are thinking about-—I have been voting since 1960 & always had a ballot handed to me at my precinct location.
SOOOOOOO—one or two persons who started the suit can control the votes of an entire state???
I believe in the post you're replying to I made it clear that I was talking about over a century and a half ago: the 1860 election in which Lincoln became president.
bkmk
I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that the written opinions SCOTUS will be delivering that day will be on this matter. It makes no sense to hold oral arguments if the decisions have already been written. I would assume the opinions delivered will be on cases already argued in the fall.
I've yet to located any such "note accompanying the U.S. Supreme Court's schedule for Feb. 8." The Supreme Court's current calendar indicates that February 8 is an "oral argument" day, but there is, at yet, no indication that the Court also intends to hand down opinions in argued cases on that same day/morning.
Assuming that the Court has somewhere indicated that it will be issuing opinions on February 8 -- the Court's practice is to issue written opinions both when it is otherwise sitting (e.g., when it is hearing oral argument) and also on days specifically set aside to hand down opinions in earlier-argued cases -- the idea, as this Epoch Times story seems to insinuate, that the Court would hand down its written opinion in the Colorado case on the same day it is argued is fanciful. That's not going to be happening, no matter how fast the Court might be moving to resolve this matter.
All this alleged "note" would be indicating is that February 8 has now been designated as a day on which the Court will be handing down written opinions in other, earlier-argued cases. The Court, of course, has been hearing cases since this past October.
Wasn’t Abe Lincoln taken off many states’ ballots?
“I wouldn’t be surprised if some are being blackmailed.”
We will KNOW by their decision. This should be a 9-0 ruling.
Trump has not been convicted of ANYTHING.
Anything other than 9-0 means dead girls or live boys.
In early 2021 poster LS points out:
There is no institution left to save us. Just as in 1860 there was not one single functioning American institution—even the church-—that would speak up to stop slavery.
God may save us. Our institutions surely won’t.
courtesy ping as I quoted you in #39
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.