JUST IN: Supreme Court Sets Unusual Opinion Release For Monday Morning

[mrclose]

JUST IN: Supreme Court Sets Unusual Opinion Release For Monday Morning – Signals Ruling on Trump Ballot Eligibility is Looming

Just Broke!

The Supreme Court set an unusual opinion release for Monday morning and signaled that a ruling on Trump’s ballot eligibility is imminent.

Per Politico legal reporter Josh Gerstein: SCOTUS sets unusual, short-notice opinion release for Monday morning. Appears to signal that ruling on Trump ballot eligibility is looming.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/just-supreme-court-sets-unusual-opinion-release-monday/

[libertybele]

This ruling is going to have a huge impact on our country and obviously our elections; and perhaps SCOTUS will rule so as to not upset the liberal apple cart.  Just my thoughts.

 

[Wingnut]

This yuge.

[libertybele]

This yuge.

Absolutely -- if they rule that states can keep Trump off the ballot -- blue states will kick it into high gear.  There's no way he can win if he's not allowed onto the ballots -- enter Nikki Haley.

[jafo2010]

I almost wish they would rule in favor of Colorado.  Multiple states keeping Trump from the ballot would trigger conservative states doing the same to Biden.  It would result in a peaceful confrontation that would bring what the communists of the Democrat Party are forcing to a head.

Otherwise, we may well be headed for a real insurgency/revolution!

And last but not least, the time is long overdue to hold politicians accountable for what they say and write.  They should face slander and libel laws and penalties that would apply accordingly.  If they did, POSs like Adam Schiff would NEVER get away with their endless lies.

Trump is being forced to spend hundreds of millions in defense fees in New York.  Should he win ultimately, the state should be forced to reimburse him for the expense.  New York could not be more corrupt if they tried, IMHO.

[libertybele]

I almost wish they would rule in favor of Colorado.  Multiple states keeping Trump from the ballot would trigger conservative states doing the same to Biden.  It would result in a peaceful confrontation that would bring what the communists of the Democrat Party are forcing to a head.

Otherwise, we may well be headed for a real insurgency/revolution!

And last but not least, the time is long overdue to hold politicians accountable for what they say and write.  They should face slander and libel laws and penalties that would apply accordingly.  If they did, POSs like Adam Schiff would NEVER get away with their endless lies.

Trump is being forced to spend hundreds of millions in defense fees in New York.  Should he win ultimately, the state should be forced to reimburse him for the expense.  New York could not be more corrupt if they tried, IMHO.

The leftists don't know what a peaceful confrontation is.  They push and proceed to do what they want by mob rule.

[mystery-ak]

Wendy Patterson
@wendyp4545
·
11m
9-0 or 8-1 Tomorrow 10am.

[Hoodat]

States (THROUGH THEIR LEGISLATURES) can come up with whatever rules they want for placing someone on the ballot (within the confines of the Constitution).  The problem here is that Colorado has already come up with its own rules.  And the judge in this case is overruling the legislature's rules.

SCOTUS should give leeway for what Colorado state law decides.  But they shouldn't give any leeway to an activist judge overruling Colorado state law.  Especially for a primary election.

[Hoodat]

Wendy Patterson
@wendyp4545
·
11m
9-0 or 8-1 Tomorrow 10am.

No way will it be 9-0.  There is no way Sotomayor goes along with a rebuke of the Colorado judge.  It will be either 7-2 or 8-1.

[Bigun]

States (THROUGH THEIR LEGISLATURES) can come up with whatever rules they want for placing someone on the ballot (within the confines of the Constitution).  The problem here is that Colorado has already come up with its own rules.  And the judge in this case is overruling the legislature's rules.

SCOTUS should give leeway for what Colorado state law decides.  But they shouldn't give any leeway to an activist judge overruling Colorado state law.  Especially for a primary election.

Why not? They allowed every ding bat official around to violate state election laws in 2020 and refused to even hear a case that Texas, joined by 26 other states brought to set it right.

[libertybele]

Why not? They allowed every ding bat official around to violate state election laws in 2020 and refused to even hear a case that Texas, joined by 26 other states brought to set it right.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ruled in favor for CO.

[mystery-ak]

LeoTerrell
@TheLeoTerrell
·
1h
To the idiotic Colorado Supreme Court, the stupid Maine Sec. of State and the crazy judge in Illinois: Tomorrow you will be embarrassed

[Hoodat]

Why not? They allowed every ding bat official around to violate state election laws in 2020 and refused to even hear a case that Texas, joined by 26 other states brought to set it right.

The difference here is that this is before the fact.  The time to file suit against Georgia for example should have been before election day, not after.  It was crystal clear they were violating numerous State election laws, but no one on the Republican side lifted a finger of protest.

[Bigun]

The difference here is that this is before the fact.  The time to file suit against Georgia for example should have been before election day, not after.  It was crystal clear they were violating numerous State election laws, but no one on the Republican side lifted a finger of protest.

That's not true @Hoodat but the fingers that were lifted were universally ignored.

[Hoodat]

Did anyone file suit when Georgia made changes to the voting machine software without recertifying it?  Did anyone file suit when Georgia counties started setting up multiple ballot collection boxes in violation of State Law?  Did anyone file suit when ballots started showing up in mailboxes across the state without solicitation, jeopardizing voter ballot security?  The answer to all of these is a resounding 'no'.

While I am completely in agreement with the Texas suit, the bottom line is that Republicans Conservatives need to start getting dirty.  Better to step into the arena than to complain about why the one who did lost.

[roamer_1]

I almost wish they would rule in favor of Colorado. 

Technically the state DOES have the authority to direct the voting apparatus and everything about it. But it would have to come as a law, passed by the legislature to specifically limit the contest.

[Wingnut]

If the SC rules in favor of Trumpy the Leftists states will still try to get Trump off their ballets.   Not sure what they will try, but rest assured, they will try and try again till they succeed.  It is how they roll when they try to save their "democracy" to stop ours.

[Bigun]

WE let the left trample all over our constitution for more than a hundred years and now that we are seeing the result we are angry.  You reap what you sow.

[rustynail]

'For, behold, I will send serpents, adders, among you, which will not be charmed; and they shall bite you',.....Roberts is a Snake.  Everything could end tomorrow.

[Hoodat]

Technically the state DOES have the authority to direct the voting apparatus and everything about it. But it would have to come as a law, passed by the legislature to specifically limit the contest.

Colorado law leaves it up to each Party to set their primary ballots.

This cannot be emphasized enough.  We aren't talking about an election that awards any political office.  We're talking about a party primary election.

[libertybele]

Colorado law leaves it up to each Party to set their primary ballots.

This cannot be emphasized enough.  We aren't talking about an election that awards any political office.  We're talking about a party primary election.

I'm thinking that SCOTUS will rule that this is a state issue and the Supreme Court of CO has already ruled.

Yes I realize that this is about the primary election, but wouldn't there need to be a justifiable reason to keep him off the ballot?? Trump has been found guilty of no crime that would justify keeping him off the ballot.  In essence, Haley would win the CO primary by default or being the GOP candidate who has no opposition.

[roamer_1]

I'm thinking that SCOTUS will rule that this is a state issue and the Supreme Court of CO has already ruled.

That depends entirely upon whether the CO court ruled fairly.

The question at hand is whether he can be limited at the ballot when he has committed no crime.
CO says yes. But they have no law to present.

For instance, if the legislature put forth a law limiting ballot access to those actively accused of a crime, THEN they'd have a leg to stand on.

But no such law exists according to my knowledge.

[Hoodat]

I'm thinking that SCOTUS will rule that this is a state issue and the Supreme Court of CO has already ruled.

The Colorado Court ruling violates not only State Law, but the Constitution itself.

[Smokin Joe]

That depends entirely upon whether the CO court ruled fairly.

The question at hand is whether he can be limited at the ballot when he has committed no crime.
CO says yes. But they have no law to present.

For instance, if the legislature put forth a law limiting ballot access to those actively accused of a crime, THEN they'd have a leg to stand on.

But no such law exists according to my knowledge.

If the CO court ruled allowing a presumption of guilt to influence ballot eligibility, the ruling should be thrown out, with prejudice.

[roamer_1]

If the CO court ruled allowing a presumption of guilt to influence ballot eligibility, the ruling should be thrown out, with prejudice.

Of course.