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.
This yuge.
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.
Wendy Patterson
@wendyp4545
·
11m
9-0 or 8-1 Tomorrow 10am.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.If the CO court ruled allowing a presumption of guilt to influence ballot eligibility, the ruling should be thrown out, with prejudice.
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.
There was some difference in the reasoning - 5 (including Roberts) said that Congress and only Congress could enforce this part of the 14th. The three progressives agreed with the result but didn't think Congress alone had the authority. They didn't say it, but it seems they were reserving the chance that a federal court could exclude. Barrett said the majority didn't have to go that far to resolve things for this election and so should have given. A more limited opinion to avoid concurrences.
But, 9-0, and broadly enough that no state effort to exclude Trump survives.
Trump to speak in a few hours....please don't say something you will regret... :crossed:Trump to speak in a few hours....please don't say something
Harry SissonI guess that means Kagan, Sotomayor, et al., also are insurrection sympathizers. :silly:
@harryjsisson
Insurrection sympathizer Clarence Thomas ruled that insurrectionist Donald Trump can remain on the ballot in 2024. That should be the headline.
11:09 AM · Mar 4, 2024
https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1764711497966514549
Raskin: SCOTUS ‘Punted’ on Trump Ballot — ‘It’s Up to Congress to Act’
Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said Tuesday on CNN’s “Newsroom” that the Supreme Court unanimously overturning a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that disqualified former President Donald Trump from the ballot was SCOTUS punting.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/03/04/raskin-scotus-punted-on-trump-ballot-its-up-to-congress-to-act/
Keith Olbermann⌚️
@KeithOlbermann
The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved.
Raskin: SCOTUS ‘Punted’ on Trump Ballot — ‘It’s Up to Congress to Act’
Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said Tuesday on CNN’s “Newsroom” that the Supreme Court unanimously overturning a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that disqualified former President Donald Trump from the ballot was SCOTUS punting.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/03/04/raskin-scotus-punted-on-trump-ballot-its-up-to-congress-to-act/
:mauslaff: :mauslaff: :mauslaff: :happyhappy: :happyhappy: :happyhappy: :happyhappy: 000hehehehe 000hehehehe 000hehehehe 000hehehehe
Keith Olbermann⌚️Taken in context, the Democrat definition of what they call "Democracy" is a one-party fascist totalitarian State. When you understand the definitions, Keith is exactly right. SCOTUS did betray the Liberals' version of how they view democracy.
@KeithOlbermann
The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved.
Taken in context, the Democrat definition of what they call "Democracy" is a one-party fascist totalitarian State. When you understand the definitions, Keith is exactly right. SCOTUS did betray the Liberals' version of how they view democracy.
Keith Olbermann⌚️
@KeithOlbermann
The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. . . . And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved.
“I don’t think he’s going to win the presidential immunity case before the court.”
I vehemently disagree with you Mr. Gowdy! If trump loses that case this republic is fully done and over with. No future president will be able to effectively govern while being continually subjected to lawsuits from every quarter.
I vehemently disagree with you Mr. Gowdy! If trump loses that case this republic is fully done and over with. No future president will be able to effectively govern while being continually subjected to lawsuits from every quarter.
"Nation of Laws" - Which law is applicable to keep Trump off ballot? NONE
The Congress and DOJ were unwilling to use due process to convict Trump at impeachment or at trial for insurrection.
Don't blame SCOTUS for the failures of Congress and DOJ to protect the US Consitution from enemies, domestic and foreign.
So much for your precious DC elitist "guard rails" and "institutions".
It will be up to the unwashed masses to deal with this Orange mess.
The only protection from tyranny is a vigilant, literate electorate.
?? Is there a date set yet as to when they are supposed to rule on immunity??
Punting? No. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of our Land and the SCOTUS just ruled unanimously -- there is no punting and there is no Congressional action needed.Didn't Congress act and fail...more than once to remove Trump by impeachment, though never once charging him with insurrection? I think once again Raskin has that bandage on his head tied too tight **nononono*
Maine secretary of state withdraws Trump ballot banShe kind of left out the part...because Trump was never charged with or convicted of insurrection.............except in the minds of liberal socialists.
Maine’s secretary of state on Monday withdrew her determination that former President Trump should be blocked from the state’s ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause after the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individual states lack authority to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to federal offices,” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows wrote in a modified ruling, obtained by The Hill. “Consistent with my oath and obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and pursuant to the Anderson decision, I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid.”
“As a result of the modified ruling, votes cast for Mr. Trump in the March 5, 2024 Presidential Primary Election will be counted,” Bellows continued.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507071-maine-withdraws-trump-ballot-ban/
I'm tempted now to vote Trump just on principle.
A lot of people are saying that. Even people who do not like Trump (including some minorities) will vote for him just because of how the Democrats have persecuted him. The Democrats are making Trump the person a secondary issue.
I'm tempted now to vote Trump just on principle.
A lot of people are saying that. Even people who do not like Trump (including some minorities) will vote for him just because of how the Democrats have persecuted him. The Democrats are making Trump the person a secondary issue.
A vote for Trump has become a vote against a corrupt government and a corrupt judicial system. A vote for Trump has evolved into a vote against tyranny and totalitarianism.
:yowsa: Well said!
Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
It's 9-0 that Colorado can't disqualify Trump.
But only five justices hold that the *only* way to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders/officeseekers is through a statute enacted by Congress. The other four wouldn't (and don't) reach that question.
So 5-4 on breadth.
10:07 AM · Mar 4, 2024
Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
The Barrett concurrence and the joint Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson concurrence all insist that they would've stopped with barring a state from disqualifying a presidential candidate.
That's why it's a 5-4 ruling with respect to the scope of the holding.
10:10 AM · Mar 4, 2024
A lot of people are saying that. Even people who do not like Trump (including some minorities) will vote for him just because of how the Democrats have persecuted him. The Democrats are making Trump the person a secondary issue.
A vote for Trump has become a vote against a corrupt government and a corrupt judicial system. A vote for Trump has evolved into a vote against tyranny and totalitarianism.
Although the court ruled correctly in his favor regarding the Colorado case, Trump would still be an economic and fiscal train wreck waiting to happen if he were to be re elected president
A lot of people are saying that. Even people who do not like Trump (including some minorities) will vote for him just because of how the Democrats have persecuted him. The Democrats are making Trump the person a secondary issue.So it appears. Or at least having someone capable of walking behind the podium...
A vote for Trump has become a vote against a corrupt government and a corrupt judicial system. A vote for Trump has evolved into a vote against tyranny and totalitarianism.
So it appears. Or at least having someone capable of walking behind the podium...
A lot of people are saying that. Even people who do not like Trump (including some minorities) will vote for him just because of how the Democrats have persecuted him. The Democrats are making Trump the person a secondary issue.
A vote for Trump has become a vote against a corrupt government and a corrupt judicial system. A vote for Trump has evolved into a vote against tyranny and totalitarianism.
I'm tempted now to vote Trump just on principle.
A lot of people are saying that. Even people who do not like Trump (including some minorities) will vote for him just because of how the Democrats have persecuted him. The Democrats are making Trump the person a secondary issue.
A vote for Trump has become a vote against a corrupt government and a corrupt judicial system. A vote for Trump has evolved into a vote against tyranny and totalitarianism.
Yet it remains an emotional vote. Not a logical one.
Conway: SCOTUS Reverse on Trump Ballot Ban Incoherent, ‘Shoddy Legal Work All Around’
Attorney George Conway said Monday on CNN’s “The Source” that the Supreme Court unanimously overturning a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that disqualified former President Donald Trump from the ballot was “shoddy legal work all around by all the justices.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/03/04/conway-scotus-reverse-on-trump-ballot-ban-incompetent-shoddy-legal-work-all-around/
Ramaswamy warns liberal justices 'buying political latitude' with 9-0 ruling as more Trump cases lie ahead
After the decision was handed down, Ramaswamy echoed Trump's belief that it represented a "case of national unity," and that the United States cannot essentially be united if a "patchwork" of states can make unilateral decisions about a national candidate's eligibility beyond the typical age and tenure statutes.
"That doesn't work if we're one nation. So that's what this case was really about," he said. "I do think that this is not just about President Trump, but about the future unity of our country itself. And the Supreme Court, 9-0, came down on the right side of that question."
Of the concurrence written by the three liberal justices, Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson and Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Ramaswamy said the subtext therein is that the bench is "buying themselves some political latitude to say there's going to be other Trump related cases that come before the Supreme Court now.".................
I'm not a van of Ramsy's but he does make some very valid points.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ramaswamy-liberal-justices-buying-political-latitude-9-0-ruling-trump-cases-lie-ahead
As matters of law, there is no doubt as to the outcome of those cases should be but with John Roberts involved, I'll not be making any bets.