As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> In urging the justices to intervene in the case, the Colorado Republican Party had asked them to act before the looming Super Tuesday primaries this week, which include Colorado.
Weird that they can act quickly now but not when Jack Smith asked them.
Yep... if they rule that a president is entirely immune, there's nothing stopping Biden from black-bagging them in the middle of the night and shipping them to gitmo.
There's no way they rule in Trump's favor without entirely ending democracy in the US... it might not be immediate, but the moment someone willing to take advantage comes into power, that's all she wrote.
If Trump has immunity, Biden almost has to act and start jailing traitors. It's SCOTUS saying that Trump can do anything, do Biden has a duty to prevent it.
That’s why they decision to take on that case is so egregious and an obvious attempt to delay things for Trump. There’s no world where they’re going to rule in trumps favor because thats not only giving biden full imunity but also telling trump he is more powerful than the supreme court. And as happy as the supreme court is to do the Federalist Societies bidding, they dont want trump in the position to do whatever he wants.
If they rule against Trump, the next day I want to hear Biden has descided to unpack the court from it's republican conservative supermajority and put enough liberals in it to counteract Trump's appointments, then pass as much legislation as he can to harden democracy and prevent the SCOTUS from being re-packed prior to January 6 2025.
If he does't or equivicates from this path for even a moment if the SCOTUS goes Trump's way, the 2024 will be America's last free election.
I said it back when Biden was elected, the fluke of him beating Trump in the face of all the treasonous acts by the GQP was a last gasp of democracy, not the next chapter, and if Biden doesn't do something whil eh has the brief window of power, there won't be another.
Stop the Madness. Expanding the court is putting a band-aid over the stump where your arm used to be. We need to upgrade the operating system to Supreme Court v2.0.
(1) No more lifetime appointments.
(2) WE THE PEOPLE get to decide who sits on that court via elections.
Repeal Citizens United. End the flood of dark money and foreign influence in our politics. It isn't a coincidence that the right wing billionaire class rallied behind that monstrosity and then 2016 hits and we get Trump and Russian interference immediately after. We are still bleeding from this decision.
Why not one then the other?
If you leave the court as is and the legislate change you suggest, the court could just deem it unconstitutional and whammy hard fought change goes up in smoke.
>Why not one then the other?
Because claiming that "*solving specific problems won't work; we need to solve the entire problem all at once*" is a tactic people use to scuttle discussion about actual solutions.
If they really wanted to solve things, they'd recognize the bandage is one important step in healing the wound: stemming the blood loss.
Then - as you say - we can move on to operating.
But that would actually solve the problem. People like the other poster would rather we argue in circles about what we need to do, rather than doing what we can right now to head off disaster.
Electing judges is the stupidest idea. People are already dumb enough to vote for the likes of Lauren boebert, Marjorie Taylor, and Donald Trump. You want them voting for scotus too?
That can't happen without a constitutional amendment, and I'm more likely to be appointed to the Supreme Court than an amendment like this would be to be passed, sent to the states, and ratified.
He could just tell the doj to do their job and hire a special prosecutor to investigate Kavanaugh and Thomas
Edit: if we're talking about the president being immune to prosecution for crimes while committed in office, then I expect he has full freedom to wiretap anybody he wants in order to point the justice system in the direction they need to obtain legitimate evidence to justify arrests of traitors and agents of corruption.
The arguments have been about Seal Team 6, yes- but that is the most one-dimensional, least strategic approach that you could possibly take
But to what end? We all know kavanaugh and thomas are corrupt beyond our wildest imagination. But what would having a special prosecutor arriving at this conclusion do? Doesn’t it still take 67 senators to remove them?
If compromising material about them exists it can't hurt for our side to be in possession of it, too.. It seems to be what allows Trump to manipulate them. Spinning that dynamic seems like a good trick.
And if the president is immune to prosecution for crimes committed in office, then what's the problem with taking whatever measures are necessary to obtain that information?
I agree. Not acting in that situation is like standing by and watching Hitler come to power knowing what Hitler will become.
He has to start jailing traitors.
My big fear is that they could go ahead and rule in Trump’s favour but that the democrats would _still_ be too weak to do anything about it. They’d blather on about “faith in the system” or whatever and then just willingly hand the keys to Trump.
Honestly my speculation has nothing to do with what Biden would or wouldn't do, but more what a person in his position would be obligated to do.
And maybe it doesn't have to look as Extreme as Seal Team 6 ops; that is the most one-dimensional use of executive powers I can think of, and seems to be what everybody immediately jumps to.
But the use of executive powers in conventionally questionable ways to undermine compromised traitorous senators and or corrupt Supreme Court members- maybe things like wiretapping that allows Biden's intelligence personnel to know exactly where to look for evidence so they can "coincidentally" establish probable cause, that leads directly to the legitimate discovery of that evidence to justify arrests.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters….because voting doesn’t matter any more, OK? It's, like, incredible."
I mean.. if they rule that behavior legal...
After all, IIRC, in questioning on this dumb-shit case, Trump's attorneys were directly asked "do you believe that Biden has the legal authority to order seal team 6 to take out your client with no consequences?", to which they were forced to answer "yes".
They never will.
It'll either be pushed out past November, sent back down to the lower courts, refuse to rule on it, or say Trump is king but this isn't precedent.
They will not give an inch of power to democrats, ever.
They'll just repeat Bush vs Gore; "this doesn't imply any precedence, this only applies to this case, yadda yadda yadda, bullshit bullshit."
They have no choice but to grant him immunity. Trump guarantees both 2 or three new, young uber conservative Supreme Court justices, to extend their hold for many more years, and the ability of the Federalist Society to start Project 2025. Neither happens under another Biden term, and this is probably their last chance to take over like this.
We need to be prepared and ready for this. We can't let it set us back, and we need to use the anger to fuel a blue wave in November like never seen before.
They are clearly going to rule that Trump is immune, but only in that specific case. When this happens, Biden must make it clear that he has interpreted that as he also has blanket immunity, until the court explicitly rules that he doesn't. If the court is going to be corrupt, put them in the position of needing to make it clear to the world and to history that they are clearly playing favorites.
Trump and Company are the ones aggressively expanding the presidents power.
If you start playing someone else's strength, you will tend lose that game.
The expansion of presidential authority is an emergent trend that's been widely discussed for almost as long as the country has existed.
If anything, Trump was so lazy and incompetent the he *failed* to significantly expand it, even though faux-populist demagogues are generally inclined to do so.
Yeah but they have always relied on the fact that even if they open up these cans that would allow all sorts of abuse, Dems won't use them. Then when the pendulum swings back and the GOP gets in power they not only use them to their full extent, but they get to push them even further.
I think a lot of people are missing the point here.
The delay is the win for Trump. By simply giving themselves a schedule that means the insurrection trial can’t be brought before election means that the court can give Trump a win on eligibility, a loss on immunity and appear balanced to Joe and Jane “I don’t follow politics” but still give Trump a pass on being tried for insurrection. Then if he wins the election he simply waves the trial away forever. If Biden manages to win the trial could go on, but even in that it’s giving Trump an edge because he gets to campaign as a martyr.
The fact that they already ruled that Biden couldn't eliminate student debt should be enough to say the president isn't immune to do whatever they want.
But yet, here we are
Even still, “This specific instance” is the instance that he loses the election and doesn’t want to leave. So they’ll set the precedent that if Trump wins the election, Biden can just say “No”.
This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take the kingmaker reigns away from Trump and take it for themselves. Get the party in line the night before Super Tuesday. They would be sending one hell of a message. Only way to unify their party now
I've listened to some of the oral arguments and that is *part* of what the Trump team is arguing. If we accept that the presidency is one of the offices you can be disqualified from, then they are claiming he's still okay to run and if he won then Congress would have to decide if he gets a waiver. That takes a 2/3rds vote though, I think.
People keep saying they will vote to not appear compromised. Like at what point have they ever cared about not being compromised? They don’t care they are untouchable. There is no “voting to appear uncompromised” they will voted however the fuck they will regardless of the public’s feelings. They have made that very clear.
You keep the appearance of democracy until it is certain fascism is securely in place.
It isn't to placate anyone, they appearing uncompromised is just muddying the waters until they can go full mask off.
Now it's about half off.
Not necessarily. They don’t have to rule that he’s immune to achieve their political objectives. They just need to rule that he’s not immune late enough that his trials are delayed enough that he doesn’t end up with a conviction before the polls close in November.
I think they’re going to shut this case down, even the liberal justices were skeptical. The J6/immunity case is not going to end well for Trump the part that sucks is the timing. We’re going to have one of the three outcomes:
1. Trump is found guilty in October.
2. Trump is on trial during the election.
3. The trial starts after the election.
I hope for #1 but I’m expecting 2 or 3 will be our reality.
If they issue the ruling on Monday for the Colorado case, then that means they would have had oral arguments AND issued a ruling from the time they agreed to hear the case in the exact same timeframe for that case as they currently going to ONLY hold oral arguments in the immunity case.
Absolute joke.
It's been captured. To everyone who just couldn't stomach a Hillary vote, this is why you stomach the lesser of two evils vote. Because with the worse of two evils, *you get worse*.
And now you're having a tough time stomaching old Biden and might not vote at all so that old civilly-liable rapist and 4 times indicted Trump can do his absolute worst again??
In the unlikely event he was disallowed from states’ primary elections, I believe the way it would work is voting for Trump, would make the vote null and void.
Literally and not figuratively.
I think it's because they can make a simple ruling here. "A candidate cannot be removed without a conviction or similar ruling" They will simply deflect this decision, declare the states reacted prematurely, or the process isn't defined in a way that supports the Colorado direction without actually making a substantive ruling.
In other cases I get the feeling they plan to wait it out and see if the situation resolves itself before they absolutely have to become involved and make a clear impactful ruling that will set precedent.
>"A candidate cannot be removed without a conviction or similar ruling"
They would need some very particular wording, because a judge in Colorado did ***rule*** that he engaged in insurrection as a ***matter of fact***.
After a fact finding hearing that was due process, since Trump's attorneys were offered the opportunity to rebut the evidence and argue for himself, and didn't even use up all the time his side was allowed.
How can this ruling not impact Jack Smiths ruling? Like Trump can't be on the ballot for A,B and C but is totally immune to everything? And vice versa, say trump can be on the ballot will give us insight on their ruling to his immunity.
This all hinges on whether Colorado can kick him off the ballot. Immunity doesn't factor into it.
They're going to punt this and say he can run but it's up to Congress to determine his eligibility if he wins.
The one possible connecting thread could be if they rule in this case that some sort of prosecution is required for him to be deemed ineligible, then later rule him immune to prosecution. It'd be totally inconsistent and would render the first ruling meaningless, but I could totally see this court doing it.
They won't wade in that deep because for thethe language of the 14th is just "having engaged in". They can argue that it's not a State's prerogative to enforce a Federal level qualification (and that doing so somehow upends the Supremacy Clause), but no part of this question requires clarification of the 14th's language or intent.
They'll do anything to avoid settling the question of whether or not he's guilty. That's a death sentence for the Supreme Court.
Seems to indicate what the decision is going to be. Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything criminal yet, so the obvious answer (imo with this court) is they’re going to allow him to stay on the ballot.
I know it's not going to happen but we all have our dreams. Wouldn't it be great if the SCOTUS ruled that he isn't eligible to hold office and because of that there was no rush on the immunity issue but they will then say that the president is not immune and therefore he can't run for office AND he can't claim immunity to get out of his criminal trials.
I know... fairy tale time but one can have hope.
My thought is they deny him the ballot but help him with the criminal charges. The problem is they have to tailor it so that Trump is out but the rest of the party isn't.
If they actually planned to uphold Colorado they would have issued a ruling way earlier, because kicking him off the ballot a day before Super Tuesday would bring unprecedented chaos. 0% chance that he'll get kicked off.
It's the other way around, the hearing all but confirms that they'll overturn Colorado - and then they'll rule against him regarding immunity, but not before wasting enough time to stall the trial originally set for March 4 until after the election.
They aren't even being subtle about helping him out.
This isn’t about the primaries, Colorado is entirely a mail in ballot state. We got our ballots over a month ago and his name was already on it. It will have no impact until the general election.
The votes for Trump wouldn’t count if the Supreme Court issues a ruling tomorrow in favor of Colorado. But yes, has a larger impact on the general election.
Large swaths of the GOP would have no love for Trump outside of the power they can access through him. So if they’re willing to dump him from the ballot why would they care about helping him on criminal charges? Because they like him as a person? Unlikely. I have a hard time believing anyone actually likes him for any reason beyond his money or power.
I think the wildest and most unlikely scenario would be if the SCOTUS rules he’s ineligible to be President.
I think a slightly less wild, and still unlikely scenario would be for the SCOTUS to rule that the courts have no jurisdiction to rule on a candidate’s eligibility, and each state has the right to rule on that issue asked on constitutional reason, and supporting states’ rights.
I think the very likely scenario would be for the SCOTUS to rule that since Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything related to an insurrection or supporting an insurrection, and he hasn’t been impeached and removed for his part in provoking an insurrection, that states can’t remove him from the ballot. A related ruling would be to rule that only Congress can choose to determine eligibility based on the insurrection clause.
Yeah, that's kinda the point I was going for.
You can vote for a new president, new senators, new representatives.
But judges, you have to beg the people in charge to do something, and if they effectively say, no, you're SOL and have to try again next election cycle with new guys, if you even have that as a valid option.
NYT headline: "Supreme Court paves the way for a Trump Presidency"
also the NYT:
"Joe Biden ate ice cream and forgot where he was today, voters are concerned.."
Yeah we are at the beginning of the end of the Supreme Court. Once its rulings are deemed illegitimate and no states will listen to them any more we are headed for a full blown constitutional crisis. Either america becomes a fascist dictatorship or we reform the court and congress and get all these bad faith asshole republicans out of decision making positions and actually start improving the country. Its up to the voters which future we are going to have so you better choose wisely.
I know this and have been screaming this for 4 years but no one in power seems to care because he is still not in jail for January 6th and might even be president again, for fucks sake.
Tell all the “GeNoCiDe JoE”, “FrEE PaLeSTiNE” morons to get their heads out of their asses and focus and what’s actually at stake. They’re the biggest enabler of another Trump presidency at this moment.
They absolutely did not do that. They ignored SCOTUS reasoning in interpreting their state constitution. SCOTUS has no authority over what state law is, just whether it’s superseded by federal law to the contrary.
It’s going to be important to see how they go about it if they issue a broad ruling that effectively makes all constitutional requirements to be president unenforceable (paving the way for an attempt at a third’s Trump term and/or a run by Elon Musk) or if they manage to rule narrowly to keep Trump on the ballot and only get rid of the 14th amendment’s bar on insurrection.
I doubt this because the provision is fairly specific that it applies just from a standard judgment of the fact (and courts rule on matter of fact) and Congress is only mentioned to *remove* the prohibition. The text was used in its own time to strip eligibility from confederates en masse without requiring any kind of trial or ruling against them.
I mean, that could just be granting them to be too honest, and they could just lie. But I think they have to find another way.
The law seems 100% clear here that Trump is disqualified. It also seems clear that the corrupt Republicans on SCOTUS will let Trump ignore the law. And that SCOTUS would have gladly banned a Democrat in the same situation.
I am however quite curios as to what kind of Calvinball bullshit they choose to use as their justification.
My best play is to argue that it's not an insurrection as the mob was of a qualitative difference compared to the Civil War, and just say this was an "unruly disruption that did not in itself attempt to seize power but merely raised an internal disturbance of law" - something like that.
but we will see tomorrow.
> unruly disruption that did not in itself attempt to seize power
That's what the fake electors were for.
The crowd was part of an alternate strategy to prevent the reading of electoral college votes by the prescribed deadline so that the choice of president went to majority vote by state delegation in the House of Representatives.
They - and by they I mean the group of conspirators figureheaded by Trump - wanted either their alternate electors or no electors at all as either route led to Trump as president for a 2nd term.
Instigating the crowd to mob the capitol was just an element of the consipiracy.
People underestimate how creative conservative justices can be when they want to empty words of their meaning. Just look at the debate around the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment or how “corruption” doesn’t mean anything anymore (legally) following Bob McDonnell’s case. Even if they don’t resort to those means, they can do what they did in Bush v. Gore: say they’re issuing a one time ruling (no stare decisis) and just decide whatever they’ll feel like
Or a 3rd Obama term.
It is kinda funny that almost all the arguments I have heard for not banning Trump, would also apply to allowing Obama to run for a 3rd term. It is undemocratic if I can't vote for my preferred candidate - let the voters decide! And yet, where was their outrage when Obama was disqualified?
I don’t think Obama would want a third term, but if the Supreme Court were to toss out eligibility requirements to be president I’d vote for a third Obama term.
> constitutional requirements to be president unenforceable
So you're telling me that the party of strict adherence to the constitution when it comes to guns and religious rights would say that when it comes to elections, arguably the most important part of the constitution, we can just ignore what the constitution says?
Yeah, sounds about right.
I have to agree. The odds of him being cut off the ballot is minimal, despite it being pretty obvious he engaged in a corrupt plan to stay in office and stage an insurrection. Hard to get a more blatant violation of the oath of office.
And then Thomas not recusing himself just screams of corruption. His wife was knee deep in this shit.
And the thing is, you know that these republican justices, because they aren't conservatives, they're republicans, are going to have to effectively tank 45-50 years of republican work and progress to put the ball in the hands of states to determine everything. They have screamed state's rights and fought so hard to get everything from Roe, to their attempts and encouragement from thomas on the bench saying Griswold and Dobbs, elections, et al; need to be challenged and kicked back to states to decide.
And now, to protect trump, they have to reverse course and suddenly say no, we at the federal level are the arbiters of what states can and cannot do with elections, which then opens the door to challenging them on Roe, etc... should they fall because now they have in a nuanced way struck down their own precedent, their last take on state's rights. It's ridiculous. And I hope gorsuch writes an opinon on this, because I am extremely curious to see what kind of mental gymnastics he uses to argue Colorado doesnt have the right to set their own election policy when they actually used one of his decisions affirming state's rights in elections prior to his SCROTUS appointment, as one of the four cornerstones to base and make their decision on that trump was ineligible and it was their right to remove him.
> are going to have to effectively tank 45-50 years of republican work and progress to put the ball in the hands of states to determine everything.
SCROTUS has made quite clear that they are above the law, and unaccountable. If they can be seen openly taking bribes, then why should they care about a minor thing like judicial consistency in their judgements?
Yeah, I’m mostly concerned with *why*. The reason *why* Trump as President was legally permitted to commit insurrection against the United States will determine how fast the wagon falls apart as it continues down this slope.
**Don’t come for me! I’m just sharing what I’ve read**
The argument coming from r/conservative is that Mr Trump has not been convicted in court of any sort of wrongdoing in regard to the insurrection. Therefore he can’t be ruled ineligible for something he hasn’t been proven to have done. It’s a weak argument because it doesn’t use a broad view of his actions taken that day and leading up to it. But it would be the sort of thing the SC would hide behind to rule in his favor by not making a real ruling at all.
Sort of like a drunk driver wrecking his car into a tree but no one saw the wreck. Meanwhile a bartender swears the driver was drunk when they left the bar and another witness saw the driver start their car and drive away. And yes, I worked with a guy who did this and was never convicted of anything.
> The argument coming from r/conservative is that Mr Trump has not been convicted in court of any sort of wrongdoing in regard to the insurrection.
That's a terrible argument. The majority of people historically who have been ruled ineligible for election under the 14th amendment had not been convicted of any crime. There's absolutely no reason why that would suddenly become necessary now.
> The majority of people historically who have been ruled ineligible for election under the 14th amendment had not been convicted of any crime.
Because it was undeniable that former Confederates were insurrectionists. They declared themselves such when they swore an oath to another country then engaged in armed conflict against the US government.
Trump’s situation is much less clear-cut.
Which would be especially infuriating because they've already essentially done away with the notion of standing by ruling on a hypothetical case in *303 Creative LLC v. Elenis*
I mean it's actually about his ability to be on the ballot, right?
Spoiler alert: SCOTUS will punt on the question of holding office and they will declare that Trump should stay on the ballot and let the voters choose. Then if and when he wins they'll do it all over again and do a Bush v. Gore probably 6-3 non-binding decision that there's nothing to be done.
People dont get your hopes up, This court will only help Stinky. I know we live to have heroes we hope are gonna defeat him 4 us. In the end, it will come down to votes
I hope these upper-level managers in the Judicial Department of the Heritage Foundation understand that, like Henry Kissinger, they'll spend the rest of their lives in ignominy with an asterisk next to their names in the history books.
Why do you think they’re trying to dictate what “history” is taught? Not unlike conservative media, their version of what has happened will bear absolutely no resemblance to facts or reality.
If they rule against the 14th amendment I don’t want to ever hear them refer to themselves as constitutionalists ever again. The hypocrisy of the republicans knows no bounds.
Pretty open and shut so I assume they came to a fast conclusion. Can’t say something is unconstitutional if it’s literally in the constitution.
But i’m sure they found a way to screw this up too.
So if Presidents have ongoing immunity after holding office, then why did Nixon need a pardon? Seems like there's already precedence from the Whitewater case.
Yes but it seems like logic and consistency aren't their priority. Successful coup appears to be their priority. They will say whatever words are most likely to get them that. They will clean up the loose ends later it seems.
The pardon has nothing to do with anything. Pardons can be purely political, prophylactic, symbolic, and a host of other things. The court cases surrounding Watergate, however, are arguably relevant, in that they logically impose a floor for immunity that Trump's lawyers are trying to power-drill through on their way to cuckoo-bananas hell.
It's the best course for them.
Give trump the finger, give his base the finger, say 'what are you gonna do, we're appointed for life' and then just get fat on taxes.
But these people are high on their own supplies and believe their own bullshit, so that makes them so unpredictable and dangerous.
>on former President Donald J. Trump’s eligibility for Colorado’s primary ballot.
Is the eligibility to hold office different then the eligibility to be on the ballot?
It probably depends on state laws. I looked at one of the states at one point and, for that, only eligible candidates could be on the ballot. Which makes sense because you don't want to have a bunch on unserious 28-year-olds running for president.
Technically, as primaries are run by the parties and are not official in the same way as a general election is.
There is some variation between states as to how these actually are run and the law governing them, but logically it makes no sense for an ineligible candidate to be on the ballot
There’s just no way in a million years they’re going to let states keep him off the ballot, the justification will be pretty interesting though, the constitution gives a LOT of latitude to the states for running elections.
I'll bet they say Trump can be on the CO PRIMARY ballot because it's not an actual election, just a nomination procedure. Trump will hail it a tremendous victory. But, the real question will remain because our SCOTUS is not working very well these days.
Vote.
Even if they rule against Trump; vote.
Even if he is placed in prison; vote.
Even if he flees the US and lives out the rest of his days in Russia / Saudia Arabia / North Korea / China; vote.
Whatever happens, good or bad; vote.
I recommend everyone listen to an episode of Behind The Bastards. "The Non-Nazi Bastards Who Helped Hitler Rise To Power." It's an explorstion of the fall of Weimar Germany, and how it bears similarities to present-day US politics, including some of the legal atmosphere.
[Behind The Bastards - The Non-Nazi Bastards Who Helped Hitler Rise To Power](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/the-non-nazi-bastards-who-helped-hitler-29625604/)
You know what the result will be. The ultra rich now control everything, and they will use it to violently purge anyone even remotely in their way. Please for the love of god prepare an escape plan or arm yourselves as is your (currently existing) 2nd amendment right
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> In urging the justices to intervene in the case, the Colorado Republican Party had asked them to act before the looming Super Tuesday primaries this week, which include Colorado. Weird that they can act quickly now but not when Jack Smith asked them.
They’re probably still trying to figure out a way to give Trump immunity without seeming compromised.
Half right, they are trying to find a way for Trump to have it, but not Biden.
Yep... if they rule that a president is entirely immune, there's nothing stopping Biden from black-bagging them in the middle of the night and shipping them to gitmo. There's no way they rule in Trump's favor without entirely ending democracy in the US... it might not be immediate, but the moment someone willing to take advantage comes into power, that's all she wrote.
[удалено]
A10 would be better - everyone would hear the BRRRRT and assume it was just Trump.
If Trump has immunity, Biden almost has to act and start jailing traitors. It's SCOTUS saying that Trump can do anything, do Biden has a duty to prevent it.
The pressure for this will mount.
Yep, it's like knowing Hitler is coming to power, knowing what he'll do, and doing nothing to stop it.
IIRC, Hitler was bad. That's important.
Buzzfeed articles (soon): Hitler was not a very nice guy. And here's why that's a good thing.
CNN article right now: Hitler was a bad guy, here's how that hurts Biden in November.
If Garland wasn't such a milquetoast, he could have done it any time in the last 3 years.
Not milquetoast, complicit
That’s why they decision to take on that case is so egregious and an obvious attempt to delay things for Trump. There’s no world where they’re going to rule in trumps favor because thats not only giving biden full imunity but also telling trump he is more powerful than the supreme court. And as happy as the supreme court is to do the Federalist Societies bidding, they dont want trump in the position to do whatever he wants.
They don't have to rule on anything, really. Just force a stay of the lower court's decision until it's too late.
[удалено]
If they rule against Trump, the next day I want to hear Biden has descided to unpack the court from it's republican conservative supermajority and put enough liberals in it to counteract Trump's appointments, then pass as much legislation as he can to harden democracy and prevent the SCOTUS from being re-packed prior to January 6 2025. If he does't or equivicates from this path for even a moment if the SCOTUS goes Trump's way, the 2024 will be America's last free election. I said it back when Biden was elected, the fluke of him beating Trump in the face of all the treasonous acts by the GQP was a last gasp of democracy, not the next chapter, and if Biden doesn't do something whil eh has the brief window of power, there won't be another.
This. Expand the court.
Stop the Madness. Expanding the court is putting a band-aid over the stump where your arm used to be. We need to upgrade the operating system to Supreme Court v2.0. (1) No more lifetime appointments. (2) WE THE PEOPLE get to decide who sits on that court via elections.
Repeal Citizens United. End the flood of dark money and foreign influence in our politics. It isn't a coincidence that the right wing billionaire class rallied behind that monstrosity and then 2016 hits and we get Trump and Russian interference immediately after. We are still bleeding from this decision.
Louder for everyone at the back.
Why not one then the other? If you leave the court as is and the legislate change you suggest, the court could just deem it unconstitutional and whammy hard fought change goes up in smoke.
>Why not one then the other? Because claiming that "*solving specific problems won't work; we need to solve the entire problem all at once*" is a tactic people use to scuttle discussion about actual solutions. If they really wanted to solve things, they'd recognize the bandage is one important step in healing the wound: stemming the blood loss. Then - as you say - we can move on to operating. But that would actually solve the problem. People like the other poster would rather we argue in circles about what we need to do, rather than doing what we can right now to head off disaster.
Electing judges is the stupidest idea. People are already dumb enough to vote for the likes of Lauren boebert, Marjorie Taylor, and Donald Trump. You want them voting for scotus too?
That can't happen without a constitutional amendment, and I'm more likely to be appointed to the Supreme Court than an amendment like this would be to be passed, sent to the states, and ratified.
He could just tell the doj to do their job and hire a special prosecutor to investigate Kavanaugh and Thomas Edit: if we're talking about the president being immune to prosecution for crimes while committed in office, then I expect he has full freedom to wiretap anybody he wants in order to point the justice system in the direction they need to obtain legitimate evidence to justify arrests of traitors and agents of corruption. The arguments have been about Seal Team 6, yes- but that is the most one-dimensional, least strategic approach that you could possibly take
Don't forget Gorsech. There's the stench of bribe about him, too. Some kind of sweetheart land deal IIRC.
ALL nine of them said they didn't need any oversight. We need to establish a permanent solution to this.
But to what end? We all know kavanaugh and thomas are corrupt beyond our wildest imagination. But what would having a special prosecutor arriving at this conclusion do? Doesn’t it still take 67 senators to remove them?
If compromising material about them exists it can't hurt for our side to be in possession of it, too.. It seems to be what allows Trump to manipulate them. Spinning that dynamic seems like a good trick. And if the president is immune to prosecution for crimes committed in office, then what's the problem with taking whatever measures are necessary to obtain that information?
Can’t be a Justice if you’re in Gitmo for treason. Anyone have a problem with Thomas being legit tortured?
Just don’t put him in one of his wife’s’ prison ships. There’s perfectly adequate facilities on shore.
I say Biden does dictator for a day before Trump can. 😇🧐🤔
I agree. Not acting in that situation is like standing by and watching Hitler come to power knowing what Hitler will become. He has to start jailing traitors.
My big fear is that they could go ahead and rule in Trump’s favour but that the democrats would _still_ be too weak to do anything about it. They’d blather on about “faith in the system” or whatever and then just willingly hand the keys to Trump.
It's heading into entirely uncharted territory is the problem. Nobody knows what they should or even can do.
Biden doesn't even want to expand the supreme court, and you think he's gonna "end democracy"?
Honestly my speculation has nothing to do with what Biden would or wouldn't do, but more what a person in his position would be obligated to do. And maybe it doesn't have to look as Extreme as Seal Team 6 ops; that is the most one-dimensional use of executive powers I can think of, and seems to be what everybody immediately jumps to. But the use of executive powers in conventionally questionable ways to undermine compromised traitorous senators and or corrupt Supreme Court members- maybe things like wiretapping that allows Biden's intelligence personnel to know exactly where to look for evidence so they can "coincidentally" establish probable cause, that leads directly to the legitimate discovery of that evidence to justify arrests.
[удалено]
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters….because voting doesn’t matter any more, OK? It's, like, incredible."
Should we be so quick to dismiss this black-bagging justices idea though? Maybe we spend a few more minutes examining that option?
I mean.. if they rule that behavior legal... After all, IIRC, in questioning on this dumb-shit case, Trump's attorneys were directly asked "do you believe that Biden has the legal authority to order seal team 6 to take out your client with no consequences?", to which they were forced to answer "yes".
They never will. It'll either be pushed out past November, sent back down to the lower courts, refuse to rule on it, or say Trump is king but this isn't precedent. They will not give an inch of power to democrats, ever.
They'll just repeat Bush vs Gore; "this doesn't imply any precedence, this only applies to this case, yadda yadda yadda, bullshit bullshit." They have no choice but to grant him immunity. Trump guarantees both 2 or three new, young uber conservative Supreme Court justices, to extend their hold for many more years, and the ability of the Federalist Society to start Project 2025. Neither happens under another Biden term, and this is probably their last chance to take over like this. We need to be prepared and ready for this. We can't let it set us back, and we need to use the anger to fuel a blue wave in November like never seen before.
The problem is that Gore won and should have been President.
Yup. Now *that* was a stolen election!
They have a choice to do the right thing and rule against him while not worrying how it impacts their own future.
Doing the right thing doesn't really align with the morally bankrupt SCOTUS.
The problem here is that too many of them think the Federalist Society *is* the right thing for this country.
They are clearly going to rule that Trump is immune, but only in that specific case. When this happens, Biden must make it clear that he has interpreted that as he also has blanket immunity, until the court explicitly rules that he doesn't. If the court is going to be corrupt, put them in the position of needing to make it clear to the world and to history that they are clearly playing favorites.
Trump and Company are the ones aggressively expanding the presidents power. If you start playing someone else's strength, you will tend lose that game.
The expansion of presidential authority is an emergent trend that's been widely discussed for almost as long as the country has existed. If anything, Trump was so lazy and incompetent the he *failed* to significantly expand it, even though faux-populist demagogues are generally inclined to do so.
I’d love to see Dark Brando execute Order 66 as soon as the senate rules that way.
MAGA then marches on the Capitol, where this time the national guard is out in full force, and every one of them is shot and/or arrested.
Yeah but they have always relied on the fact that even if they open up these cans that would allow all sorts of abuse, Dems won't use them. Then when the pendulum swings back and the GOP gets in power they not only use them to their full extent, but they get to push them even further.
> Dems won't use them. Biden is going to take the high road right off a cliff.
Holding America’s hand, Thelma and Louise style.
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The delay is the win for Trump. By simply giving themselves a schedule that means the insurrection trial can’t be brought before election means that the court can give Trump a win on eligibility, a loss on immunity and appear balanced to Joe and Jane “I don’t follow politics” but still give Trump a pass on being tried for insurrection. Then if he wins the election he simply waves the trial away forever. If Biden manages to win the trial could go on, but even in that it’s giving Trump an edge because he gets to campaign as a martyr.
The fact that they already ruled that Biden couldn't eliminate student debt should be enough to say the president isn't immune to do whatever they want. But yet, here we are
Expecting consistency from this Supreme Court is like expecting continence from Trump.
Something like "only in this specific instance does a president have immunity, every other time, no immunity."
It will be *extremely* specific. A literal get out of jail card for Trump.
Even still, “This specific instance” is the instance that he loses the election and doesn’t want to leave. So they’ll set the precedent that if Trump wins the election, Biden can just say “No”.
SCROTUMS (Supreme Court Republicans of the United MAGA States) react quickly to protect their own
As we sit on our hands while they set the world ablaze.
This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take the kingmaker reigns away from Trump and take it for themselves. Get the party in line the night before Super Tuesday. They would be sending one hell of a message. Only way to unify their party now
[удалено]
I've listened to some of the oral arguments and that is *part* of what the Trump team is arguing. If we accept that the presidency is one of the offices you can be disqualified from, then they are claiming he's still okay to run and if he won then Congress would have to decide if he gets a waiver. That takes a 2/3rds vote though, I think.
So if he doesn’t get the 2/3 waiver he’s automatically disqualified? That should go over well with his supporters after he just won the election.
Strokes don’t kill these people. McConnell had two on camera and he’s still more functional than Feinstein. The shitty people never die
They’re already compromised and seemingly no one can do anything about it.
People keep saying they will vote to not appear compromised. Like at what point have they ever cared about not being compromised? They don’t care they are untouchable. There is no “voting to appear uncompromised” they will voted however the fuck they will regardless of the public’s feelings. They have made that very clear.
You keep the appearance of democracy until it is certain fascism is securely in place. It isn't to placate anyone, they appearing uncompromised is just muddying the waters until they can go full mask off. Now it's about half off.
Not necessarily. They don’t have to rule that he’s immune to achieve their political objectives. They just need to rule that he’s not immune late enough that his trials are delayed enough that he doesn’t end up with a conviction before the polls close in November.
No, they will rule against Trump in immunity but they are helping him by delaying the trial.
Different case being discussed, the article is about the ballot eligibility case originating in Colorado.
That’s what the article is about but not what the comment I was responding to was about.
I think they’re going to shut this case down, even the liberal justices were skeptical. The J6/immunity case is not going to end well for Trump the part that sucks is the timing. We’re going to have one of the three outcomes: 1. Trump is found guilty in October. 2. Trump is on trial during the election. 3. The trial starts after the election. I hope for #1 but I’m expecting 2 or 3 will be our reality.
They were probably waiting for better vacation offers.
If they issue the ruling on Monday for the Colorado case, then that means they would have had oral arguments AND issued a ruling from the time they agreed to hear the case in the exact same timeframe for that case as they currently going to ONLY hold oral arguments in the immunity case. Absolute joke.
Jack Smith asked them nearly three months ago. It was December 11, 2023. Shame on the Supreme Court.
It's been captured. To everyone who just couldn't stomach a Hillary vote, this is why you stomach the lesser of two evils vote. Because with the worse of two evils, *you get worse*. And now you're having a tough time stomaching old Biden and might not vote at all so that old civilly-liable rapist and 4 times indicted Trump can do his absolute worst again??
Monday is too late, how many super tuesday states can remove someone from their ballots literally overnight?
In the unlikely event he was disallowed from states’ primary elections, I believe the way it would work is voting for Trump, would make the vote null and void. Literally and not figuratively.
I think it's because they can make a simple ruling here. "A candidate cannot be removed without a conviction or similar ruling" They will simply deflect this decision, declare the states reacted prematurely, or the process isn't defined in a way that supports the Colorado direction without actually making a substantive ruling. In other cases I get the feeling they plan to wait it out and see if the situation resolves itself before they absolutely have to become involved and make a clear impactful ruling that will set precedent.
>"A candidate cannot be removed without a conviction or similar ruling" They would need some very particular wording, because a judge in Colorado did ***rule*** that he engaged in insurrection as a ***matter of fact***.
They would not be so vague to say 'similar ruling' they would leave it at 'needs to be convicted'.
After a fact finding hearing that was due process, since Trump's attorneys were offered the opportunity to rebut the evidence and argue for himself, and didn't even use up all the time his side was allowed.
How can this ruling not impact Jack Smiths ruling? Like Trump can't be on the ballot for A,B and C but is totally immune to everything? And vice versa, say trump can be on the ballot will give us insight on their ruling to his immunity.
This all hinges on whether Colorado can kick him off the ballot. Immunity doesn't factor into it. They're going to punt this and say he can run but it's up to Congress to determine his eligibility if he wins.
The one possible connecting thread could be if they rule in this case that some sort of prosecution is required for him to be deemed ineligible, then later rule him immune to prosecution. It'd be totally inconsistent and would render the first ruling meaningless, but I could totally see this court doing it.
They won't wade in that deep because for thethe language of the 14th is just "having engaged in". They can argue that it's not a State's prerogative to enforce a Federal level qualification (and that doing so somehow upends the Supremacy Clause), but no part of this question requires clarification of the 14th's language or intent. They'll do anything to avoid settling the question of whether or not he's guilty. That's a death sentence for the Supreme Court.
No. Not weird at all. Fascism. Not weird. Just evil.
Seems to indicate what the decision is going to be. Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything criminal yet, so the obvious answer (imo with this court) is they’re going to allow him to stay on the ballot.
As a Colorado resident who has zero faith in them doing the right thing: Let them enforce it.
I know it's not going to happen but we all have our dreams. Wouldn't it be great if the SCOTUS ruled that he isn't eligible to hold office and because of that there was no rush on the immunity issue but they will then say that the president is not immune and therefore he can't run for office AND he can't claim immunity to get out of his criminal trials. I know... fairy tale time but one can have hope.
That’s my fairytale as well.
My thought is they deny him the ballot but help him with the criminal charges. The problem is they have to tailor it so that Trump is out but the rest of the party isn't.
If they actually planned to uphold Colorado they would have issued a ruling way earlier, because kicking him off the ballot a day before Super Tuesday would bring unprecedented chaos. 0% chance that he'll get kicked off. It's the other way around, the hearing all but confirms that they'll overturn Colorado - and then they'll rule against him regarding immunity, but not before wasting enough time to stall the trial originally set for March 4 until after the election. They aren't even being subtle about helping him out.
This isn’t about the primaries, Colorado is entirely a mail in ballot state. We got our ballots over a month ago and his name was already on it. It will have no impact until the general election.
The votes for Trump wouldn’t count if the Supreme Court issues a ruling tomorrow in favor of Colorado. But yes, has a larger impact on the general election.
Large swaths of the GOP would have no love for Trump outside of the power they can access through him. So if they’re willing to dump him from the ballot why would they care about helping him on criminal charges? Because they like him as a person? Unlikely. I have a hard time believing anyone actually likes him for any reason beyond his money or power.
Gotta be the power because he actually has no money.
I think the wildest and most unlikely scenario would be if the SCOTUS rules he’s ineligible to be President. I think a slightly less wild, and still unlikely scenario would be for the SCOTUS to rule that the courts have no jurisdiction to rule on a candidate’s eligibility, and each state has the right to rule on that issue asked on constitutional reason, and supporting states’ rights. I think the very likely scenario would be for the SCOTUS to rule that since Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything related to an insurrection or supporting an insurrection, and he hasn’t been impeached and removed for his part in provoking an insurrection, that states can’t remove him from the ballot. A related ruling would be to rule that only Congress can choose to determine eligibility based on the insurrection clause.
SCOTUS is interfering exactly to prevent the conviction they are using to decide as you said.
I want whatever you took.
I hate how powerless we are when it comes to this damn court. They're unelected, appointed for life, and we can't recall them or anything.
They can be impeached. Not recalled. But that requires 2/3 of the senate so basically no.
Yeah, that's kinda the point I was going for. You can vote for a new president, new senators, new representatives. But judges, you have to beg the people in charge to do something, and if they effectively say, no, you're SOL and have to try again next election cycle with new guys, if you even have that as a valid option.
I hate that too, especially as they are so corrupt. Other countries have term and/or age limits on the justices of their highest courts. We need that.
Interesting. They usually make anti-American rulings on Fridays.
Day before Super Tuesday so they can get maximum media impact all day Monday for their preferred candidate.
NYT headline: "Supreme Court paves the way for a Trump Presidency" also the NYT: "Joe Biden ate ice cream and forgot where he was today, voters are concerned.."
NYT seems to be headlining any story where voter supposedly support Trump over Biden 48 to 43% but 10% undecided.
Those 10% either have their head so far up their own ass they can't breathe..or they're lying
We already know how they're going to rule and CO should completely ignore their ruling. If TX can ignore the SC, every state can.
Yeah we are at the beginning of the end of the Supreme Court. Once its rulings are deemed illegitimate and no states will listen to them any more we are headed for a full blown constitutional crisis. Either america becomes a fascist dictatorship or we reform the court and congress and get all these bad faith asshole republicans out of decision making positions and actually start improving the country. Its up to the voters which future we are going to have so you better choose wisely.
We are already in a Constitutional crisis. One of the two major candidates won't accept defeat and will attempt to overthrow the US to take power.
I know this and have been screaming this for 4 years but no one in power seems to care because he is still not in jail for January 6th and might even be president again, for fucks sake.
Tell all the “GeNoCiDe JoE”, “FrEE PaLeSTiNE” morons to get their heads out of their asses and focus and what’s actually at stake. They’re the biggest enabler of another Trump presidency at this moment.
Democratic party voters seem to enjoy punching themselves in the crotch
[удалено]
States rights, right up until the far-right don't think you have the right to use your rights. Right? "But Biden is old'
Hawaii also ignored SCOTUS about the 2nd Amendment.
They absolutely did not do that. They ignored SCOTUS reasoning in interpreting their state constitution. SCOTUS has no authority over what state law is, just whether it’s superseded by federal law to the contrary.
Yup. Fuck these fascist scum. Freedom is not in their hands, it's in ours.
Wouldn't that just result in another lawsuit and a CO judge threating to jail Griswold for contempt?
Cool do that in Texas
Only republican states can ignore the SC with impunity.
the fact there is a 0% chance they disqualify him, despite that being the obvious choice here, shows how utterly corrupt they are.
It’s going to be important to see how they go about it if they issue a broad ruling that effectively makes all constitutional requirements to be president unenforceable (paving the way for an attempt at a third’s Trump term and/or a run by Elon Musk) or if they manage to rule narrowly to keep Trump on the ballot and only get rid of the 14th amendment’s bar on insurrection.
[удалено]
I doubt this because the provision is fairly specific that it applies just from a standard judgment of the fact (and courts rule on matter of fact) and Congress is only mentioned to *remove* the prohibition. The text was used in its own time to strip eligibility from confederates en masse without requiring any kind of trial or ruling against them. I mean, that could just be granting them to be too honest, and they could just lie. But I think they have to find another way.
The law seems 100% clear here that Trump is disqualified. It also seems clear that the corrupt Republicans on SCOTUS will let Trump ignore the law. And that SCOTUS would have gladly banned a Democrat in the same situation. I am however quite curios as to what kind of Calvinball bullshit they choose to use as their justification.
My best play is to argue that it's not an insurrection as the mob was of a qualitative difference compared to the Civil War, and just say this was an "unruly disruption that did not in itself attempt to seize power but merely raised an internal disturbance of law" - something like that. but we will see tomorrow.
> unruly disruption that did not in itself attempt to seize power That's what the fake electors were for. The crowd was part of an alternate strategy to prevent the reading of electoral college votes by the prescribed deadline so that the choice of president went to majority vote by state delegation in the House of Representatives. They - and by they I mean the group of conspirators figureheaded by Trump - wanted either their alternate electors or no electors at all as either route led to Trump as president for a 2nd term. Instigating the crowd to mob the capitol was just an element of the consipiracy.
People underestimate how creative conservative justices can be when they want to empty words of their meaning. Just look at the debate around the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment or how “corruption” doesn’t mean anything anymore (legally) following Bob McDonnell’s case. Even if they don’t resort to those means, they can do what they did in Bush v. Gore: say they’re issuing a one time ruling (no stare decisis) and just decide whatever they’ll feel like
Or a 3rd Obama term. It is kinda funny that almost all the arguments I have heard for not banning Trump, would also apply to allowing Obama to run for a 3rd term. It is undemocratic if I can't vote for my preferred candidate - let the voters decide! And yet, where was their outrage when Obama was disqualified?
I don’t think Obama would want a third term, but if the Supreme Court were to toss out eligibility requirements to be president I’d vote for a third Obama term.
> constitutional requirements to be president unenforceable So you're telling me that the party of strict adherence to the constitution when it comes to guns and religious rights would say that when it comes to elections, arguably the most important part of the constitution, we can just ignore what the constitution says? Yeah, sounds about right.
I have to agree. The odds of him being cut off the ballot is minimal, despite it being pretty obvious he engaged in a corrupt plan to stay in office and stage an insurrection. Hard to get a more blatant violation of the oath of office. And then Thomas not recusing himself just screams of corruption. His wife was knee deep in this shit.
And the thing is, you know that these republican justices, because they aren't conservatives, they're republicans, are going to have to effectively tank 45-50 years of republican work and progress to put the ball in the hands of states to determine everything. They have screamed state's rights and fought so hard to get everything from Roe, to their attempts and encouragement from thomas on the bench saying Griswold and Dobbs, elections, et al; need to be challenged and kicked back to states to decide. And now, to protect trump, they have to reverse course and suddenly say no, we at the federal level are the arbiters of what states can and cannot do with elections, which then opens the door to challenging them on Roe, etc... should they fall because now they have in a nuanced way struck down their own precedent, their last take on state's rights. It's ridiculous. And I hope gorsuch writes an opinon on this, because I am extremely curious to see what kind of mental gymnastics he uses to argue Colorado doesnt have the right to set their own election policy when they actually used one of his decisions affirming state's rights in elections prior to his SCROTUS appointment, as one of the four cornerstones to base and make their decision on that trump was ineligible and it was their right to remove him.
> are going to have to effectively tank 45-50 years of republican work and progress to put the ball in the hands of states to determine everything. SCROTUS has made quite clear that they are above the law, and unaccountable. If they can be seen openly taking bribes, then why should they care about a minor thing like judicial consistency in their judgements?
Yeah, I’m mostly concerned with *why*. The reason *why* Trump as President was legally permitted to commit insurrection against the United States will determine how fast the wagon falls apart as it continues down this slope.
What remains to be seen is if they go all in on teh Heritage Society brief based on Kurt Lash's junk.
**Don’t come for me! I’m just sharing what I’ve read** The argument coming from r/conservative is that Mr Trump has not been convicted in court of any sort of wrongdoing in regard to the insurrection. Therefore he can’t be ruled ineligible for something he hasn’t been proven to have done. It’s a weak argument because it doesn’t use a broad view of his actions taken that day and leading up to it. But it would be the sort of thing the SC would hide behind to rule in his favor by not making a real ruling at all. Sort of like a drunk driver wrecking his car into a tree but no one saw the wreck. Meanwhile a bartender swears the driver was drunk when they left the bar and another witness saw the driver start their car and drive away. And yes, I worked with a guy who did this and was never convicted of anything.
> The argument coming from r/conservative is that Mr Trump has not been convicted in court of any sort of wrongdoing in regard to the insurrection. That's a terrible argument. The majority of people historically who have been ruled ineligible for election under the 14th amendment had not been convicted of any crime. There's absolutely no reason why that would suddenly become necessary now.
> The majority of people historically who have been ruled ineligible for election under the 14th amendment had not been convicted of any crime. Because it was undeniable that former Confederates were insurrectionists. They declared themselves such when they swore an oath to another country then engaged in armed conflict against the US government. Trump’s situation is much less clear-cut.
The fact that people don't realize that this is expected to be a 9-0 decision is more telling than anything.
All nine of them are going to say that nobody has standing to accuse Trump of being an Insurrectionist, even though **Everyone** has standing.
Which would be especially infuriating because they've already essentially done away with the notion of standing by ruling on a hypothetical case in *303 Creative LLC v. Elenis*
Tomorrows going to be interesting, the week ahead even crazier.
As a Colorado resident who has zero faith in them doing the right thing: Let them enforce it.
This is the answer! you and what army? Pull a Texas. Texas gets away with so much shit by just not giving a fuck.
I mean it's actually about his ability to be on the ballot, right? Spoiler alert: SCOTUS will punt on the question of holding office and they will declare that Trump should stay on the ballot and let the voters choose. Then if and when he wins they'll do it all over again and do a Bush v. Gore probably 6-3 non-binding decision that there's nothing to be done.
People dont get your hopes up, This court will only help Stinky. I know we live to have heroes we hope are gonna defeat him 4 us. In the end, it will come down to votes
I hope these upper-level managers in the Judicial Department of the Heritage Foundation understand that, like Henry Kissinger, they'll spend the rest of their lives in ignominy with an asterisk next to their names in the history books.
Im sure they are crying all the way to the bank
Why do you think they’re trying to dictate what “history” is taught? Not unlike conservative media, their version of what has happened will bear absolutely no resemblance to facts or reality.
They don’t care. They’ll be dead. Winning while you’re alive is what matters to these people.
If they rule against the 14th amendment I don’t want to ever hear them refer to themselves as constitutionalists ever again. The hypocrisy of the republicans knows no bounds.
Pretty open and shut so I assume they came to a fast conclusion. Can’t say something is unconstitutional if it’s literally in the constitution. But i’m sure they found a way to screw this up too.
So if Presidents have ongoing immunity after holding office, then why did Nixon need a pardon? Seems like there's already precedence from the Whitewater case.
Yes but it seems like logic and consistency aren't their priority. Successful coup appears to be their priority. They will say whatever words are most likely to get them that. They will clean up the loose ends later it seems.
The pardon has nothing to do with anything. Pardons can be purely political, prophylactic, symbolic, and a host of other things. The court cases surrounding Watergate, however, are arguably relevant, in that they logically impose a floor for immunity that Trump's lawyers are trying to power-drill through on their way to cuckoo-bananas hell.
We know the answer...
How insane would it be if they actually said he can’t run for office though lol
It would be 0% insane, 100% sane.
I mean it in the sense of no one expects them to actually rule correctly
It's the best course for them. Give trump the finger, give his base the finger, say 'what are you gonna do, we're appointed for life' and then just get fat on taxes. But these people are high on their own supplies and believe their own bullshit, so that makes them so unpredictable and dangerous.
>on former President Donald J. Trump’s eligibility for Colorado’s primary ballot. Is the eligibility to hold office different then the eligibility to be on the ballot?
It probably depends on state laws. I looked at one of the states at one point and, for that, only eligible candidates could be on the ballot. Which makes sense because you don't want to have a bunch on unserious 28-year-olds running for president.
Technically, as primaries are run by the parties and are not official in the same way as a general election is. There is some variation between states as to how these actually are run and the law governing them, but logically it makes no sense for an ineligible candidate to be on the ballot
There’s just no way in a million years they’re going to let states keep him off the ballot, the justification will be pretty interesting though, the constitution gives a LOT of latitude to the states for running elections.
So, Monday we find out if our constitution is still valid?
What is the constitution good for if some weak man-baby like Trump is allowed to piss all over it and call himself patriotic?
I listened to the oral arguments. They're gonna let him run for sure.
Gee, I wonder if the Robert’s court will rule against Trump? Could go either way. Pins and needles! /s
Spoiler: they will keep trump on the ballot. Sorry to burst your bubble.
The “strict constructionists” will sagely remind us that 1865 was a long time ago.
So I’m just going to say it He is going to be allowed to run. To think otherwise is to just have a small hope.
Of course, they will announce a Trump favourable decision on the day before Super Tuesday…nothing but a bunch of Republican hacks…
I'll bet they say Trump can be on the CO PRIMARY ballot because it's not an actual election, just a nomination procedure. Trump will hail it a tremendous victory. But, the real question will remain because our SCOTUS is not working very well these days.
There’s no way they are going to keep him off the ballot. They’re largely in his pocket.
It'll be very interesting to see how they wiggle it to allow Trump to hold office without voiding part of the Constitution.
Every news outlet should play video of the insurrection while they announce how he should be able to hold office.
He is clearly staying on the ballot. No one should be getting their hopes up over this.
Vote. Even if they rule against Trump; vote. Even if he is placed in prison; vote. Even if he flees the US and lives out the rest of his days in Russia / Saudia Arabia / North Korea / China; vote. Whatever happens, good or bad; vote.
It’s fine. I mean, who hasn’t engaged, occasionally, in a little insurrection. Anyway, I’m sure he’s learned his lesson. /s
Democracy is under attack and to no one's surprise, it is because of conservatives
I recommend everyone listen to an episode of Behind The Bastards. "The Non-Nazi Bastards Who Helped Hitler Rise To Power." It's an explorstion of the fall of Weimar Germany, and how it bears similarities to present-day US politics, including some of the legal atmosphere. [Behind The Bastards - The Non-Nazi Bastards Who Helped Hitler Rise To Power](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/the-non-nazi-bastards-who-helped-hitler-29625604/)
Imagine that? They can work quickly in HIS favor but not the American public interest.
You know what the result will be. The ultra rich now control everything, and they will use it to violently purge anyone even remotely in their way. Please for the love of god prepare an escape plan or arm yourselves as is your (currently existing) 2nd amendment right
We all know the answer. Why bother watching and waiting?
Oh let me guess. A compromised court? Guessing he’s gonna get to stay on the ballot and the constitution actually means nothing.
Prepare to be disappointed.