Mr Trump rolling dice in going before SCOTUS. He may never be able to hold ANY elected office in the future. GOP --> Nikki ???

[mjp28]

Mr Trump rolling dice in going before  SCOTUS.    He may  never  be able to hold  ANY  elected office in the future.  GOP -->  Nikki ???

From. CBS News,  one of the  most  trusted.     Read on   ▪︎-->

●~~~~~~~~~~●~~~~~~~~~~●

hen the nine members of the Supreme Court take their seats on the bench on Thursday, they will be wading into uncharted legal waters to hear a case that could have sweeping ramifications for the 2024 presidential race.

..... ■ The dispute before the court involves whether former President Donald Trump is ineligible for a second term in office because of his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. A decision against him could disrupt his bid for a second term in the White House. The outcome of the legal battle is expected to reverberate across all 50 states, since it could provide clarity about Trump's eligibility for the primary and general election ballots. 

The crux of the case, which arose out of a lawsuit six Colorado voters filed in the fall, is a seldom-used provision of a constitutional amendment passed in 1868 that was designed to keep former Confederates from holding public office.

■  Known as the insurrection clause, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment had never in the nation's history been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. That changed in December, when the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that Trump's conduct related to Jan. 6 deemed him ineligible for the presidency. The court ordered him to be excluded from the state's GOP presidential primary ballot.

That landmark decision was the catalyst for the high-stakes showdown now before the Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by Trump himself. The case, formally known as Trump v. Anderson, raises a number of untested legal questions for the justices to consider and propels the nation's highest court into a politically fraught dispute just as millions of voters prepare to cast their ballots for the 2024 presidential election.  ■

Not since its ruling in Bush v. Gore in 2000 has the Supreme Court been so squarely in the center of a presidential election.

"It just doesn't happen very often where you have a provision of the Constitution that is unknown, in some sense, from the point of view of the Supreme Court," Gerard Magliocca, an expert in Section 3, told CBS News. "Then you say well, it's about a former president who is running for president and so on — that gives it this added dimension which really has no counterpart that I can think of."

Why are Colorado voters challenging Trump's ballot eligibility?

Former Colorado legislator Norma Anderson, the first woman to serve as majority leader in the Colorado House and the Colorado Senate, is a plaintiff in the Colorado Supreme Court case which bars former President Donald Trump from being on the state's presidential primary ballot.MELINA MARA/THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES

The case before the Supreme Court was brought by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of four Republican and two unaffiliated voters in Colorado in September 2023.

■  The voters argued that Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency under Section 3 and should be excluded from the Colorado primary and general election ballots.  ■

■  Section 3 bars an individual who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection against it from holding federal or state office. Trump, the voters claimed, instigated the Jan. 6 attack as part of his efforts to thwart the peaceful transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election, and therefore is ineligible for a second term.  ■

.....  And that my friends is  HUGE  !

 

xxxxx — When the nine members of the  their seats on the bench on Thursday, they will be wading into xxuncharted legal waters to hear a case that could have sweeping ramifications ause of his conduct surrounding the Jan. xxxx6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. A decision against him could disrd for a second term in the Whxite House. The outcome of the legal battle is expected to reverberate across all 50 states, since it could provide clarity about Trump's eligibility for the primary and general election ballots. 

The cxxrux of the case, which arose out of a lawsuit six Colorado voters filed in the fall, is a seldom-used provision of a constitutional amendment passed in 1868 that was designed to keep former Confederates from holding public office.

Known as the insurrection clause,  never in the nation's history been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. That changed in December, he presidency. The court ordered him to be excluded from  includes thxxxxree justices apxxxpointed by Trump himself. The case, formally known as Trump v. Anderson, raises a number of untested legal questions for the justices to consider and propels the nation's highest court into a politically fraught dispute just as millions of voters prepare to cast their ballots for the 2024 presidential election. 

Not since its ruling in Bush v. Gore in 2000 has the Supreme Court been so squarely in the center of a prxxxxxesidential election.

"It just doesn't happen very often where you have a provision of the Constitution that is unknown, in some sense, from the point of view of the Supreme Court," Gerard Magliocca, an expert in Section 3, told CBS News. "Then you say well, it's about a former president who is running for president and so on — that gives it this added dimension which really has no counterpart that I can think of.hy are Colorado vump's ballot eligbility? Former Colorado legislator Norma Anderson, the first woman to serve as majority leader in the Colorado House and the Colorado Senate, is a plaintiff in the Colorado Supreme Court case which bars former President Donald Trump from being on the state's presidential primary ballot.Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The case before the Supreme Court was ought by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of four Republican and two unaffiliated voters in Colorado in September 2023. The voters ump is disualified from holding the presidency under Section 3 and should be excluded from the Colorado primary and general election ballots.

Section 3 bars an individual who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection inst it from holding federal or state office. Trump, the voters claimed, instigated the Jan. 6 attack as part of his efforts to thwart the peaceful transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election, and therefore is ixxxxxxneligible for a second term.xxxxx

[Canton Dawg]

That’s what the Libtards want.

Let’s face it, he lives rent free in their heads and they’re scared shitless of him.

[MLD Woody]

17 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

That’s what the Libtards want.

Let’s face it, he lives rent free in their heads and they’re scared shitless of him.

Reminder that we have a poster on here that still constantly complains about "Obamao"

[mjp28]

13 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Reminder that we have a poster on here that still constantly complains about "Obamao"

Remember too ..... Mr Trump's  enormus  EGO  may have driven into this,  he might actually lose  everything !  He thi ks he can beat the. SUPREME COURT.       And screw the. GOP. in the process.

Nikki vs President  Biden ?     

[Jax]

17 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Reminder that we have a poster on here that still constantly complains about "Obamao"

No different than you complaining about Trump nonstop.

[Jax]

He's going to be the next President, sorry to break it to you.

[cccjwh]

1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said:

That’s what the Libtards want.

Let’s face it, he lives rent free in their heads and they’re scared shitless of him.

Lifer Republican brought the case Beavis. It is possible the other Rhinos (GOP that aren't part of your cult) on the SCOTUS will confirm CO verdict.

 

[mjp28]

35 minutes ago, Jax said:

He's going to be the next President, sorry to break it to you.

Depends what the Supreme Court says  ......  I'm listening to the audio,  are you ?

.....  Justice Alito up now.

[mjp28]

11 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Depends what the Supreme Court says  ......  I'm listening to the audio,  are you ?

This is some serious  American justice going on here.   Any Civics teacher (if they exist now)  should mandate thier students to listen to it.

For sure college teachers in those fields shoud !

........ edit add .....  Justice Alito up now ....  then Sotomayor !  

Edited February 8 by mjp28

[cccjwh]

14 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Depends what the Supreme Court says  ......  I'm listening to the audio,  are you ?

Of course they aren't. They have been told by their cult leader this all a witch hunt. If they do let CO kick him off the ballot, it may be the best thing to happen to GOP in a decade. Funny how they are so sure that it won't happen. It is possible.

Cheetos arguments are really weak. 

- POTUS is not an officer. 

- Kicking him off ballot violates his 1st Amendment rights.

I expect a loophole or technically to let Cheetos stay on ballot. I curious about Gorsuch. He is not part of the cult and he has already ruled on Section 3 while he was an appeals judge. 

 

[mjp28]

16 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Of course they aren't. They have been told by their cult leader this all a witch hunt. If they do let CO kick him off the ballot, it may be the best thing to happen to GOP in a decade. Funny how they are so sure that it won't happen. It is possible.

Cheetos arguments are really weak. 

- POTUS is not an officer. 

- Kicking him off ballot violates his 1st Amendment rights.

I expect a loophole or technically to let Cheetos stay on ballot. I curious about Gorsuch. He is not part of the cult and he has already ruled on Section 3 while he was an appeals judge. 

 

Good point on the Red State speaking.

So far ...  who do you think is winning / losing ?   And remember they do get together in a room and.  chat amongst themselves.....  this might be a SCOTUS  high point .....  judging a FORMER. POTUS  ....   WOW.    

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

36 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Depends what the Supreme Court says  ......  I'm listening to the audio,  are you ?

.....  Justice Alito up now.

Looks more than likely they will overturn the Colorado ruling as they should:

[mjp28]

Just now, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

Looks more than likely they will overturn the Colorado ruling as they should:

And what do YOU  base that on ?    I hope more than a hunch.

[mjp28]

11 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

Looks more than likely they will overturn the Colorado ruling as they should:A

And a 1, 2, 3  now let's hear it  .....

 

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

You could tell by the questioning that Colorado will lose.  As they should!  MAGA!  MAGA!

[cccjwh]

15 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

And what do YOU  base that on ?    I hope more than a hunch.

It is what he was told to think.

[cccjwh]

Sounds like they are leaning towards no due process or that the states don't have the authority to kick him off ballot. But I was only half paying attention to the arguments. But even the liberal judges had some doubts about the ability of states to control Presidential elections.

 

[Canton Dawg]

28 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Good point on the Red State speaking.

So far ...  who do you think is winning / losing ?   And remember they do get together in a room and.  chat amongst themselves.....  this might be a SCOTUS  high point .....  judging a FORMER. POTUS  ....   WOW.    

Think of the retaliation.

How many Red states will kick Dementia Joe off the ballot?

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, Jax said:

No different than you complaining about Trump nonstop.

It's clear from your reply you aren't living in reality, but I'll ask you this:

Which one is currently running for president, in the middle of multiple trials, and putting himself out there on the national stage?

Answer that, and then see if you can figure out why still bringing up Obama is much more "living rent free" in someone's head 

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, mjp28 said:

Remember too ..... Mr Trump's  enormus  EGO  may have driven into this,  he might actually lose  everything !  He thi ks he can beat the. SUPREME COURT.       And screw the. GOP. in the process.

Nikki vs President  Biden ?     

He "hired" 3 SCOTUS members, he isn't losing

 

And Nikki would beat Biden easy

[Westside Steve]

20 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

He "hired" 3 SCOTUS members, he isn't losing

 

And Nikki would beat Biden easy

Trump would be Biden an affair contest. Your boy is an idiot. In the actual clinical definition.

Of course as soon as she gets the nomination you idiots will call her the c word Nazi white supremacist dictator whatever the fuck you can think of.

WSS

[Jax]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

It's clear from your reply you aren't living in reality, but I'll ask you this:

Which one is currently running for president, in the middle of multiple trials, and putting himself out there on the national stage?

Answer that, and then see if you can figure out why still bringing up Obama is much more "living rent free" in someone's head 

You're dumb.

No one needs an excuse to talk about Trump or Obama, we're free to talk about whoever. The fact you can't discern that from my comment says how intent you are on always twisting things so they fit your narrative.

[Jax]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

He "hired" 3 SCOTUS members, he isn't losing

 

And Nikki would beat Biden easy

That's the dems tactics right? Hire all these activist judges and prosecutors so they have unlimited power as demonstrated by taking out political opponents.

[cccjwh]

1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

Trump would be Biden an affair contest. Your boy is an idiot. In the actual clinical definition.

Of course as soon as she gets the nomination you idiots will call her the c word Nazi white supremacist dictator whatever the fuck you can think of.

WSS

Trump couldn't beat a bag of dead cats in a fair contest. Cheetos lost to an old guy who campaign from his basement. Maybe if more than half the country was in your cult, he would have a chance. But there just aren't enough stupid people that vote. MAGA the stupidest cult in modern history.

 

[mjp28]

■  IMPORTANT DONALD TRUMP CASE IN THE BALANCE.    February 08, 2024. ■

▪︎. Posted just now · IP 

▪︎-->   ●  Well it's up to the   "Supremes"   now they have the   ON/OFF   power over   Mr Trump on the ballots   FOREVER !

I'm  not sure they want that power  -but-  that's what it's come down to right now.    I believe it's about a  50/50  chance going into  tonight.   Let's see who can sway whom over to thier side to possibly go to a   5/4  or  maybe a  6/3  margin.   [ I  wish there were. 11  justices  to give them some leeway ..... but they don't. ]

▪︎-->   One of the biggest  SCOTUS  decisions of our times.   And we sit back and wait. 

  ▪︎  Most of thier decisions take about  3 MONTHS  (+/-) .... they  might   try to fast track this one.

●~~~~~~~~~~▪︎~~~~~~~~~~●       (+/-)  ???      ●~~~~~~~~~~▪︎~~~~~~~~~~●

▪︎. From Axios,  February 08, 2024,    [ Post still to be finished. ]

Former President Trump talks reporters on Jan. 31 in Washington, D.C. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared broadly skeptical Thursday of states' ability to disqualify former President Trump from the ballot using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Why it matters: The nation's highest court's eventual ruling could have broad implications for Trump's presidential candidacy nationwide.

Driving the news: "I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States," Justice Elena Kagan, who was appointed by former President Obama, said.

• "What's a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?" she said.
• Another liberal justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, questioned whether the office of the presidency can be disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that if the Colorado decision is upheld, other states could kick other candidates from the ballot.

• "It'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election," he said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence."
• Justice Samuel Alito said that states reaching their own conclusions could create an "unmanageable situation."

Zoom in: Trump lawyer Jonathan Mitchell argued that states can't ban an "admitted insurrectionist" from the ballot, because Congress could vote to lift "that disability after the election."

• Mitchell also argued that the president is not an "officer of the United States," which means that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment cannot apply.
• He also said that Jan. 6 was a "riot" and not insurrectionist, which is a central claim of the former president's legal team.

Jason Murray, the lawyer for the Colorado voters, disputed early in his arguments that the president is not considered an officer of the U.S.

• "President Trump's main argument is that this court should create a special exemption to Section 3 that would apply to him and to him alone," Murray said.
• "President Trump disqualified himself," Murray also said.

What he's saying: Trump said he "thought our arguments were very, very strong" in remarks Thursday after the oral arguments ended.

• "Can you take the person that's leading everywhere and say, 'Hey, we're not gonna let you run'? You know, I think that's pretty tough to do, but I'm leaving it up to the Supreme Court."

The big picture: The Supreme Court last month agreed to take up Trump's appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's December ruling that the former president is ineligible for the ballot over his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

 

■  Former President Trump talks reporters on Jan. 31 in Washington, D.C. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images  ( SEE IMAGE BELOW. ■

[mjp28]

3 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

You could tell by the questioning that Colorado will lose.  As they should!  MAGA!  MAGA!

It's going to be  close  and it is a very important  case,  maybe the  most important case  in our time  and the  SCOTUS is handling it just that way.

[ READ THE  ABOVE  POST FOR MORE ON THIS THREAD. ]

[calfoxwc]

6 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Reminder that we have a poster on here that still constantly complains about "Obamao"

because the damage done to America by obaMao commie is still apparent, and worse under your biden fool.

It's about AMERICA.

Pres Trump was GREAT for America.

You are just an ignorant, hating, sarcastic woodypeckerhead.

Can we take it to the supreme court that mpwhee and whoreta are

not qualified to be mods?

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

2 hours ago, mjp28 said:

It's going to be  close  and it is a very important  case,  maybe the  most important case  in our time  and the  SCOTUS is handling it just that way.

[ READ THE  ABOVE  POST FOR MORE ON THIS THREAD. ]

Most predict an 8-1 decision which is hardly close.

[mjp28]

1 hour ago, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

Most predict an 8-1 decision which is hardly close.

5-4 or 6-3 but no guarantee which way now.   I would  not bet money on this oone.    But if I had to pick one ...... 5-4 NO on Trump.   (with my eyes closed)   

.....  edit add .....  The more I think about it  ..... I don't think the SCOTUS really wants to be saddled with this decision.

Edited February 9 by mjp28

[VaporTrail]

14 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Reminder that we have a poster on here that still constantly complains about "Obamao"

horseshoe theory