Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

image.png

 

The US Supreme Court has said it will hear a historic case to determine if Donald Trump can run for president.

The justices agreed to take up Mr Trump's appeal against a decision by Colorado to remove him from the 2024 ballot in that state.

The case will be heard in February and the ruling will apply nationwide.

Lawsuits in a number of states are seeking to disqualify Mr Trump, arguing that he engaged in insurrection during the US Capitol riot three years ago.

The legal challenges hinge on whether a Civil War-era constitutional amendment renders Mr Trump ineligible to stand as a candidate.

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office, but the former president's lawyers argue it does not apply to the president.

 

His lawyers have argued: "The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide."

Mr Trump has also appealed against a decision by electoral officials in Maine to remove him from the ballot.

The split 4-3 decision by Colorado's high court last month marks the first time in US history that the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot.

This is the first time the Supreme Court will consider how to interpret the clause.

Mr Trump is the current Republican front-runner for a likely rematch against President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in this November's election.

Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have dismissed attempts to disqualify Mr Trump. Other cases, including in Oregon, are pending.

 

The US Supreme Court has a conservative majority - with three justices appointed by Mr Trump when he was president.

But they overwhelmingly ruled against him in his lawsuits challenging his defeat to Mr Biden in 2020.

The court on Friday agreed to take up the case in an expedited manner, with oral arguments scheduled for 8 February.

 

FULL STORY

 

BBC-LOGO.png

Posted

Wouldent it be splendid if they  ruled in favor of what he obviously did then no trump on the ballot the cases against him run their course and he’s put away were he belongs sadly it won’t oh well and so it goes……..

  • Sad 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Tug said:

That’s not really the issue it’s trumps obvious unfitness and his danger to our democracy we have had republican presidents before 

Silly me, I thought politics was only about winning.

Posted
37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A bit of a challenge for the Originalists on the bench of the SCOTUS, do they stick to their long held black and white view of how the Constitution should be interpreted or do they bow to the wishes of those who they owe their seats to?

 

Justice Gorsuch in particular is going to have a hard time squaring that particular circle.

 

 

 

So what color suits you?

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Tug said:

Wouldent it be splendid if they  ruled in favor of what he obviously did then no trump on the ballot the cases against him run their course and he’s put away were he belongs sadly it won’t oh well and so it goes……..

 

Sigh...

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

That seems like a waste of their time, unless he's been convicted of already.   Which case I missed the memo.

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That seems like a waste of their time, unless he's been convicted of already.   Which case I missed the memo.

I'll put it another way... seems to me that with the political affiliation so dominant there's no chance the SC will say he can't run, no matter what legal arguments are discussed. 

  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, scorecard said:

I'll put it another way... seems to me that with the political affiliation so dominant there's no chance the SC will say he can't run, no matter what legal arguments are discussed. 

Shoes on the other foot now ...

... although, if convicted of insurrection, that would be a stretch, then the SCOTUS would have to rule against Trump.  If they didn't already rule the conviction was unconstitutional.

 

Meanwhile, trillions of tax dollars will continue to go unaccounted for, and digital currency will become a reality.

 

Edited by KhunLA
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, scorecard said:

PLease get back to the point This thread is not about biden, it's about trump.

 

Just for you and you only, my response was about TRUMP being declared fit for duty, but maybe you are as confused as the one you don't want to hear about.

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, BenStark said:

 

Just for you and you only, my response was about TRUMP being declared fit for duty, but maybe you are as confused as the one you don't want to hear about.

 

I was meaning allowed to run considering that he started a rebellion. Pleas advise.

  • Sad 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

I was meaning allowed to run considering that he started a rebellion. Pleas advise.

 

Nice deflection, try to read my post and the post to which my reply was again, or find someone who can advice you to make it understand

  • Thanks 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Trippy said:

The dems are really shooting themselves in the foot if Trump can't run. All the never-trumpers might not vote for Biden if there is another choice.  

Trump would be easier to beat, indeed. That's why I am not so keen about it. However, if the SC decides to ban him, so be it! The law is the law. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...