The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[Soandso]

Nor do I. This 14th Amendment strategy may well prove to be too clever by half and a tremendous boon to the Trump campaign.

I kind of suspect the same. To those on the fence, this may drum up that "anti-establishment" narrative that got Trump elected originally. Trump knows how to effectively play the victim card

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has nothing to do with the Supremes being idiots. Facts have to be established in court. Trump's team is likely to challenge the notion that January 6th was an insurrection, and further that Trump ingended for it to be one and participated in it. They're not just going to lay down and let those things be a given. The prosecution will have to demonstrate them.

No, the facts are already established in the lower courts. What is being heard are oral arguments if you follow the news. The judges are already familiar with the details of the case. There is no need for presentation of evidence. The attorneys must explain their reasoning to the USSC:

Visitor's Guide to Oral Argument

www.supremecourt.gov

I understand you have strong feelings about this. But realistically it's not at all unlikely a majority of the Court will side with Trump. It will come down to how well the prosecution makes their case. Demonstrating all three premises will be a tall order.

I never said that it was unlikely. The 6-3 decisions of the court recently have been of them not following the Constitution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trump amd the South and the Northern states who pretend to be southern. Dems will have very limited victories id that happens.

I agree. If it was a replay of last the last election as it stands this would result in a loss of only one electoral vote for Trump.

 

[Left Coast]

No, the facts are already established in the lower courts. What is being heard are oral arguments if you follow the news. The judges are already familiar with the details of the case. There is no need for presentation of evidence. The attorneys must explain their reasoning to the USSC:

Visitor's Guide to Oral Argument

www.supremecourt.gov

Were some of the established facts, going unchallenged by Trump's team on appeal, that January 6th was an insurrection and Trump participated in it?

That would be surprising. But it would make the job easier for the prosecution.

ETA: I went ahead and just looked up the text of the Trump team's request for the Colorado decision to be overturned. As I thought, they challenge all three premises: 1) that Jan. 6th was an insurrection. 2) that Trump incited or participated in insurrection and 3) that the 14th amendment clause applies to the President.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/politics/read-trump-appeal-supreme-court-colorado

 

[Subduction Zone]

Were some of the established facts, going unchallenged by Trump's team on appeal, that January 6th was an insurrection and Trump participated in it?

That would be surprising. But it would make the job easier for the prosecution.

Some of the conclusions of the evidence were disputed. But once again, the judges will be familiar with the case and the evidence presented. Trump's team objected to and appealed the first case that they "won" because the judge did claim that even though Trump was guilty of participating in an insurrection that she did not think that the 14th Amendment applied to Trump.

Oral arguments are a relatively fast trial where as I said the judges know the facts behind the cases. They want the attorneys to present their interpretation of the evidence. In fact if there is new evidence, at least from my understanding, it cannot be presented at that sort of case. The appeal was done based on the evidence of that case. The appeals were not based upon new evidence so none can be introduced in this sort of trial. That saves a huge amount of time.

 

[Left Coast]

Some of the conclusions of the evidence were disputed. But once again, the judges will be familiar with the case and the evidence presented. Trump's team objected to and appealed the first case that they "won" because the judge did claim that even though Trump was guilty of participating in an insurrection that she did not think that the 14th Amendment applied to Trump.

Oral arguments are a relatively fast trial where as I said the judges know the facts behind the cases. They want the attorneys to present their interpretation of the evidence. In fact if there is new evidence, at least from my understanding, it cannot be presented at that sort of case. The appeal was done based on the evidence of that case. The appeals were not based upon new evidence so none can be introduced in this sort of trial. That saves a huge amount of time.

Looks like from their filing with SCOTUS, they'll be challenging the case on multiple fronts. But either way, I hope they lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looks like from their filing with SCOTUS, they'll be challenging the case on multiple fronts. But either way, I hope they lose.

Just to be clear, since the Trump side are the one's appealing are you hoping that Trump loses?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Were some of the established facts, going unchallenged by Trump's team on appeal, that January 6th was an insurrection and Trump participated in it?

That would be surprising. But it would make the job easier for the prosecution.

ETA: I went ahead and just looked up the text of the Trump team's request for the Colorado decision to be overturned. As I thought, they challenge all three premises: 1) that Jan. 6th was an insurrection. 2) that Trump incited or participated in insurrection and 3) that the 14th amendment clause applies to the President.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/politics/read-trump-appeal-supreme-court-colorado

Okay, the edit occurred after I clicked reply. But yes, the Trump team appealed the first decision based upon the "Trump was an insurrectionist" and the other side appealed it based upon the decision that Trump was still eligible, and for the second one the Trump team appealed it for all of the reasons that you listed. I only mention that Trump was part of the insurrection which would be one and two.

 

[Left Coast]

Just to be clear, since the Trump side are the one's appealing are you hoping that Trump loses?

Sorry, yes that's what I mean. I despise Trump as much as the next guy, always have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, yes that's what I mean. I despise Trump as much as the next guy, always have.

Well I sort of like Trump. He was the man that finally got me to leave the Republican party Okay, that is not saying much for him. I can see why some Democrats would like a rematch, but I am more for following the Constitution and erring on the side of caution. It would be better if he was removed by almost any means. Though it would be interesting to see him convicted in Georgia and running from prison.

 

[Left Coast]

Well I sort of like Trump. He was the man that finally got me to leave the Republican party Okay, that is not saying much for him. I can see why some Democrats would like a rematch, but I am more for following the Constitution and erring on the side of caution. It would be better if he was removed by almost any means. Though it would be interesting to see him convicted in Georgia and running from prison.

I agree and I'm someone who values following the Constitution as well. My own departure from the GOP came a few years before Trump, after the Tea Party wave.

My concern on a more pragmatic level is that if he is removed from state ballots around the country, that will only deepen the political divide and may cause further escalation beyond what we even saw on Jan. 6th. Perhaps this is catastrophizing but I see red states removing Biden in retaliation and mass protests that will quickly turn violent. Sigh.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My concern on a more pragmatic level is that if he is removed from state ballots around the country, that will only deepen the political divide and may cause further escalation beyond what we even saw on Jan. 6th. Perhaps this is catastrophizing but I see red states removing Biden in retaliation and mass protests that will quickly turn violent. Sigh.

So we ignore the law and allow a trait9r to run because some will get their panties in a bunch?
No, we mustn't let bullies win in politics by being bullies. They can bebig boys and girls and get over it.

 

[Left Coast]

So we ignore the law and allow a trait9r to run because some will get their panties in a bunch?
No, we mustn't let bullies win in politics by being bullies. They can bebig boys and girls and get over it.

I didn't say we should ignore the law. I just said I'm worried about fallout and escalation. I do hope we can all be "big boys and girls," but my experience with humans tells me they often aren't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree and I'm someone who values following the Constitution as well. My own departure from the GOP came a few years before Trump, after the Tea Party wave.

My concern on a more pragmatic level is that if he is removed from state ballots around the country, that will only deepen the political divide and may cause further escalation beyond what we even saw on Jan. 6th. Perhaps this is catastrophizing but I see red states removing Biden in retaliation and mass protests that will quickly turn violent. Sigh.

I think that removing Trump from ballots now, before the primary, is the best way to avoid violence.

That way, the Republican party can pick some other candidate, and then when polling numbers start to come in and the party realizes it's better off without Trump than with him, they just move on. The election happens, the Republicans do better than last time - and maybe even win - and everyone but a few diehard Trump loyalists just leave him behind.

The option with the biggest potential for violence I see is if:

1. The court overturns the Colorado decision not because they decide that Trump didn't commit insurrection but because it's up to Congress to throw out votes for Trump, not up to state officials to leave him off the ballot.
2. Trump wins the Republican nomination.
3. On election day, Trump gets the votes to win the Electoral College.
4. In January 2025 when the official EC count happens, the votes for Trump get thrown out based on his eligibility.

My only hope there is that even given 1) happening, 2) and 3) are far from guaranteed.

 

[Riders]

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

apnews.com

Of course, this was expected, but now they've finally announced that they will be hearing the case. Should be interesting.

When will the decide? With this be the decision to decide weather to noy Trump can run?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When will the decide? With this be the decision to decide weather to noy Trump can run?

I'm reading that the court is going to try for a ruling before Super Tuesday.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I didn't say we should ignore the law. I just said I'm worried about fallout and escalation. I do hope we can all be "big boys and girls," but my experience with humans tells me they often aren't.

Quite right. That's why I think that Chief Justice Roberts will be expending his maximum amount of energy to try and get to a 9-0 or at worst 8-1 ruling.

 

[Left Coast]

I think that removing Trump from ballots now, before the primary, is the best way to avoid violence.

That way, the Republican party can pick some other candidate, and then when polling numbers start to come in and the party realizes it's better off without Trump than with him, they just move on. The election happens, the Republicans do better than last time - and maybe even win - and everyone but a few diehard Trump loyalists just leave him behind.

The option with the biggest potential for violence I see is if:

1. The court overturns the Colorado decision not because they decide that Trump didn't commit insurrection but because it's up to Congress to throw out votes for Trump, not up to state officials to leave him off the ballot.
2. Trump wins the Republican nomination.
3. On election day, Trump gets the votes to win the Electoral College.
4. In January 2025 when the official EC count happens, the votes for Trump get thrown out based on his eligibility.

My only hope there is that even given 1) happening, 2) and 3) are far from guaranteed.

Trump has already been President, so I think if he is nominated or elected again we'll just see a repeat of protests from 4 years ago. If the Trump diehards are given more excuses to believe the process is "rigged" against him, though, I see them escalating.

Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm reading that the court is going to try for a ruling before Super Tuesday.

It should be done by then. The case starts on February 8th. It is an oral arguments case which means that the judges will already know all of the facts and are only interested in the reasoning of the lawyers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't say we should ignore the law. I just said I'm worried about fallout and escalation. I do hope we can all be "big boys and girls," but my experience with humans tells me they often aren't.

There's fallout regardless. America is failing and sinking fast. Literally, it takes absolutely nothing more than a Democrat winning or not upholding Conservative values to cause fallout anymore.
Amd the way Rep politicians go along with it and enable and never snuff it as any decent, responsible adult would shows it doesn't matter. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth regardless and we must move on and ignore those who stand against American values (like honoring election results amd not trying to overturn them)