The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a case that challenged former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for the White House in 2024.

[We Never Know]

Will there be more challenges?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a case that challenged former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for the White House in 2024.

The case was brought by John Anthony Castro, a tax consultant and long-shot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, who argued that Trump should be disqualified from running under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment due to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol. Castro cited a provision in the Civil War-era amendment that states American officials can't hold office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or had "given aid" to insurrectionists.....

Castro had requested the high court hear his appeal after a lower court in June found his case lacked legal standing, but the Supreme Court justices announced the case was denied without any comment or recorded vote"

MSN

 

[Revoltingest]

Will there be more challenges?

I hope so.

 

[SomeRandom]

Wow, it’s like an ongoing soap opera in action.


Is that bad of me to say?

 

[McBell]

Wow, it’s like an ongoing soap opera in action.


Is that bad of me to say?

Nope.
But only because it is spot on hitting the nail on the head truer than toasted toads true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Will there be more challenges?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a case that challenged former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for the White House in 2024.

The case was brought by John Anthony Castro, a tax consultant and long-shot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, who argued that Trump should be disqualified from running under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment due to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol. Castro cited a provision in the Civil War-era amendment that states American officials can't hold office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or had "given aid" to insurrectionists.....

Castro had requested the high court hear his appeal after a lower court in June found his case lacked legal standing, but the Supreme Court justices announced the case was denied without any comment or recorded vote"

MSN

Yes. This person did not appear to have proper standing. But some state will likely ban Trump from their ballots and that will be challenged by a Trump supporter in that state. Some state probably has to be bold enough to deny Trump from their ballots first.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Will there be more challenges?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a case that challenged former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for the White House in 2024.

The case was brought by John Anthony Castro, a tax consultant and long-shot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, who argued that Trump should be disqualified from running under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment due to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol. Castro cited a provision in the Civil War-era amendment that states American officials can't hold office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or had "given aid" to insurrectionists.....

Castro had requested the high court hear his appeal after a lower court in June found his case lacked legal standing, but the Supreme Court justices announced the case was denied without any comment or recorded vote"

MSN

Probably because it's alleged, not proven in a court of law.

 

[Orbit]

Yes. This person did not appear to have proper standing. But some state will likely ban Trump from their ballots and that will be challenged by a Trump supporter in that state. Some state probably has to be bold enough to deny Trump from their ballots first.

If I recall correctly, at least 3 different states are preparing cases like this. Colorado was one of them. (I’m posting from my phone right now so it’s a pain to look up but you should be able to find it with that information)

 

[Orbit]

Probably because it's alleged, not proven in a court of law.

The law doesn’t require a conviction or for it to be proven in court.

 

[Little Dragon]

I hope so.

So does the majority of the developed world.

 

[fantome profane]

Castro had requested the high court hear his appeal after a lower court in June found his case lacked legal standing, but the Supreme Court justices announced the case was denied without any comment or recorded vote

The U.S. Supreme Court does not have "standing". This is a States issue.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The law doesn’t require a conviction or for it to be proven in court.

I think they are just waiting to see what becomes of Trump's legal woes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The U.S. Supreme Court does not have "standing". This is a States issue.

Could be. Go through the state first. Makes sense.

 

[Little Dragon]

I think they are just waiting to see what becomes of Trump's legal woes.

That could take some time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That could take some time.

Yea. That would be an understatement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probably because it's alleged, not proven in a court of law.

Nope, that is incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The U.S. Supreme Court does not have "standing". This is a States issue.

It could eventually become a USSC issue, but I would think that a state would have to act one way or the other first.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nope, that is incorrect.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Little Dragon]

Yea. That would be an understatement.

I am from the UK, and so technically, this is all none of my business. So I shall only mention Trump this once. Put it this way, the idea of him having access to US nuclear codes, is more worrying than the idea of a Russian naval fleet anchored just outside the Thames estuary.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am from the UK, and so technically, this is all none of my business. So I shall only mention Trump this once. Put it this way, the idea of him having access to US nuclear codes, is more worrying than the idea of a Russian naval fleet anchored just outside the Thames estuary.

Well it's good that the US president alone, by himself, cannot activate any type of nuclear attack. A proper failsafe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am from the UK, and so technically, this is all none of my business. So I shall only mention Trump this once. Put it this way, the idea of him having access to US nuclear codes, is more worrying than the idea of a Russian naval fleet anchored just outside the Thames estuary.

I am terribly offended by this reasonable statement