Will the Supreme Court kick Trump off the ballot?

[Emile]

MSNBC will live stream the Supreme Court Thursday morning.

?si=1nKhyPP_-oAVyvn7

[Emile]

1. If they do kick him off will enough

pissed off MAGATS sit this election out?

[Justice matters.]

5. I think the "neo-confederates" would launch a "write-in" campaign

using social media platforms.

[VMA131Marine]

2. SCOTUS won't kick Trump off

But they should allow individual states to kick him off because states run their own elections.

What happens if Trump get kicked off enough state ballots that he cannot win the EC? IMHO it will serve the craven GOP right for nominating the criminal traitor in the first place.

[Emile]

11. The conservatives will prove they are Weak on Crime and

allow Traitor Trump to remain on the ballot.

[Zeitghost]

14. This is not a State's Rights Issue

He is either eligible to hold office under the requirements set forth in the Constitution or he is not. That question is a federal one, as it should be and the SotUS will decide it one way or the other.

[GreenWave]

35. The issue in the 14th amendment was not decided by a court back then.

You were a reb, you're out.

[Bludogdem]

42. "Term Limits vs Thornton"

was brought up several times. Essentially States can’t impose restrictions on constitutionally defined requirements for office.

[bucolic_frolic]

28. Only a few blue states would remove him, no effect on ECV. /nt

[Celerity]

36. Not necessarily true, as IF (he won't be, SCOTUS will vote 9-0 or 8-1 against CO) Trump would lose a massively important

potentially) EV. From ME-2 (as ME and NE split some of their EVs by Congressional District).

Why is it potentially a huge deal?

Let's say AZ and GA revert to their Red norm in 2024.

If that happens, all Trump needs to do to get to the nightmare of nightmares scenario (269-269 EC tie with the House electing him as there is no way to get the Rethugs below the 26 delegation minimum due to gerrymandering in WI, FL, and now, once again, NC)......

is flip NE-2 and NV.

ME-2 is a very likely a lock for Trump, so there is his 269th EV, which, if he had been banned from the ME ballot, he would not have received.

Biden can win the popular vote by 5 to 10 million, win ALL the rest of the remotely blueish swing states (WI, MI, PA, NH, CO, VA, NH) and yet would STILL LOSE, and in the worst way, via an archaic 18th century system that has been gamed in the US House by Rethug gerrymandering.

[oldsoftie]

49. And yet many people here will keep saying "Biden won in a landslide"

Ignoring the Electoral College win that he only took by about 45,000 votes.
The same states that decided the election in '20 will decide it in '24; GA, WI, MI, AZ, NV & PA
Dump ALL the money there. And not just irritating TV ads, people on the ground

[Celerity]

50. If just 21,461 votes spread out in 3 states (AZ, WI, GA) had flipped from Biden to Trump in 2020, Trump would have won

You are correct.

I would add NH and NE-2 to your list. Perhaps VA and maybe even NM, due to NM being a border state.

No other states are probably in play.

NC, ME-2, and FL are pretty likely to be locks for Trump. If Trump loses any of those 3, especially FL, it likely means a crushing loss.

CO and MN the same for Biden.

The 3 most important states for me are AZ, GA, and PA. If Biden sweeps them, it's likely a win.

Same for Trump if he sweeps them, and he actually only needs to flip GA and PA (and hold his 2020 states) to win (depending on ME-2 and NE-2) either with 271, 270, or 269 (the other main way to get to the 269-269 tie nightmare is if Trump loses NE-2 again, and loses ME-2, whilst holding all the rest of his 2020 states and flipping only GA and PA, he then doesn't even need AZ).

[oldsoftie]

54. I agree with your prediction. There are troublesome issues too many are ignoring.

A lot of things have to go RIGHT & be in a good spot by Nov for us to win. I.E; Stock mkt, gas prices, border. others, but mentioning them is walking a tightrope.
of course there's always the chance that Trump literally goes nuts & cant run or is such a mess he loses everyone but the MAGA zealots.

[Celerity]

55. The simplest minimum EV ways we lose: map stays the same except Trump flips only GA and PA, or flips only GA, WI, & AZ,

or it stays the same except Trump flips GA, AZ, NV, and NE-2 (that would end in the nightmare of nightmares, a 269-269 tie, with the House electing Trump, as due to gerrymandering in WI, FL, and now NC, it is impossiple to pull them under the 26 state delegations needed to elect Trump). Another way, the map stays the same (Biden wins GA in this one) except Trump flips AZ, WI, PA, and also the map stays the same (Biden wins GA in this one as well) except Trump flips NV, AZ, PA.

The map stays the same except Trump flips only GA and PA

The map stays the same except Trump flips GA, WI, and AZ

The map stays the same except Trump flips GA, AZ, NV, and NE-2 (the 269-269 nightmare, fucking Blue state ME splitting its EVs is so stupid, especially if NE stops, and NE almsot did, missed out by ONE vote several years ago)

The map stays the same (Biden wins GA in this one) except Trump flips AZ, WI, PA

The map stays the same (Biden wins GA in this one) except Trump flips NV, AZ, PA

[oldsoftie]

56. And Michigan has gotten dangerous due to the Hamas apologists.

Thats a large voting bloc & in another close state that might be tougher to win than WI or PA. Those protesting Israel are getting louder & louder against the president.

[Celerity]

58. Maps with a MI flip, including another 269-269 nightmare tie (easy to get to, all it takes is only MI and PA to flip)

[oldsoftie]

3. I dont believe so. I think they'll require a highher standard

They'll say just having a judge rule it just isnt enough. WHY hasnt the Fed govt charged Trump or ANY of the others from Jan 6th with insurrection?

[Bludogdem]

13. Ah, yes

A logical question that simply isn’t asked enough.

I expect the SC comes in 9-0 citing lack of due process.

[tinrobot]

20. Colorado held a 5 day long trial

Both sides were allowed to call witnesses. Trump's lawyers represented him and he was offered the opportunity to testify.

How is that not "due process?"

[oldsoftie]

25. So why wasnt he or anyone else ever charged with insurrection?

I just dont see it happening because it sets a precedent that ANY group of judges could find anyone guilty of anything without ever being charged.

[Bludogdem]

45. It was a Hearing not a trial

Due process calls for a trial.

[nuxvomica]

19. I'm sure they will but they would be wrong to do so

Running for president is a privilege that carries certain qualifications, like age and country of birth. Depriving someone of that privilege doesn't require a criminal conviction but a finding of fact, which the Colorado courts have already done. My example is the OJ case, where he was acquitted of murder but nevertheless lost a wrongful death suit. You only need the higher criminal standard of due process to deprive someone of liberty. No one is depriving TFG of liberty here. But still, I think the conservatives will wrongly insist there must be a conviction for insurrection first, maybe citing some 17th-century witchfinder's opinion.

[Kablooie]

4. No

No chance at all.
The blowback would be too huge to risk even if the Constitution required it.
There are also several arguments they could use to keep him in the race.

[Justice matters.]

6. So his lawyers' argument resumes in "let the voters decide"

It is akin to argue to "let the confederates decide by voting" way back then in my view...

Lincoln was a Repub, right?

[Emile]

7. Anyone know the Vegas odds on the ruling?

[Chainfire]

8. No way!

[EnergizedLib]

9. They won't kick him off the ballot

But they will rule that he doesn’t have immunity.

That’s my guess.

[Emile]

10. Should be a record number of people listening in

Thursday morning.

[Happy Hoosier]

12. Almost no chance

They right wing of the court either supports Trump's fascism, or are utter cowards.

They will find a way to make a narrow ruling that preserves Trump on the ballot, but doesn't theoretically make a broader ruling.

COWARDS.

[Kid Berwyn]

15. Just-Us, right, Clarence?

[Kennah]

16. I vote no

[Emile]

17. What will happen when Trump loses again?

Will there be another insurrection or something worse? Wouldn't it be better for the country to just keep him off the ballot now?

[Patton French]

18. Not bloody likely...

But we can dream.

[tinrobot]

21. If they know what's good for them, they will.

If (god forbid) he gains office, he'll ignore their rulings and act like a dictator. They'll become powerless

It's best for them to cut him off now while they have the power.

[Emile]

22. +1

[GuppyGal]

23. Good Point nt

[Deminpenn]

24. Justices seem skeptical

of Mitchell's arguments. Listening to Thomas' and Alito's questions, they are clearly asking Mitchell to give them the arguments they'll use to vote against Colo.

Gorsuch asked some "textulist" questions making me think he'll use that to vote against Colo.

[Silent Type]

26. No. Although Clarence Thomas' buddy, Harlan Crow, Kochs, etc., have turned on trump.

[Ocelot II]

27. Nope. Even the liberal justices seemed skeptical.

[PJMcK]

29. Of course not

When all is looked at, SCOTUS is 6-3 Republican. The arithmetic is simple.

By the way, the majority on this Court is the most corrupt and craven in our history.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

30. No .

[claudette]

31. No

I don't think so. I listened to the arguments and it didn't sound good. it's so depressing.

[TheKentuckian]

32. I know it isn't the popular opinion but I expect

them to state that a conviction is required and that is actually correct.

[Emile]

43. We should have that conviction any year now.

[Dan]

33. The Supreme Court is becoming

The Supreme Joke.

[Blue Idaho]

34. The fix is in so... No.

This Kangaroo Court will twist itself into a Gordian knot before they disobey TFGs orders.

[myohmy2]

37. nope...

...more than half are political republican hacks...why should they...

...they'll twist the Constitution until it fits their political agenda...

...fucking over America and the Constitution is what they do best...

[brooklynite]

39. And the liberal Justices who were equally skeptical?

[brooklynite]

38. No, and it'll be close to unanimous.

[EnergizedLib]

40. Will they? No

Should they? Absolutely.

‘ "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.’

Since Kavanaugh said he wasn’t charged, it says engaged.

We know TFG admitted today it was an insurrection.

Since their side loves to cite the Federalist papers in support of the Second Amendment, let me cite what Hamilton wrote in No. 69:

‘The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years’

Case closed.

[B.See]

41. I had said up FRONT not to place any trust in these bstrds

And they did precisely what they went in planning on doing. Attacking the case from the position that a state can't disqualify a candidate...

With the same kind of legal flim flammery that holds that a state can discriminate against minority voters if the discrimination was not intentional... Or some sht like that.

One 'justice' even challenging whether insurrection is insurrection if different states say otherwise. I guess the treasonous rebellion of the South that led to the Civil War may or may not be a treasonous rebellion either.. depending on who's saying... I guess.

But then, that's why Trump PUT em there. So that he'd have 'the power' to do what he has the power to do (he once said). And worst part is, the liberal justices seem prepared to go along with them, not that the MAGA justices would've done the same if the shoe were on the other foot.

Bottom line being, it's up to US to save our Democracy from these MAGA fascists, and ONLY us.

[Seeking Serenity]

44. What are you going to say if, but more likely when, JJ. Sotomayor and Kagan,

And maybe even J. Jackson, are part of the majority?

[B.See]

46. I have already said it, adding

that the liberal justices would be HIGHLY unlikely to get the same reciprocal impartiality and fair play from their MAGA counterparts...

As evidenced by the conservative led 'court's dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action, Roe v Wade (need I go on?), the criminal conflicts of interest on the parts of Alito and THOMas

(the latter whose wife is an Insurrection sympathizer, IF not co-conspirator) and both of whom have received payoffs.. ahem... correction... 'GIFTS' from ..INFLUENCERS (not "benefactors).

My point BEING, the decision was NEVER going to go the other way. If it turns out I'm wrong then I'll be WRONG, and joyfully so.

But I sincerely DOUBT it.

[MrsCoffee]

47. Of course not.

Nor will they hesitate to steal the election for him if they get the opportunity.

[Emile]

48. Sycophants on the Supreme Court worshipping Trump

who would have thought.

[CousinIT]

51. No. Not under any circumstance. n/t

[awesomerwb1]

52. Not a chance

[kelly1mm]

53. No and it won't be 6-3 either. May even be unanimous that he stays on the ballot. nt

[Autumn]

57. No. His brain dead body could be propped up and running and they would find a way to keep him on the ballot.

[tiredtoo]

59. NO EOM