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

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Fri Jan 5, 2024, 09:00 PM - Edit history (2)

Source: AP

Updated 7:43 PM EST, January 5, 2024


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.

The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Underscoring the urgency, arguments will be held on Feb. 8, during what is normally a nearly monthlong winter break for the justices. The compressed timeframe could allow the court to produce a decision before Super Tuesday on March 5, when the largest number of delegates are up for grabs in a single day, including in Colorado. Trump, speaking at a campaign event in Iowa, said: “All I want is fair. I just hope that they’re going to be fair.”

The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24

---

Article updated.

Previous article -

Updated 5:35 PM EST, January 5, 2024


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.

The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump's appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Arguments will be held in early February.

The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who "engaged in insurrection" from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation's highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.

Original article/headline -

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

Updated 5:04 PM EST, January 5, 2024


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.

The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up a case from Colorado stemming from Trump's role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Arguments will be held in early February.

The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who "engaged in insurrection" from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation's highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.

[BigmanPigman]

1. Does this mean it will happen before the primaries?

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Republicans and Democrats are holding Iowa's primary on different dates

I think Iowa's is in the next week and a half for the GOP.

[former9thward]

3. The problem is printing the ballots.

The decision will be before the primaries but the ballots must be printed very soon. CO had previously said today (1/5) was the deadline to print ballots.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. The GOP's Iowa Caucuses are January 15.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/upcoming-iowa-gop-caucuses/story?id=106049364

[LeftInTX]

7. He will be on Colorado's ballot. Today was the deadline to remove him.

[FBaggins]

15. No... but also yes

Courts can and have adjusted those kinds of deadlines.

However… oral arguments are scheduled for just a couple days before some ballots are sent out. If they kept the stay in place, he’s likely on the ballot.

[LeftInTX]

26. The SC could agree to hear arguments on Monday, Jan 8th if they wanted.

They are assuring that he will remain on Colorado's ballot.

[LeftInTX]

31. Colorado Secretary of State certifies 2024 presidential primary election ballot, Trump to appear on ballot

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold announced on Friday that she had certified the statewide Republican and Democrat ballots for the 2024 presidential primary election.

"Colorado's 2024 Presidential primary ballot is certified. The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result," said Griswold in a statement.

Colorado voters who are affiliated with a major party, Republican or Democrat, by Feb. 12 will receive a ballot only from the party with which they are affiliated. All Unaffiliated voters will receive a ballot for each party but they can only vote on one ballot for it to be counted.

This comes after the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review a politically explosive decision from Colorado's top court that found Trump ineligible for the presidency and would leave him off the state's primary ballot, stepping into a high-stakes legal showdown that could have major ramifications for the 2024 presidential election.

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-secretary-state-certifies-2024-presidential-primary-election-ballot-trump-ballot/

[EYESORE 9001]

4. Will Clarence Thomas recuse himself?

President Biden threw down the gauntlet at Valley Forge today, so we’ll see shortly how feckless Roberts chooses to go down in history.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

19. Thomas will recuse himself when pigs fly,

or Ginnie gives him a blowjob -- whichever comes first.

[Kablooie]

25. Hell no!

Thomas is looking forward to be able to override the Constitution in favor of a right wing candidate.
He will get approval from his wife too.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens

"In 1866, Stephens was elected to the United States Senate by the first legislature convened under the new Georgia State Constitution, but was not allowed to take his seat because of restrictions on former Confederates. "

"In 1873, Stephens was elected to the United States House of Representatives as a Democrat from the 8th District to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Ambrose R. Wright. He was re-elected to the 8th District as an Independent Democrat in 1874, 1876 and 1878, and as a Democrat again in 1880.[35] "

_________________

ChatGPT:

In 1866, he was elected to the U.S. Senate from Georgia. However, his election to the Senate was not recognized by the U.S. Congress due to his role in the Confederacy and his support for secession. At the time, the U.S. Congress implemented a series of measures to prevent former Confederates, including high-ranking officials, from holding public office.

The Reconstruction Acts, passed by Congress, included provisions known as the "Ironclad Oath" or "Ironclad Test." This required individuals to swear an oath of loyalty to the Union and the Constitution of the United States. Since Stephens had been a prominent Confederate leader, he was unable or unwilling to meet this loyalty requirement. Consequently, he was prevented from taking his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Stephens' case reflects the broader efforts during Reconstruction to reshape the political landscape in the South and ensure the loyalty of those who held public office. The restrictions on former Confederates were part of a larger strategy to rebuild the Southern states and integrate them back into the Union after the Civil War.

How did Alexander H. Stephens take his US House seat despite being a former confederate?

Alexander H. Stephens, a former Confederate leader who served as the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives after the Civil War. His case is an interesting example of the complexities and variations in the application of Reconstruction policies.

In 1865, Stephens ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia and was elected. Unlike the situation with the U.S. Senate, where stricter loyalty oaths and restrictions were imposed on former Confederates, the requirements for members of the House were less stringent. The U.S. House of Representatives, under a policy of individual review, had more discretion in determining the eligibility of its members.

Stephens, as a former Confederate leader, faced some challenges in taking his seat. Initially, Congress refused to seat him, but he was re-elected in a special election in December 1866, and this time he was allowed to take his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in July 1867. It is important to note that the political landscape during Reconstruction was complex, and different states and regions had varying approaches to the reintegration of former Confederates into political life.

Alexander H. Stephens, a former Confederate leader who served as the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives after the Civil War. His case is an interesting example of the complexities and variations in the application of Reconstruction policies.

In 1865, Stephens ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia and was elected. Unlike the situation with the U.S. Senate, where stricter loyalty oaths and restrictions were imposed on former Confederates, the requirements for members of the House were less stringent. The U.S. House of Representatives, under a policy of individual review, had more discretion in determining the eligibility of its members.

Stephens, as a former Confederate leader, faced some challenges in taking his seat. Initially, Congress refused to seat him, but he was re-elected in a special election in December 1866, and this time he was allowed to take his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in July 1867. It is important to note that the political landscape during Reconstruction was complex, and different states and regions had varying approaches to the reintegration of former Confederates into political life."

______________

Sounds like 14A Sec 3 was irregularly enforced, and there wasn't very good reporting or record keeping at that time either.

[Simeon Salus]

24. The chat is BURNING MY EYES

It hurts me to read text which badly resembles rhetoric. Its constructions make only vague assertions. The history is so bad and misused. I would call this DraftGPT.

[LeftInTX]

27. That's because it's not a ballot issue and it has been up to congress and the senate to decide after they're elected.

The 14th Amendment has never been used to eliminate someone from the ballot.

[J_William_Ryan]

8. "Will Clarence Thomas recuse himself?"

Of course not – not that it would make any difference.

A Court dominated by six corrupt, partisan, conservative ideologues has already decided to rule in favor of Trump.

[cojoel]

9. "It has been so rarely used..."

It has been so rarely used because there have not been significant cases of insurrection against the United States since the 14th Amendment was ratified. Until Donald Trump came along...

[sheshe2]

10. MAGA bought the court.

They were bought and paid for and trump will be on the ballot.

[Scrivener7]

11. Yup.

[Ray Bruns]

12. Don't worry. Justice Alito will come up with some bullshit reason why this time the constitution doesn't mean exactly

What it says.

[24601]

13. If your position is that it means exactly what is says, then Colorado loses the case. The amendment applies to

officials who have taken an oath to support the Constitution. The Presidential oath is prescribed in Article II and doesn't include "support." The President instead takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

For Colorado to win, the USSC would have to rule that the exact meaning isn't necessary for the 14th Amendment to apply.

[thesquanderer]

18. But is it possible to preserve, protect and defend something yet not support it? n/t

[Aussie105]

21. Of course not.

Support is implied by all the other words.

Don't you just hate people who play the semantics game?
People who try to tell you a word doesn't mean what you think it means?

[24601]

28. Please read post #12 to which I replied. Ray was referring to exactly as written, not what was implied by wording that

isn't exact.

But I don't believe that will be the deciding factor in the decision. Even if the USSC determines that the Presidency is covered on both ends of the amendment, I believe it's more likely that the Court will determine that He was accused by the House of insurrection in the 2nd Impeachment, but was acquitted by the Senate. In the absence of the amendment defining a standard, the court will likely decide that it was an official government proceeding to which the court will defer. If the House had not put the issue forward, there would not be an acquittal.

[Ligyron]

35. And they likely knew the outcome.

They just wanted the corrupt members of the MAGA GOP on the record ... for whatever that's worth anymore. Many proudly made their vote to acquit part of their campaign and were re elected largely because of it. Even at that point, most people were either MAGA or not and like now, there's very little middle ground.

I guess "preserve, protect and defend" means insurrections instigated by the President of The United States are fine and dandy. Heck, they are no threat to the Constitution at all, right?

The fact that the SCOTUS even took the case means the fix is in.

[Generic Brad]

14. A Conservative majority do the moral and correct ruling?

[SouthernDem4ever]

16. I guess states rights of self determination only applies to abortion

Jerks.

[Galraedia]

17. This was always a losing effort. The Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional and Trump will be on the ballot.

[hay rick]

20. Allowing a state to remove a presidential candidate from the primary ballot could be a Pyrrhic victory.

States controlled by Republicans could surely find a pretext to keep Biden off the ballot.

[LiberalLovinLug]

22. But if the SCOTUS rules that a sitting President, or ex-President, can engage in insurrection and not be charged

It also means that President Biden can engage in insurrection. And if he loses key swing states he can appoint fake electors to declare himself the winner!

Of course he wouldn't do that. But it leaves the door open just in case the MAGA Fascists have already engaged in election fraud to steal votes and/or deny votes and have technically won.

[Kablooie]

23. Boy it would be great if he were knocked off the ballots.

But it's not going to happen.
They will come up with some Constitutionally squirmy reason to allow him to run.
No way they would accept the flack and threats they'd get from the right if they followed the Constitution even though that's their only job.

Of course if Biden ran against the other Republicans nothing would be a sure bet.
Running against Trump is probably an easier way for him to win but there's always the insane chance that Trump would win and then goodbye Miss American Pie.

[pecosbob]

29. All three justices appointed by Trump must recuse.

How can anyone adjudicate a case involving the person that appointed them for life? This boggles the mind.

If not, in my mind this would justify an escalated response the next time Democrats control the Presidency and the Senate.

[Novara]

34. plus Thomas

But you know it won't happen. The SCOTUS is bought and paid for.


So, let's play the tape forward. When they rule that a president CAN engage in insurrection against his own government, then all bets are off. If Biden loses he can refuse to leave and he can get the National Guard to protect him from being removed. Or an "army" of his supporters if the National Guard refuses. No elected official need ever again to accept the results of any election that they lose.

The state of CO has the right - as do all other states - to decide who is on their primary ballots and who is not. In fact, primaries aren't even in the Constitution, so this should be a no-brainer. But you know they'll twist themselves into all sorts of contortions (yeah, right, the "textualists," ha) to reinterpret the Constitution to say what it specifically does not say.

And the tangerine twatwallow continues to damage of this country.

[Polybius]

30. 8-1 decision

My prediction.

[orangecrush]

32. You already know

How this is going to go.

[LeftInTX]

33. Colorado Secretary of State certifies 2024 presidential primary election ballot, Trump to appear on ballot

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold announced on Friday that she had certified the statewide Republican and Democrat ballots for the 2024 presidential primary election.

"Colorado's 2024 Presidential primary ballot is certified. The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result," said Griswold in a statement.

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-secretary-state-certifies-2024-presidential-primary-election-ballot-trump-ballot/

[Polybius]

36. What if they rule against him?

Will there be time to take him off, or will his votes just not count?

[LeftInTX]

37. Likely not. Dead candidates have been elected

[FBaggins]

38. There won't really be time

The oral arguments are scheduled for just a couple days prior to some ballots being mailed… and they won’t get a ruling out instantaneously