A Supreme Court decision could come Monday in a case about barring Trump from the 2024 ballot

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 1:16 PM EST, March 3, 2024


WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court decision could come as soon as Monday in the case about whether former President Donald Trump can be kicked off the ballot over his efforts to undo his defeat in the 2020 election. Trump is challenging a groundbreaking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said he is disqualified from being president again and ineligible for the state’s primary, which is Tuesday.

The resolution of the case on Monday, a day before Super Tuesday contests in 16 states, would remove uncertainty about whether votes for Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president, will ultimately count. Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8.

The Colorado court was the first to invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Trump also has since been barred from primary ballot in Illinois and Maine, though both decisions, along with Colorado’s, are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

The Supreme Court has until now never ruled on the provision, Section 3 of the 14th amendment. The court indicated Sunday there will be at least one case decided Monday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it’s the Trump ballot case that will be handed down.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-colorado-maine-d784759ab9376d4c3a6e3ae72465f448

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. So the SC can get off its ass when it HELPS Trump.

[jimfields33]

6. They've had that case way longer than the immunity

case. At least a month.

[onenote]

8. And the Colorado Supreme Court stayed their ruling

[50 Shades Of Blue]

10. No shit.

[barbaraann]

2. Sophistry is the last resort of judicial scoundrels.

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2024, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Last refuge of scoundrels works, too.

[CousinIT]

3. They don't dawdle when it helps Donald, do they?

Regardless, Trump will be on the ballot. I don't give a rat about this (because we all know they will not do what the Constitution says and keep him off of it) except to note that they will decide to get their asses in gear to help their sociopath dictator.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

4. So the extreme court wants to declare a 160 year old Constitutional amendment null and void.

[Orrex]

24. That's what the founders would have wanted, you see

Strict originalists, this lot.

[mysteryowl]

5. Oh, Oh, I know...

it will be in turmps favor. They won't remove him from the ballot, which is why they are speedy on this one.

Corrupt court!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. Supreme Court to release decisions on Monday, with Trump Colorado ruling a strong possibility

Tomorrow may be interesting. I want to see if there are dissents

Link to tweet

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-release-decisions-monday-trump-colorado-ruling-strong-po-rcna141567

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has indicated it will issue rulings on Monday, one of which could be the highly anticipated decision on whether Colorado can kick former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot.

The court noted on its website on Sunday afternoon that rulings are expected.

Trump is currently set to appear on the state primary ballot on Tuesday after a hold was placed on the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that deemed him ineligible due to his efforts to defy the 2020 election results.

The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on Feb. 8 on whether Trump can be barred from the ballot because of his role leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment says people are not eligible to serve in government if they “engaged in insurrection.” It appeared from the oral argument that Trump would win the case.

[EndlessWire]

9. I think it can be good news.

The primary is on Tuesday, so they have to get the results in there about whether they have to count votes for Donald. So, I think it's still 50/50. This will indicate whether they think that Donald is a traitor. Excuse me, an insurrectionist.

[bdamomma]

38. just a question please

but didn't the Colorado Judges also mention that he was insurrectionist, but the SC did not mention if he was or was not.?

[Zeitghost]

43. That is correct

The Supreme Court has not and will not determine if Trump or anyone else engaged in insurrection. They are not a trial court.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. It's *really* unusual for the Court to give such little notice--or to not take the bench

Link to tweet

[bluestarone]

12. Well, with them taking TFG's appeal on immunity, we all pretty much KNOW what this will be.

Kinda like DUH! Why would they decide to remove him from the ballots, when one corner of their mouth they say we,ll decide immunity in APRIL?? They WILL alow his name on the ballots. No doubt in my mind.

[johnnyfins]

28. What if they scheduled immunity

Case for April, because they ARE barring him from running and the trial timeline is meaningless?

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

34. WIN/WIN Scenario

I could see the court deciding that Trump is ineligible for office and then ruling that he - and ONLY he - had immunity for crimes committed in (and after) office.

That would mean Trump will never be president again but would not go to jail.

Probably the end state Trump most wants. And one that the rest of us would grudgingly accept.

I don't think any of that would be legal (except keeping him out of office), but it would solve a lot of problems.

Which means it is unlikely to happen.

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

37. Never mind ...

Court ruling just came out. He can run in Colorado.

[wolfie001]

13. Gee, I wonder how the Scummy Six will rule?

Is there any effing doubt?

[Polybius]

23. It won't be just the six, trust me

The decision will be at minimum 7-2. Probably 9-0.

[Novara]

14. I would love to see protests at the supreme court that Thomas is not recusing himself from these cases.

There's no way he should be involved. No fucking way.

[bluestarone]

15. You got that right!!

Never thought i would see THIS SC so OWNED!! RELIGION and MONEY!! TFG along with the help of Mitch McConnell, DESTROYED Democracy as we knew it! I don't know the end game here for our country, BUT all we can do at the moment is VOTE LIKE HELL!!

[c-rational]

18. Well said.

[bdamomma]

39. I am so pissed off

do they think we are that stupid. Senator Whitehouse has been a fighter on this right along regarding dark money and Leonard Leo, Opus Dei influences. Crap that jerk McConnell that bastard, he did this too.

[Blue Idaho]

16. Democracy can withstand a lot of things but

It can’t survive crooked courts. They will distort destroy the intent of the constitution.

[kimbutgar]

17. They are going to vote in his favor

He owns those 6 justices with help from Putin.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

19. I don't care what the Subversive Corrupt Court of the U.S. decides.

It has proven that it ignores the Consitution, law, logic, precedent, and consequences in its quest to advance its extreme ideology. We are a nation under attack so long as this court legislates for RW extremists.

[Bluethroughu]

22. We need 6 more liberal justices.

Pack the court.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. For this thread

[Bluethroughu]

21. Every layman has read it, and what it clearly states and

What it does not state.

Will they wipe their butt with the Constitution or stand strong for the rule of law?

I do not trust judgement, because their bought and paid for RVs, real estate, tuition, trips, parental lifestyles, and significant others' jobs , from their billionaire benefactors making money from cases they will not recuse from.

[William Seger]

25. If they find some reason why Colorado can't keep him off the primary ballot...

... then they damn well better explain how the 14th can be enforced. Just ignoring it is not an option.

[Silent Type]

26. Surprise us. Rule that 14th Amendment is moot because trump is unfit for office and

subject to a firing squad for insurrection.

[AncientOfDays]

27. 3 options

1 - they declare him ineligible
2 - they say doesn't apply to him
or (this is what I think will happen)
3 - they will kick the can down the road - say something else has to be adjudicated/etc.

[C Moon]

29. Gee...what do we think will happen? Nothing. I'm sure the rw bastards were paid off long ago for this.

[Kablooie]

30. The day before Super Tuesday, of course.

I’ll bet the immunity decision won’t come until a day after the election.
That’s if the decision is that he’s not immune.

But they might decide he IS immune from prosecution, yes they might.
Then it will be released much earlier and if Trump wins, he will be totally free from any consequences no matter what he does.
He could even throw Biden in jail, in defiance of this decision, and no one could do anything to him.

[onetexan]

31. Except that Biden is Current POTUS & can throw the Con's ass in jail

You forget any decision on presidential immunity will apply to current POTUS as well.

[The Grand Illuminist]

32. Highly doubt he would throw Biden in jail.

He threatened the same to Hillary. But he never followed through.

[Bucky]

33. The only consolation here is that Trump is probably the most beatable Republican candidate

But the Supreme Court is effectively nullifying the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. That's not within their power. Tactically, it's better for us to have Trump to run against. But chucking the law for convenience's sake is almost as bad as the SCOTUS chucking the Constitution for the sake of loyalty to a fascist cult of personality.

[bdamomma]

40. We will beat

his ass!!!!! but you never know we have now to November, anything can happen. I leave it at that.

[msfiddlestix]

35. As if we didn't already know what these hypocrites'decision will be. n/t

[Kid Berwyn]

36. SCOTUS is corrupt if they don't rule Trump ineligible.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[republianmushroom]

41. It has with no surprise.

[SWBTATTReg]

42. So, if the US Supreme Court (a joke in my mind) declares the Colorado tRUMP can't run void, then when does the

stupid insurrection clause ever take effect? This is WRONG.

[Zeitghost]

44. After a federal conviction of insurrection

Or possibly some other act of Congress.

[SWBTATTReg]

45. According to the verbiage, no conviction is required. And I also am wondering about a morals clause, don't

any of these require at least a standing of good morals?

[Zeitghost]

46. Meeting a congressionally established determination is required

A criminal conviction for a relevant federal crime under a congressionally established law (like the Insurrection Act) would be one way to make that determination. An act of Congress or impeachment conviction would likely be others.

The decision of a state court in a civil trial is not. The Supreme Court, including three outstanding liberal justices made that very clear.