Where does the Constitution say that? |
And yet we do have laws and rules and people whose job it is to enforce them so that democracy is less messy. |
It's right there next to "insurrection is okay if the guy is popular enough and unscrupulous enough". |
It's funny how these considerations that political actors might act in bad faith don't figure into other SCOTUS decisions on voting issues. They certainly didn't seem to care that politicians might abuse gerrymandering to their own partisan advantage when they were deciding whether partisan gerrymandering was constitutional. They didn't care that politicians who had historically discriminated against blacks in voting might start doing it again before they struck down the VRA's pre-clearance requirement. |
It is very likely. Lots of left leaning news shows and talks shows have tried to talk up the likelihood of Colorado’s position being upheld. This was always a very fringe position. This is one of the moments when you should question whether the people you listen to are real critical thinkers who are telling you accurate things or whether they are telling you what they want the truth to be or are straight up bamboozling you so that you feel like the Supreme Court is somehow crooked. A 9-0 decision or even an 8-1 decision should shut they door. |
Republicans can't win without legal challenges, cheating, and suppressing vote. Started to be visible with Bush v. Gore and has gone downhill since then. . . |
I think so too. Extremely bummed about this. He is such an unAmerican, unpatriotic, dangerous person. If we can't keep him off the ballot, what is the point of being a country of laws? Why argue about an open border if we let a man like him get elected AGAIN? |
It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point. |
Which by the current standards would be an insurrection. |
I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified. Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution. |
I agree the constitution is clear on this. But I'm a realist about how SCOTUS decisions actually get made. The actual constitution is an afterthought. |
So much for denying cert
Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case Updated 1:14 PM EST February 8, 2024 CNN The Supreme Court signaled Thursday it is poised to back former President Donald Trump and fend off a blockbuster challenge to his eligibility to appear on Colorado’s ballot. During about two hours of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and the high court’s other conservative justices peppered the lawyers representing Trump’s challengers with a series of questions that suggested they were seeking a way to side with the former president – most likely based on reasoning that doesn’t address the question of whether he is or isn’t an insurrectionist. |
This means Obama can ran again and become president? |
I think the most annoying part is not that the SC will disqualify Trump, but when it doesn’t, how petulant and btch-like his Truth Social or X posts will be. He’ll use a bunch of capitalized words out of place. And scream “WITCHUNT” and so forth and normal people will have to basically see this. I don’t see how evangelicals believe trump is some kind of flawed messenger of God. I don’t understand how seemingly normal people can lionize trump. |
It sure seems like they are going to say that constitutional qualifications for president cannot be enforced by states. And since there's no federal statute allowing for such challenges, they are effectively unenforceable. So yes, even though Obama is ineligible, he can run and win again. |