Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off Colorado primary ballot

[Della]

This is kind of an intricate quote to respond to…

On one hand, they seem scary, right? Scary right wingers with sticks and guns…possibly emotionally forcing the Supreme Court to rule in favor of allowing voters to chose their own candidate.

On the other hand, that was probably their goal.

"The Supreme Court said Monday it was avoiding “chaos” by squashing state-level efforts to throw Donald Trump off the ballot."

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/0 ... s-00144834

Exactly,

If they made this decision to avoid chaos, then that chaos would be directly correlated to the freedoms and liberties conservatives view their American rights to be.

If there was a goal to attempt to “rise up” against the government to force them into securing their electoral freedom… they’re going to feel like they won.

When they keep bringing up the founding fathers, this is partly why… because they were the ones that fought back and secured their own freedoms. They like comparing today to back then, and they like thinking they’re acting like the founding fathers would have…

Did you read the entire article?

[Slimshandy]

"The Supreme Court said Monday it was avoiding “chaos” by squashing state-level efforts to throw Donald Trump off the ballot."

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/0 ... s-00144834

Exactly,

If they made this decision to avoid chaos, then that chaos would be directly correlated to the freedoms and liberties conservatives view their American rights to be.

If there was a goal to attempt to “rise up” against the government to force them into securing their electoral freedom… they’re going to feel like they won.

When they keep bringing up the founding fathers, this is partly why… because they were the ones that fought back and secured their own freedoms. They like comparing today to back then, and they like thinking they’re acting like the founding fathers would have…

Did you read the entire article?

I tend to wait to panic until there is panic ensuing. Lol

I’m just not worried.

[WellPreserved]

"A TIME BOMB FOR JAN. 6, 2025?
One possible outcome that the case presented was the prospect of unelected judges disqualifying the man dominating who has already received hundreds of thousands of votes in the nominating process.

But another potential nightmare is that if Congress is the only entity that can determine whether a presidential hopeful is indeed disqualified for engaging in “insurrection,” that it makes that determination on Jan. 6, 2025, when required to certify a possible Trump victory in the presidential election.

The high court shut down the first possibility, but may have left the door open to the second one. The five-justice majority — all from the court’s conservative wing — said Congress can implement Section 3 through legislation, “subject of course to judicial review.” (That means the court reserves for itself the right to have the final say.)

That triggered a dissent from the court’s three liberals, who complained that that “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.”

That would appear to include a rejection of Trump’s electors should he win the election -- but multiple legal experts said Monday that it wasn’t that clear, and the only way to know may be for Congress to try."

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 9db0ff9d2e

Oh joy.

[Della]

"A TIME BOMB FOR JAN. 6, 2025?
One possible outcome that the case presented was the prospect of unelected judges disqualifying the man dominating who has already received hundreds of thousands of votes in the nominating process.

But another potential nightmare is that if Congress is the only entity that can determine whether a presidential hopeful is indeed disqualified for engaging in “insurrection,” that it makes that determination on Jan. 6, 2025, when required to certify a possible Trump victory in the presidential election.

The high court shut down the first possibility, but may have left the door open to the second one. The five-justice majority — all from the court’s conservative wing — said Congress can implement Section 3 through legislation, “subject of course to judicial review.” (That means the court reserves for itself the right to have the final say.)

That triggered a dissent from the court’s three liberals, who complained that that “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.”

That would appear to include a rejection of Trump’s electors should he win the election -- but multiple legal experts said Monday that it wasn’t that clear, and the only way to know may be for Congress to try."

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 9db0ff9d2e

Oh joy.

Oh joy is right.

"Last week, the court agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of a federal ruling that he’s not entitled to immunity from criminal charges for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump’s trial on those charges was originally scheduled to begin Monday, but has been postponed because of the battle over his immunity challenge. The high court taking up his appeal in late April raises the possibility that trial won’t conclude until after the presidential election."