I predict the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot (Page 15): The point is the Supreme Court had no reason or basis to support trump.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

The point is the Supreme Court had no reason or basis to support trump. The Colorado ruling followed Colorado law and that Colorado law did not violate any federal law.

LinksUp

Triple G wrote:

They gave abortion rules back to states with less clear 14A constitutional textual content; what makes you think they wouldn't be consistent and do the same with voting rules?

I have no idea how the SC will rule on this case. Using abortion or any other ruling for that matter as your predictor of future rulings is not a wise course.

Triple G

LinksUp wrote:

I have no idea how the SC will rule on this case. Using abortion or any other ruling for that matter as your predictor of future rulings is not a wise course.

I believe SCOTUS will be consistent on "states authority"! They will lose even more credibility if they are not consistent. It's a very good predictor.

LinksUp

Triple G wrote:

I believe SCOTUS will be consistent on "states authority"! They will lose even more credibility if they are not consistent. It's a very good predictor.

I don’t believe they will throw it back to the states. This is a case of objective, in my opinion, facts. Unlike abortion. Throwing it back to the states would require 50 separate ruling before primaries. Not realistic. One ruling from the SC and done.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

LinksUp wrote:

You are so obtuse. Can you not make the connection? You are advocating exactly what they are doing in this film. Arrest and convict on events that have not happened. So maybe it is not fiction in your world.

Events that have not happened?

I'll ask a question I asked earlier today.

Where were you on January 6, 2021, playing Rip Van Winkle?

The world watched as the trump cult members broke into the US Capitol Building, tried to stop the certification of the Electoral College votes, and were looking to hang Mike Pence.

trump tried to overturn a free and fair election illegally to remain in office.

For over THREE HOURS members of the trump inner circle, members of the House and Senate, as well as his family members tried in vain to get trump to tell the Insurrectionists to leave the US Capitol Building. By the way, they wouldn't let trump go live, it took multiple attempts to get an acceptable recording of trump telling his cult members to leave.

Since then trump has openly admitted that he wants to be a dictator!

How hard is it for you to connect the dots?

Triple G

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

Events that have not happened? br br I'll ask a ... (show quote)

Trump is now saying that Twitter prevented him from calling on the Insurrection Act on 1/6. I guess he knows that's what to call it. His lawyers are now the ones throwing catsup at the walls!

Triple G

LinksUp wrote:

I don’t believe they will throw it back to the states. This is a case of objective, in my opinion, facts. Unlike abortion. Throwing it back to the states would require 50 separate ruling before primaries. Not realistic. One ruling from the SC and done.

That was the original thought process/strategy for Roe v Wade. States could be more lenient than Row V Wade rules; just not more restrictive. Current SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade in favor of State determination. For them to reverse themselves on that premise would be inconsistent.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

LinksUp wrote:

I don’t believe they will throw it back to the states. This is a case of objective, in my opinion, facts. Unlike abortion. Throwing it back to the states would require 50 separate ruling before primaries. Not realistic. One ruling from the SC and done.

why unrealistic? There is no authority in the constitution concerning abortion . Likewise there is nothing in the constitution that even talks about primary elections.

It’s the law that matters not ether in an opinion it’s realistic or not.

Right ?

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

That's a very long shot and you know it!

Long shot or not, where would you go if Trump is elected? Or are you full of hot air just like all the celebrities who said they would leave the country if Trump was elected. Not one left in 2020. So please tell us where you think would be better than the USA if Trump gets elected?

LinksUp

There it is. Just like I predicated. The SC unanimously sided with President Trump in his challenge to the state of Colorado's attempt to kick him off the 2024 primary ballot. Any ruling by any State SC is in violation of a SC ruling.

The SC concluded that "States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."

You can now take your hand wringing and pearl clutching fervor and apply it to the next "made up" problem you have with Trump.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

LinksUp wrote:

There it is. Just like I predicated. The SC b una... (show quote)

The Sc had no choice, if it had gone the other way there

would have been rioting and looting in the streets of every city.

LinksUp

Kraken wrote:

The Sc had no choice, if it had gone the other way there

would have been rioting and looting in the streets of every city.

Not a problem. I'm sure they would have been mostly "peaceful" riots.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

LinksUp wrote:

Not a problem. I'm sure they would have been mostly "peaceful" riots.

You are such a dreamer.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Kraken wrote:

The Sc had no choice, if it had gone the other way there

would have been rioting and looting in the streets of every city.

They have three choices.
1. Say trump is eligible
2. Say trump is not eligible
Or
3. Say it is a state decision since primaries have nothing to with federal government or federal law .

In my opinion the correct answer is number 3. For the court to decide. Numbers 2 or 3 would be taking a position on trumps guilt in the insurrection and that decision. And that is still in court .

Either 1 or 2 would be purely political .

Just an opinion

LinksUp

DennyT wrote:

They have three choices.
1. Say trump is eligible
2. Say trump is not eligible
Or
3. Say it is a state decision since primaries have nothing to with federal government or federal law .

In my opinion the correct answer is number 3. For the court to decide. Numbers 2 or 3 would be taking a position on trumps guilt in the insurrection and that decision. And that is still in court .

Either 1 or 2 would be purely political .

Just an opinion

Please re-read the posts above this. What you are suggesting is unrealistic and impossible. You are really suggesting that every Presidential candidate has to be "authorized or allowed" to run by each and every state? That's not political? Wow. What rock are living under? Can you imagine the red tape you would have to navigate to get on all 50 + DC primary ballots? Again wow.

What if one state does not allow it? Does that invalidate that person from running? How about two? Who gets to draw that line?

You should be working in DC. You'd make a great bureaucrat.