Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[BitterPill]

Good news for Trump!

"Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election," Trump wrote on Truth Social.​

​

"Like Election Interference, it is just another 'trick' being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"​

Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot

Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.

www.newsweek.com

The Supreme MAGA Court will come through.

MAGA.

 

[ASHES]

What will he Truth if he loses?

 

[ScrambledEggs]

I'm no legal scholar but I find it hard to believe that, without a conviction, Trump will be disqualified by the courts

 

[Grand Mal]

What will he Truth if he loses?

He can only lose to judicial corruption.
Like, he can only lose an election to electoral fraud.

 

[Grand Mal]

I'm no legal scholar but I find it hard to believe that, without a conviction, Trump will be disqualified by the courts

Courts being bound to the presumption of innocence, you're probably right.
It's badly worded in the Constitution.

 

[Liberal7360]

Good news for Trump!

"Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election," Trump wrote on Truth Social.​

​

"Like Election Interference, it is just another 'trick' being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"​

Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot

Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.

www.newsweek.com

The Supreme MAGA Court will come through.

MAGA.

I have never believed that trump will be taken off the ballot.

He should be if we had an honest justice system that actually does follow the constitution.

We don't have that so trump will not be taken off any ballot.

I wonder if judge thomas will recuse himself.

 

[Exquisitor]

Good news for Trump!

"Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election," Trump wrote on Truth Social.​

​

"Like Election Interference, it is just another 'trick' being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"​

Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot

Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.

www.newsweek.com

The Supreme MAGA Court will come through.

MAGA.

I'd take him off the ballot before the primary, but not after.

 

[AGENT J]

seems to me IMO there's not a way to disqualify him until he is convicted, its not well worded.
Also in my opinion he should be disqualified based on the "perfect phone call" alone

theres no excuse for that phone call and anybody who tries to defend it is a POS just like Donnie lol


also in the end i have doubts donnie will see prison, he'll appeal or be on house arrest until he dies or he'll flee the country

 

[Ikari]

What will he Truth if he loses?

He won't, the court is stacked enough in his favor.

 

[soylentgreen]

America really does have the most screwed up pretend democracy where nine judges get to decide who your politicians are.

 

[Helix]

It doesn't say "convicted" in the fourteenth amendment. I suppose we'll see how they interpret one of the more clearly worded amendments.

 

[Mycroft]

Good news for Trump!

"Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election," Trump wrote on Truth Social.​

​

"Like Election Interference, it is just another 'trick' being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"​

Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot

Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.

www.newsweek.com

The Supreme MAGA Court will come through.

MAGA.

First of all, that Newsweek headline is fake news.

This is what Castro's petition to the Supremes is about:

​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-117/274783/20230808142352813_20230808-142037-95760458-00000596.pdf

​

It is not about whether Trump can be kicked off any state ballot.

And second, Castro has not had very good results with all of the lower courts he's been to.

​

I see no reason for Castro to get what he wants from the Supremes.

 

[AGENT J]

America really does have the most screwed up pretend democracy where nine judges get to decide who your politicians are.

Democracy is only PART of our constitutional democratic republic, we of course are not a true democracy because that would be chaos . . . .its based on the constitution.
also they don't get to decide who are politicians are, they will be deciding if the current events disqualify a person being president based on the constitution, which is their job (constitutionality)

 

[AGENT J]

It doesn't say "convicted" in the fourteenth amendment. I suppose we'll see how they interpret one of the more clearly worded amendments.

this is true it only says "engages" in right?
but my guess is then the debate for the judges is who oe what set of facts gets to determine that?

basic common sense based of the definitions of words or a legal qualification based on charges and conviction

 

[soylentgreen]

Democracy is only PART of our constitutional democratic republic, we of course are not a true democracy because that would be chaos . . . .its based on the constitution.
also they don't get to decide who are politicians are, they will be deciding if the current events disqualify a person being president based on the constitution, which is their job (constitutionality)

I often get the feeling that somehow you founding fathers based their beliefs on tolkien. You have the nine ring bearers deciding what your laws are and who your politicians are. Which leaves the rest of america as happy little sheeple

 

[justabubba]

Good news for Trump!

"Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election," Trump wrote on Truth Social.​

​

"Like Election Interference, it is just another 'trick' being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"​

Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot

Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.

www.newsweek.com

The Supreme MAGA Court will come through.

MAGA.

the biggest favor the SC could do for the GQP would be to recognize tRump as an ineligible candidate, as joe would win in a second match against tRump

that said, joe and comma-la offer a very weak ticket. a lot of negatives between the two of them. a strong alternative could prevail


unfortunately, the opposition has no other strong candidate at this time. but the SC could force them to find one

 

[AGENT J]

I often get the feeling that somehow you founding fathers based their beliefs on tolkien. You have the nine ring bearers deciding what your laws are and who your politicians are.

you are free to feel that way but theres no facts to support it and that feeling would be based on a fantasy that isnt true

 

[soylentgreen]

you are free to feel that way but theres no facts to support it and that feeling would be based on a fantasy that isnt true

Right! because it was not a bunch of judges who decided that r v w was no good . Or this present stupidity where they get to decide who you can vote for. Bow down to your masters.

 

[Lutherf]

It doesn't say "convicted" in the fourteenth amendment. I suppose we'll see how they interpret one of the more clearly worded amendments.

Are you SURE you want Trump deemed ineligible based on that theory? Are you really sure? I mean, if all it takes is an accusation to get someone deemed ineligible for a given office then we will likely have some issues getting ANYONE on a ballot ever again.

 

[Ethel2]

It doesn't say "convicted" in the fourteenth amendment. I suppose we'll see how they interpret one of the more clearly worded amendments.

As much as I would love to see him off the ballot in the key states (and everywhere else)-something he richly deserves-its not the right thing to do without even a trial. Anyone could allege that someone "gave comfort to the enemy" (or however its worded), but an accusation is not a conviction. Never has been.

 

[The AntiDonald]

He won't, the court is stacked enough in his favor.

The SC has ruled against Trump in every 2020 election case that's come before them. (Correct me if I'm wrong). They are no big fans of Trump. The judges owe him nothing.

 

[Gaius46]

He won't, the court is stacked enough in his favor.

I disagree. The justices are beholden to their method of constitutional interpretation but they have not shown themselves to being beholden to Trump.

On the other hand absent a finding of fact that he committed insurrection I cannot see how the court could rule that the 14th applies here.

 

[AGENT J]

Right!

correct

because it was not a bunch of judges who decided that r v w was no good .

who said that didnt happen? but thanks for example further proving your claim wrong, thats not a law or a candidate, that was the constitutionality of a ruling.
seems the issue is you really dont understand

Or this present stupidity where they get to decide who you can vote for. Bow down to your masters.

no matter how many times you make this claim its factually not happening lol

 

[The AntiDonald]

Are you SURE you want Trump deemed ineligible based on that theory? Are you really sure? I mean, if all it takes is an accusation to get someone deemed ineligible for a given office then we will likely have some issues getting ANYONE on a ballot ever again.

No way. The accusation will be about insurrection or rebellion surrounding Jan. 6th. How many other presidents or candidates can you remember being caught up in something like this?

 

[soylentgreen]

correct

who said that didnt happen? but thanks for example further proving your claim wrong, thats not a law or a candidate, that was the constitutionality of a ruling.
seems the issue is you really dont understand

no matter how many times you make this claim its factually not happening lol

I do understand it was by your out of date and worthless constitution that judges get to make your decisions for you.

One would hope it will not happen because nine unelected judges should not have that kind of power. But I would not bet money on it not happening.