POLL: What will SCOTUS do Re: 14th Amendment?

[HomerJS]

In other words SCOTUS will rule the Constitution is a paper tiger unless the black one did it

 

[Thump553]

I wouldn't put it past this court to try to rule the 14a unconstitutional.
The 14a is the one that guarantees that the Bill of Rights applies to every American at every level of govt. Which is why conservatives hate it so. When they call themselves "Originalists," that's really just codespeak for pre-Reconstruction amendments.

Realistically speaking not a chance in hell. Even if they believed that there is absolutely no reason to make such a drastic ruling. They are going to shank it just enough to make sure Trump is on the ballot everywhere. They will definitely duck the topic as to whether the 14th bars Trump from taking office this time around because he hasn't been elected (yet).

It is a generally well accepted practice of jurisprudence to not decide issues not necessary to actually resolve the case at hand. I will admit that this Court has strayed from that tradition relatively often with their legislating from the bench but I just don't see it happening here.

 

[mikeymikec]

This:

 

[HomerJS]

Trump's lawyer says the quiet part out loud.

Trump Lawyer Slammed For Saying The Quiet Part ‘Out Loud’ On Supreme Court Hopes

Alina Habba cited her “faith” in the court after decisions that kicked the former president off state primary ballots in 2024.

www.huffpost.com

 

[fskimospy]

Trump's lawyer says the quiet part out loud.

Trump Lawyer Slammed For Saying The Quiet Part ‘Out Loud’ On Supreme Court Hopes

Alina Habba cited her “faith” in the court after decisions that kicked the former president off state primary ballots in 2024.

www.huffpost.com

What a moron. If what she’s saying is true she just made it a lot harder for him to put the fix in.

This is what happens when you hire lawyers based on looks, haha.

 

[Greenman]

What a moron. If what she’s saying is true she just made it a lot harder for him to put the fix in.

This is what happens when you hire lawyers based on looks, haha.

The guy that sued me many years back should have hired a pretty attorney. It wouldn't have saved him the $30k, but he'd at least have had something nice to look at while he was being screwed.

 

[nOOky]

I can't get passed the spelling and grammer of the pole, sorry. Punt.

 

[MtnMan]

I can't get passed the spelling and grammer of the pole, sorry. Punt.

The pole?

 

[cytg111]

I can't get passed the spelling and grammer of the pole, sorry. Punt.

Grammer?

Grammer's Automotive Division posts record NAFTA revenue

/PRNewswire/ -- Grammer AG, a global specialist in passenger-vehicle interiors, continued its successful growth trajectory in North America in 2015. Based on...

www.prnewswire.com

 

[HomerJS]

What a moron. If what she’s saying is true she just made it a lot harder for him to put the fix in.

This is what happens when you hire lawyers based on looks, haha.

What a shining example for women.

'I can fake being smart': Trump lawyer Alina Habba says she'd rather be pretty

Donald Trump's attorney wants the public to know her good looks are more important than her intelligence, because she can "fake being smart." “I don’t think I’d be on T.V. or sitting here if I didn’t look the way I look,” Alina Habba said Thursday. “It doesn’t hurt to be good looking.” Habba...

www.rawstory.com

 

[fskimospy]

What a shining example for women.

'I can fake being smart': Trump lawyer Alina Habba says she'd rather be pretty

Donald Trump's attorney wants the public to know her good looks are more important than her intelligence, because she can "fake being smart." “I don’t think I’d be on T.V. or sitting here if I didn’t look the way I look,” Alina Habba said Thursday. “It doesn’t hurt to be good looking.” Habba...

www.rawstory.com

Also apparently she can not fake being smart, haha.

 

[K1052]

What a moron. If what she’s saying is true she just made it a lot harder for him to put the fix in.

This is what happens when you hire lawyers based on looks, haha.

Like the court is almost certainly going to make something up to justify keeping him on the ballot if you just STFU but they aren't smart enough to do that. Expressly stating that the court owes him is not real helpful for his goals and those justices sure don't see it that way. Case in point how his bullshit went over after the election in 2020 where they helped him not one bit.

 

[manly]

EDIT:

ninja'd above

 

[hal2kilo]

Trump's lawyer says the quiet part out loud.

Trump Lawyer Slammed For Saying The Quiet Part ‘Out Loud’ On Supreme Court Hopes

Alina Habba cited her “faith” in the court after decisions that kicked the former president off state primary ballots in 2024.

www.huffpost.com

They're giving Jack a lot of ammunition. Bargain basement lawyers at work.

Trump lawyers' latest filing is only "helping prosecutors" prove their D.C. case: analysis

"Trump lawyers in effect just proved the prosecutors’ point," The Washington Post's Aaron Blake writes.

www.salon.com

 

[Muse]

SCOTUS should refuse to rule period, leave it up to the states to decide. But this court seriously stinks, so...

 

[HomerJS]

My personal prediction, SCOTUS will jettison their so called originalism and keep him on with equal protection. It maintains their corrupt status. Clarence Thomas should recuse because of his wife

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

None of the above. Punt, duck, and hide ~ 9-0 decision he can be on primary ballots, as narrow as possible to get alignment - perhaps along lines:

Making no legal conclusions except any claim that he is unable to "hold" office as a result of being an insurrectionist could still be removed prior to holding office by 2/3 vote of congress, unlike all other eligibility restrictions to holding office, thus he should not be removed from primary ballots at this time for a potentially temporary restriction. (Without bothering to rule on whether or not he can actually hold office without the benefit of such a vote.)

I've been leaning towards this. 14-3 bars one from serving, not from running.

Question becomes, what happens if he gets the votes in November, but SCOTUS rules against him in December?

 

[BoomerD]

There's no rush apparently...but the USSC has agreed to take this issue on...in February.

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

apnews.com

 

[Thump553]

There's no rush apparently...but the USSC has agreed to take this issue on...in February.

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

apnews.com

For the Supreme Court that is near lightning speed. About the only case I can recall where they moved faster was the 5-4 decision where they selected Bush II as President-and in that case the majority decision felt the decision was so rushed that they explicitly stated in the opinion that it should not be cited as precedent in future cases.

Given the fact since the Supreme Court has taken the case, Trump is guaranteed his position on the Colorado primary ballot no matter what the end result is.

What matters at this point is where the billionaires money is going over the next month or so. Will be real interesting if they start breaking with Trump in any meaningful fashion.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

They’re going to interpret the Amendment as it was written, it is to bar Confederates from holding office. Since all the original confederates are now dead the amendment is meaningless.

 

[HomerJS]

Also apparently she can not fake being smart, haha.

Isn't this the same chick who forgot to check a box which didn't allow Trump to have a jury trial?

 

[HomerJS]

They’re going to interpret the Amendment as it was written, it is to bar Confederates from holding office. Since all the original confederates are now dead the amendment is meaningless.

That's not what is says. Is disqualifies anyone who "engaged in an insurrection".

Also, since when can a justice just declare a section of the Constitution meaningless? If that's the case Biden can pack the court and we can nullify 2A.

 

[dank69]

I thought this had to be decided by today to make the 1/5 cutoff for the Colorado primary ballot printing?

 

[pete6032]

I've been leaning towards this. 14-3 bars one from serving, not from running.

Question becomes, what happens if he gets the votes in November, but SCOTUS rules against him in December?

You are correct that it bars people from serving, not running, but could you imagine what would happen if Trump won the election and the Supreme Court ruled him ineligible after he won? It would be a civil war.

 

[HomerJS]

I've been leaning towards this. 14-3 bars one from serving, not from running.

Question becomes, what happens if he gets the votes in November, but SCOTUS rules against him in December?

That doesn't make sense because it means SCOTUS would have been cool with Jefferson Davis running for President.

We are going to let anybody run qualified or not but if they win we will just kick them out of office.