What I fail to hear argued anywhere is that Colorado banning him from the primary ballot due to his insurrectioning has no impact on Utah, Idaho, Kansas, etc. which make their own decisions as to ballot qualification in their state.
Every state has some sort of ballot qualification. Colorado didn't rule that Trump was disqualified for national office, just on their ballot.
He could still be elected without Colorado's electoral college votes.
Former President Bonespurs gets a new deferment. Just like the old deferment, this one lets him shit on the "losers" who gave their lives so he could live free and clear of accountability for anything. Congress will fix it...never. Does never work for you?
Ta, Marcie. I've been saying it for ages: thirteen circuits, thirteen justices. Let's turn out the vote in overwhelming numbers so we can make that happen.
1. When SCOTUS declined to hear the issue of TFG’s “absolute Presidential immunity” (API) defense in December 2023, they didn’t kick the case back to the “Third Circuit,” as stated n this article. Rather, it was heard by a 3-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, because the case is pending in DC.
2. SCOTUS will almost certainly issue its opinion on the API defense by June, as its term ends on June 30, and Clairence Thomas has some lavish vacations he needs to go on with his dear friends.
3. Judge LooseCannon isn’t “sitting down on the docket” for August in the FL documents case. No new scheduling order has been entered (I just checked the docket). You don’t cite a source for that proposition, so I don’t know where you got that information. It is true that the parties have suggested various new dates to continue the current May 20 trial setting: Jack Smith wants July 8; TFG and De Oliveira reluctantly suggested August 12, although they argued extensively that it shouldn’t go to trial before the November election (or preferably never); and Nauta proffered September 9, because his counsel is allegedly unavailable due to “Personal Reasons” from August 5-23. But until LooseCannon issues a new scheduling order, we don’t know what she’ll do (although I highly doubt it will be anything good).
I appreciate Wonkette’s coverage of these issues, with bonus snark, but facts and details matter.
I can't fault the liberal justices for actually doing the right thing and following the law, but I still wonder what would the result have been if the parties were reversed. Of course I don't recall a time when a modern Democrat was an insurrectionists or believe in a fictional world where a case like Bush V Gore could exist.
When Ken Blackwell was Ohio Secretary of State, he was the deciding vote in any deadlocked County Board of Elections issue (two Democrats and two Republicans). There were two cases where the only facts involved that were different were the names of the candidates, their party affiliation, and the name of the County Board of Elections.
When a Yes tiebreaking vote benefited the Republican candidate, he voted yes. When a Yes tiebreaking vote benefited the Democrat, he voted no.
Oh, funny. It seems the PDF metadata gives away that the liberal justices initially dissented from an earlier ruling. One wonders what convinced them to change their mind.
And who on Earth keeps such sensitive information in PDFs.
Ultimately, this means nothing. Trump lost Colorado in 2016 and 2020, and I'll be married to Taylor Swift before he wins in 2024. Upside: It's just another state in his loss column and ten more electoral votes (up one from 2020) for Dark Brandon.
How absurdly stupid are you to think that anyone - especially a former president who had the previous election stolen from him - can be removed from a presidential ballot for exercising their 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression? Good grief, you Libs are the worst. To you, what you want trumps (pun intended) even the Constitution.
I really, truly hope that Congress and the (noncomplicit) Courts will Take Steps to nullify whatever cheats Trump and the GOP have planned for when Trump loses the popular vote (and, I hope, the Electoral College vote). Given Trump’s inability to accept any loss, and the GOP’s dash toward authoritarian rule, cheating to maintain/gain power is almost guaranteed to happen.
we got the hush money porn star michael cohen case. which is honestly my favorite because it's so delightfully tawdry (if not exciting to the Legal Pundit Class). i mean, you go to war with the army you have right?
thank you donald rumsfeld and suck it legal pundits!
What I fail to hear argued anywhere is that Colorado banning him from the primary ballot due to his insurrectioning has no impact on Utah, Idaho, Kansas, etc. which make their own decisions as to ballot qualification in their state.
Every state has some sort of ballot qualification. Colorado didn't rule that Trump was disqualified for national office, just on their ballot.
He could still be elected without Colorado's electoral college votes.
We have ceased even trying to be a democracy.
Apparently, they're now shaking a tin cup at Congress to give them more money to build walls around their houses.
I guess Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow's generosity only goes so far.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/05/supreme-court-justices-increased-security-threats/72850654007/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%88%92%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20has,administers%20the%20federal%20courts%20system.
Former President Bonespurs gets a new deferment. Just like the old deferment, this one lets him shit on the "losers" who gave their lives so he could live free and clear of accountability for anything. Congress will fix it...never. Does never work for you?
Ta, Marcie. I've been saying it for ages: thirteen circuits, thirteen justices. Let's turn out the vote in overwhelming numbers so we can make that happen.
Several corrections:
1. When SCOTUS declined to hear the issue of TFG’s “absolute Presidential immunity” (API) defense in December 2023, they didn’t kick the case back to the “Third Circuit,” as stated n this article. Rather, it was heard by a 3-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, because the case is pending in DC.
2. SCOTUS will almost certainly issue its opinion on the API defense by June, as its term ends on June 30, and Clairence Thomas has some lavish vacations he needs to go on with his dear friends.
3. Judge LooseCannon isn’t “sitting down on the docket” for August in the FL documents case. No new scheduling order has been entered (I just checked the docket). You don’t cite a source for that proposition, so I don’t know where you got that information. It is true that the parties have suggested various new dates to continue the current May 20 trial setting: Jack Smith wants July 8; TFG and De Oliveira reluctantly suggested August 12, although they argued extensively that it shouldn’t go to trial before the November election (or preferably never); and Nauta proffered September 9, because his counsel is allegedly unavailable due to “Personal Reasons” from August 5-23. But until LooseCannon issues a new scheduling order, we don’t know what she’ll do (although I highly doubt it will be anything good).
I appreciate Wonkette’s coverage of these issues, with bonus snark, but facts and details matter.
I can't fault the liberal justices for actually doing the right thing and following the law, but I still wonder what would the result have been if the parties were reversed. Of course I don't recall a time when a modern Democrat was an insurrectionists or believe in a fictional world where a case like Bush V Gore could exist.
When Ken Blackwell was Ohio Secretary of State, he was the deciding vote in any deadlocked County Board of Elections issue (two Democrats and two Republicans). There were two cases where the only facts involved that were different were the names of the candidates, their party affiliation, and the name of the County Board of Elections.
When a Yes tiebreaking vote benefited the Republican candidate, he voted yes. When a Yes tiebreaking vote benefited the Democrat, he voted no.
Following the law *according to their analysis and convictions*. They're not oracles.
Several judges in Colorado and other places have come to different conclusions. As well as constitutional law experts.
Not even 8-1? JFC
Oh, funny. It seems the PDF metadata gives away that the liberal justices initially dissented from an earlier ruling. One wonders what convinced them to change their mind.
And who on Earth keeps such sensitive information in PDFs.
https://twitter.com/jakehalloran1/status/1764723282954043424
Our fabled “rule of law” is in the toilet.
Has been since Bush v. Gore.
Sure am looking forward to my vote not counting this November!
The SCOTUS can always be counted on to slow or speed things up on behalf of former president Dumpster Butt.
Ultimately, this means nothing. Trump lost Colorado in 2016 and 2020, and I'll be married to Taylor Swift before he wins in 2024. Upside: It's just another state in his loss column and ten more electoral votes (up one from 2020) for Dark Brandon.
How absurdly stupid are you to think that anyone - especially a former president who had the previous election stolen from him - can be removed from a presidential ballot for exercising their 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression? Good grief, you Libs are the worst. To you, what you want trumps (pun intended) even the Constitution.
The rest of us learned that not ALL attention is GOOD attention before our fifth birthday.
Too bad about you.
You misspelled stollen.
I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to rule on things Congress was doing, not the other way 'round. That'll teach ME to think!
I really, truly hope that Congress and the (noncomplicit) Courts will Take Steps to nullify whatever cheats Trump and the GOP have planned for when Trump loses the popular vote (and, I hope, the Electoral College vote). Given Trump’s inability to accept any loss, and the GOP’s dash toward authoritarian rule, cheating to maintain/gain power is almost guaranteed to happen.
Damn
I guess I still can't wrap my head around the fact that nothing is going to happen.
(Probably already posted by 138 people by now)
we got the hush money porn star michael cohen case. which is honestly my favorite because it's so delightfully tawdry (if not exciting to the Legal Pundit Class). i mean, you go to war with the army you have right?
thank you donald rumsfeld and suck it legal pundits!
It is also, I believe, a criminal rather than a civil case.