Trump Wins Supreme Court decision

Kamala Trump

Kamala Trump

Verified User
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ide-if-trump-is-eligible-to-run-for-president


LISTEN: Supreme Court questions efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot
Politics Updated on Feb 8, 2024 3:57 PM EST — Published on Feb 5, 2024 6:57 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems poised to reject attempts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.

Listen to the court arguments in the player above.

A definitive ruling for Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president, would largely end efforts in Colorado, Maine and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

Conservative and liberal justices alike questioned during arguments Thursday whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, ending with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

READ MORE: A quick guide to the Supreme Court case on Trump’s ballot eligibility

Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”

The outcome could reflect a broad consensus of the court, and it could come quickly.

Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.
 
Blazed Pascal said:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ide-if-trump-is-eligible-to-run-for-president


LISTEN: Supreme Court questions efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot
Politics Updated on Feb 8, 2024 3:57 PM EST — Published on Feb 5, 2024 6:57 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems poised to reject attempts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.

Listen to the court arguments in the player above.

A definitive ruling for Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president, would largely end efforts in Colorado, Maine and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

Conservative and liberal justices alike questioned during arguments Thursday whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, ending with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

READ MORE: A quick guide to the Supreme Court case on Trump’s ballot eligibility

Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”

The outcome could reflect a broad consensus of the court, and it could come quickly.

Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.
Click to expand...

It doesnt bode well for the evil anti trump leftists if kagan is wondering such things.
 
Yakuda said:
It doesnt bode well for the evil anti trump leftists if kagan is wondering such things.
Click to expand...

What you say is something a stupid person thinks.

All Justices should wonder and question most propositions posed to them. That is part of their job. They are to pose question and seek to test the replies.

The response to Kagan's question “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.” is not a difficult one and could have been instantly deflated by pointing out currently, the TYT boss Cenk Uygur is trying to get on State ballots to run for POTUS despite not being born in America. He is challenging whether that is Constitutional or not.

A few States, such as below have looked at the eligibility criteria and determined he is not eligible, by their assessment. So the question back to Kagan is 'are they wrong to do so'? Or do we accept it can and will be done and then if that person disallowed disagrees they can take it to court. Meaning there is no question the State should be allowed to make the assessment and a person still has a right to take them to court over it.

Arkansas rules online news personality Cenk Uygur won’t qualify for Democratic presidential primary
Click to expand...
 
The SCOTUS rendered a decision?

Of course they are going to throw it out, it is reach to begin with, there is nothing earth shattering
 
Blazed Pascal said:
which facts presented are in err?
Click to expand...

It is not creditable news because it is presented in an entirely biased and distorted manner and the views of the commentator are clear. Claiming Biden gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy is ridiculous.

Nobody who wants to be informed depends on partisan sources for information. Those are for people looking for ammunition to attack their political enemies.
 
Flash said:
It is not creditable news because it is presented in an entirely biased and distorted manner and the views of the commentator are clear. Claiming Biden gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy is ridiculous.

Nobody who wants to be informed depends on partisan sources for information. Those are for people looking for ammunition to attack their political enemies.
Click to expand...

which fact is wrong?
 
Blazed Pascal said:
which fact is wrong?
Click to expand...

That Biden gave aid and comfort to Iran. But, you missed my point. I said "YouTube is not "news." That does not mean there was any false information, but that it is not creditable news. It is more tabloid sensationalism with a biased, partisan commentator.
 
Flash said:
That Biden gave aid and comfort to Iran. But, you missed my point. I said "YouTube is not "news." That does not mean there was any false information, but that it is not creditable news. It is more tabloid sensationalism with a biased, partisan commentator.
Click to expand...

he did.

and which fact is wrong?
 
Blazed Pascal said:
he did.

and which fact is wrong?
Click to expand...

I already explained. Iran is not an enemy (we are not at war). It was an exchange. Thus, false information was included in the video. But, it is not creditable news but tabloid sensationalism designed for those who don't want to read.
 
Flash said:
I already explained. Iran is not an enemy (we are not at war). It was an exchange. Thus, false information was included in the video. But, it is not creditable news but tabloid sensationalism designed for those who don't want to read.
Click to expand...

many beg to differ.
 
QP! said:
What you say is something a stupid person thinks.

All Justices should wonder and question most propositions posed to them. That is part of their job. They are to pose question and seek to test the replies.

The response to Kagan's question “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.” is not a difficult one and could have been instantly deflated by pointing out currently, the TYT boss Cenk Uygur is trying to get on State ballots to run for POTUS despite not being born in America. He is challenging whether that is Constitutional or not.

A few States, such as below have looked at the eligibility criteria and determined he is not eligible, by their assessment. So the question back to Kagan is 'are they wrong to do so'? Or do we accept it can and will be done and then if that person disallowed disagrees they can take it to court. Meaning there is no question the State should be allowed to make the assessment and a person still has a right to take them to court over it.
Click to expand...

cenk is an idiot and so are you.

:truestory:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top