US Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president - The case will be heard in February and the ruling will apply nationwide.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1704500844952.png

The US Supreme Court has said it will hear a historic case to determine if Donald Trump can run for president.

The justices agreed to take up Mr Trump's appeal against a decision by Colorado to remove him from the 2024 ballot in that state.

The case will be heard in February and the ruling will apply nationwide.

Lawsuits in a number of states are seeking to disqualify Mr Trump, arguing that he engaged in insurrection during the US Capitol riot three years ago.

The legal challenges hinge on whether a Civil War-era constitutional amendment renders Mr Trump ineligible to stand as a candidate.

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office, but the former president's lawyers argue it does not apply to the president.

His lawyers have argued: "The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide."

Mr Trump has also appealed against a decision by electoral officials in Maine to remove him from the ballot.

The split 4-3 decision by Colorado's high court last month marks the first time in US history that the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot.

This is the first time the Supreme Court will consider how to interpret the clause.

Mr Trump is the current Republican front-runner for a likely rematch against President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in this November's election.

Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have dismissed attempts to disqualify Mr Trump. Other cases, including in Oregon, are pending.

The US Supreme Court has a conservative majority - with three justices appointed by Mr Trump when he was president.

But they overwhelmingly ruled against him in his lawsuits challenging his defeat to Mr Biden in 2020.

The court on Friday agreed to take up the case in an expedited manner, with oral arguments scheduled for 8 February.

Mr Trump's legal team is due to file their opening brief by 18 January.

The group arguing for Mr Trump's disqualification must submit its argument by 31 January.

The involvement of the top US court has drawn comparisons to the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, which ended in a lawsuit at the Supreme Court.

The conservative-majority court's decision to halt Florida's vote recount essentially handed victory to Mr Bush.

University of Richmond Professor Cart Tobias says the "exceptionally fast track" was "predictable and necessitated by the growing number of cases being filed in various states around the country".

With state primary elections fast approaching, there is a "compelling need for election officials in many states to prepare" and also they "need for time to plan and execute smooth voting processes on short notice".

Cases at the Supreme Court normally take between four and 12 months - in contrast with the few weeks that justices have currently scheduled.

The timeline makes it likely that the court will issue a ruling ahead of the Super Tuesday primary election in March, when Colorado and many other states hold their election to decide on each party's candidate for president.

On the day of the US Capitol riot, supporters of Mr Trump stormed Congress as lawmakers were certifying Mr Biden's election victory.

That day the then-president held a rally outside the White House where he repeated false claims of mass election fraud as he urged protesters to "fight like hell", but also to march "peacefully" to the Capitol.

Mr Trump's critics argue that he should be disqualified not only for his actions during the riot, but for his and his campaign's efforts to overturn the lection result in Republican-aligned states that he lost.

While Mr Trump's alleged efforts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 presidential election are the focus of trials in federal court and a state court in Georgia, he has not been criminally charged with inciting insurrection in either case.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899435 (Archive)
 
He can still RUN; his name is just removed from Colorado's and Maine's ballots. I hate clickbait.
From what I've read, he could run but if he was elected he wouldn't be able to take office. The law isn't about appearing on the ballot, but taking federal office.

Which makes it even more confusing.

I hope the SC looks at this and within a couple minutes says, "you're committing a bloodless coup. Stop that. This isn't (insert third world shithole)."
 
A lot of people predict they will rule against barring him from being able to run for the presidency but what if they don't?
 
Last edited:
The US Supreme Court has a conservative majority - with three justices appointed by Mr Trump when he was president.
This is why elections still matter.

In any case I think it's a huge stretch to apply this amendment to Trump given its origins in an actual civil war that killed 700,000 Americans. Even if the J6 rioters somehow ransacked all of DC they still would have never threatened the operation of the federal government. They're not really any different from the Bonus Army.
 
Last edited:
but the US supreme court does not have the power to deem such a thing legal or not

A lot of people predict they will rule against barring him from being able to run for the presidency but what if they don't?
nothing changes. biden or another democrat dictator gets appointed again. we already know what happens fromt here
 
If they really want Trump not to win again, just let him run and then claim record turnout for Biden at 100 million instead of 90 million.
That's why it's still important to get out and vote because if we can force more Biden votes than the U.S. population, then they'll have to do something. Right?

Right?
 
A lot of people predict they will rule against barring him from being able to run for the presidency but what if they don't?


If they rule against Trump I can't see any reason to meaningfully participate in the country. I basically would no longer have a voice in my democracy.

I don't know what that means. I can't see me doing gayops with some Illinois Nazi larpers and I don't want to go to jail for not paying taxes cause you can't fight that. Leaving would be the best option but since there's no other country I could think of I could call "home" that would recognize me as a real citizen and has values that speak to me, the only option is some nihilistic expat exile somewhere. If I were younger I'd just move to Antarctica and work there. I guess I could go Uncle Ted and live in the woods.

At the very least, it will be some form of "quiet qutting" my part in society.
 
Back
Top Bottom