US Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off any ballot - The 9-0 decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states could bar Trump from state ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

1709565075620.png

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a Colorado court ruling that said former President Donald Trump was ineligible to run for office again because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

The court in an unsigned ruling with no dissents reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced. As such the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado.

"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.

The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado, the decision will li similar cases that have arisen. So far only two other states, Maine and Illinois, have followed Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions were put on hold.

The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election results, including his exhortation that his supporters should march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to formalize President Joe Biden's win.

Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on Trump's broad claim of presidential immunity.

The Colorado court based its Dec. 19 ruling on section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various federal offices.

The provision was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to power in the U.S. government.

The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.

The state high court’s decision reversed a lower court’s ruling in which a judge said Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are not an “officer of the United States.”

Trump and his allies raised that point as well as other arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.

Republicans, including Trump’s primary opponents, broadly supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a partisan weapon.

The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.

They alleged in court papers that Trump “intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.”

Colorado is one of more than a dozen states that has its primary election on Tuesday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...rump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291 (Archive)
 
Literally pissed. Hahah this is hilarious.
Hope you got an archive of the "political whores" one. Keith is deleting the fuck out of that when he has a moment of clarity given the dragging Leftist Twitter is going to give him for that.

Unsurprising result, however no doubt they'll be limbering up to argue more on less obvious cases.
 
Hope you got an archive of the "political whores" one. Keith is deleting the fuck out of that when he has a moment of clarity given the dragging Leftist Twitter is going to give him for that.
When is the last time Olbermann had a moment of clarity or even slightly less schizoposting?
 
This was expected and it's a not surprising to anyone but all the blackpill faggots and the leftist retards that actually believed Trump could be legitimately kept off the ballots. The fact that it's unanimous 9-0 vote means the idiots who attempted to remove Trump from the ballots just got a serious rebuke. The SCOTUS basically said they are a morons and to knock their stupid shit off. It was never going to turnout any other way. It just wasn't possible. Even California didn't go along with this stupid BS. It was mostly done by niggers and white women. One of the Trump legal cases that made its way to SCOTUS will happen in April. I imagine it will also go Trumps way.

This shit was set to fail from the start.


UofCMGd.gif
 
Last edited:
Trump was vaguely aware of her at that time in that location that he could of done it therefore guilty?
We don't know when it happened or where, and Trump's objections over this were rejected. He was asked to disprove her statements that somewhere in the world at some unknown time he maybe raped her, or maybe just fingered her without being allowed to question a single bit of her story. Jury didn't believe the first bit, but they bought the second one
Didn't the judge went for the muh defamation route cuz mean xeets?
Yes, and legislature specifically changed laws just for her because his words were past statutes of limitations, and she couldn't sue.
 
We don't know when it happened or where, and Trump's objections over this were rejected. He was asked to disprove her statements that somewhere in the world at some unknown time he maybe raped her, or maybe just fingered her without being allowed to question a single bit of her story. Jury didn't believe the first bit, but they bought the second one

Yes, and legislature specifically changed laws just for her because his words were past statutes of limitations, and she couldn't sue.

The whole thing is absurd, and feeds into this delusional woman's ego about herself - Trump was banging super models in the 1990s, but he raped some over the hill 50 year old? Give me a break, you'd have to be an idiot to believe it.

At some point though, liberals came to believe that stopping Trump was more important than truth, or the law. You could just vote 'guilty' because you didn't like him.
 
This ruling will be tossed out. Americans won't do shit. More at 8.
The judicial branch has no power of its own over implementation of enforcement of its rulings and is thus dependent on the other two branches to make this happen, relying on the executive to enforce its decisions and on the legislature to fund it.
 
Haven't they been gunning for more justices on the Supreme Court ever since Brandon was wheeled into the White House?
They've been threatening a lot of things: impeaching judges on bullshit charges to basically purge the conservatives off the court, threatening to expand/pack the courts, and forcing term limits to be instituted retroactively to purge the conservatives off the courts.

A lot of it has been sabre rattling, playing off Roberts being an optics cuck who is still suffering from PTSD from Citizen's United getting him branded worse than Tawney (the guy who ruled slaves have no rights in the Dredd Scott case) and the precedent that was FDR successfully threatening to pack the court with FDR loyalist judges to bully the Supreme Court into rubber stamping his New Deal programs rather than rule them unconstitutional.

But once the split went from 5-4 to 6-3 conservative (rendering Roberts irrelevant), combined with the Supreme Court being filled with people who REALLY REALLY don't like the DNC and Biden, they've grown something of a spine and called the Democrats and Biden's bluff to try and fuck with them via purge or court packing and they've sort of back down due to them realizing it's a fight the left won't win.
 
They've been threatening a lot of things: impeaching judges on bullshit charges to basically purge the conservatives off the court, threatening to expand/pack the courts, and forcing term limits to be instituted retroactively to purge the conservatives off the courts.

A lot of it has been sabre rattling, playing off Roberts being an optics cuck who is still suffering from PTSD from Citizen's United getting him branded worse than Tawney (the guy who ruled slaves have no rights in the Dredd Scott case) and the precedent that was FDR successfully threatening to pack the court with FDR loyalist judges to bully the Supreme Court into rubber stamping his New Deal programs rather than rule them unconstitutional.


But once the split went from 5-4 to 6-3 conservative (rendering Roberts irrelevant), combined with the Supreme Court being filled with people who REALLY REALLY don't like the DNC and Biden, they've grown something of a spine and called the Democrats and Biden's bluff to try and fuck with them via purge or court packing and they've sort of back down due to them realizing it's a fight the left won't win.
Well, he IS worse than Tawney. He let the Supreme Court become politicized by refusing to examine the veracity of the 2020 election. Thus, he weakened the legitimacy of the Court for the rest of his life.
 
Back