They sorta kicked him off the ballot. However:
If he appeals by January 4, he's still on the ballot. He's probably going to do that.
If he appeals by January 4, he's still on the ballot. He's probably going to do that.
Traitor Watch - The 45 & 47 Thread
- Thread starter Wheelimus
- Start date
I'm honestly torn on this. On the one hand, Trump would love Mein Kampf. It's right up his alley. On the other hand, I'd be genuinely surprised if he ever read any books.
Trump doesn't even read the stuff that's written for him to spew on the population. I genuinely wonder how he even got "poisoning the blood of the nation" in the first place.
One of the white supremacists he hangs out with must have mentioned it to him.
It's Stephen Miller. Guaranteed.
It's not "if he appeals" (although of course he will), it's if the Supreme Court takes it up (although I concede that, also, is all-but certain).
I will certainly concede that they've gone against him a couple of times, but hardly enough for me to agree with this.
That said, agreement with Trump isn't the issue here. They're all-but certain to take up the case, one way or the other, because it's simply too big for them not to. They may well rule against him (although I'm not taking bets on that), but either way, they'll take up the case.
Realistically, there's three outcomes. They take it and rule against trump, they take it and rule for trump, or they deny it and it gets picked up a lower appeals court.
But given the statements already made by lower courts: if they take it up at all (as opposed to just issuing a summary ruling or denying it.) they functionally have to find against trump because finding FOR trump 1.) is a supreme court ruling in favour of authoritarianism, and 2.) a statement that these judges in particular don't feel a need to remain employed, and let's let the fascist create a government which renders them obsolete.
Tyrants don't USE courts, and no one directly votes against their own paycheques.
But given the statements already made by lower courts: if they take it up at all (as opposed to just issuing a summary ruling or denying it.) they functionally have to find against trump because finding FOR trump 1.) is a supreme court ruling in favour of authoritarianism, and 2.) a statement that these judges in particular don't feel a need to remain employed, and let's let the fascist create a government which renders them obsolete.
Tyrants don't USE courts, and no one directly votes against their own paycheques.
Guess you, and most of America, has forgotten that SCOTUS already did answer this question. And it was an astonishing "Yeah we don't interfere with States issues".
Ironbite-which is why he tried the coup in 2020.
If it gets handed to a lower court, and they find against him, Trump's lawyers will just appeal it back up to SCOTUS anyway. Just taking it up now would save time in the long run. But running out the clock and going for office is Trump's whole plan anyway, so.....
SCOTUS does have a long standing bias in favor of states rights, but no, they haven't ruled on this kind of thing, no matter what you might think.
Rudy Giuliani files for bankruptcy after $148m defamation verdict
The filing comes days after the longtime Trump associate was ordered to pay the sum in a defamation case.
www.bbc.co.uk
Trump recorded pressuring Wayne County canvassers not to certify 2020 vote
Trump pressured two canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News.
www.detroitnews.com
Add it to the list.
Supreme Court sidesteps decision on Trump presidential immunity claim in federal election interference case
Trump is claiming broad immunity for actions he took in office, including efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results for which he faces prosecution.
www.nbcnews.com
Shock.
While it's probably a bad idea for them to ignore the expediency plea: they had every right to do it.
And who knows; by the time it's taken up, the court might have been purged of some obvious and powerful corruption.
And who knows; by the time it's taken up, the court might have been purged of some obvious and powerful corruption.
