Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot

They kicked it to the curb after reviewing the lower courts decision.
Supreme Court declines to hear long-shot 14th Amendment challenge to disqualify Trump
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...14th-amendment-challenge-to-disqualify-trump/

 

They declined to review it, period. That's why there is no opinion, at all.

 

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a long-shot bid to disqualify former President Trump from running for office under the 14th Amendment.
When they refuse to hear it, that means it has no standing to be heard. lol

 

It means they denied the request for review, period. No more, no less. Hence, no opinion.

 

How old is senile Joe now? 84 or is it 86?
86 number 46 !

 

Yes and one has to wonder why @Condor060 keeps posting it as though it is the current position.

 

They decline cases for no standing.
Meaning the case doesn't even warrant their attention.

 

Thats what happens when they are provided with a stupid case from an idiot.
They refuse to hear it because it has no standing.
It has no constitutional reason to be heard.

 

I have already advised you about that. Why do you ignore the truth? SCOTUS declined to hear it because the applicant had no standing....not that 'it' had no standing.

 

FFS!!!!! Read.

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/WhatIsStanding.pdf

 

That’s not what “standing” means. But, given that you’ve been wrong about nearly every legal issue discussed, why should you change now…?

 

Oh, you're the Constitutional expert?
The guy who thinks he can read an amendment in a bubble, not effected by any other part of the constitution?
Please, don't make us all laugh out loud
When the SCOUTS rules on this, (and most know how they will rule) you going to admit how clueless you were about your 14th claims or whine about how they got it wrong because you (The constitutional expert) knows better. lol

Would you like another reason why this idiocy won't go through? Which is what it is. Blind idiocy.



What do you think is going to happen when Republicans remove their electors for failing to abide by federal election laws.
Democrats are such easy targets for their media. But at least they have someone to think for them. lol

 

Maybe you should review post #62

 

They have declined the request to review, period. No reason is given.

You are of course free to continue speculating.

 

Would that be the Boy SCOUTS of America that will make the decision…?? It wouldn’t surprise me that’s where you get your advice…!!

 

Trump has to be convicted to be removed, but trump is arguing he can’t be convicted for anything. Sort of a catch 22 I guess lol

 

Now your just attacking typos?
Shows desperation.

 

If the SCOTUS ruled in favor of this Colorado idiocy, guess what would come next.

 

I did. Have you yet learned what 'standing' means?

 

Have you learned what the 6th amendment means?

 

Yep, and it has zero application to the 14th.

 

Then you know nothing about the constitution as EVERY portion of the constitution falls directly under and is compliant with the bill of rights with 0 exceptions.

Unlike the left, most people know you can't read any amendment in a bubble so you can decide it says what you want it to say.
Which is why the left has their own unique historical failures when confronted with SCOTUS rulings.
It also shows their inability to learn from their own idiotic claims to the SCOTUS because they continue to lose with the same type of mentality so always.

Would you like a few reminders?
EVERY time they attack the 2nd amendment in history
Mandating Gun control laws
Mandating Abortion rights
Mandating vaccines
Mandating mask
Attempts to remove tuition cost and place it on tax payers
Attacking bakers for refusing to bake wedding cakes for LGTBQ
Mandating bathrooms

And thats just the last few years.
So while you, (and the left) think none of the amendments have to comply with the Bill of Rights, the SCOTUS will step in again, slap down yet another amendment in a bubble claim, and neither you (or the left) will learn from it.
You will attack the SCOTUS and continue to do the same things over and over expecting a different result.
Thats what history has already recorded.

 

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const.

Guess Biden can’t be impeached, he wasn’t convicted of any crimes by a jury of his peers

 

So you thought you have to be convicted of crimes before you can be impeached?
Just WOW

 

Then you know nothing about the constitution as EVERY portion of the constitution falls directly under and is compliant with the bill of rights with 0 exceptions.