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

Of course, the GOP could lose the House in Nov. '24, then Dems will make that call...
Anyone assuming that the GOP will still control the House after 2024 is making a big leap...
A hole in the epical!y-failed "argument" that they could drive a truck through...
Better luck next time..

 

I have no idea what that means…

But, you should know that Neil Gorsuch has already issued an opinion on the rights of states to determine the ineligibility of a presidential candidate…and it basically favours the position taken by Colorado’s Supreme Court…

 

It doesn't have too. Its already in the same document.
Why is it you insist it has to be repeated in every amendment before its enforceable?

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated she couldn't define what a woman is during her confirmation claiming shes not a biologist.
So I give her the 1 vote because she's that dumb.

No it doesn't. He stated its a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.

And he will rule just like the other 97 justices. No conviction, no authority to remove.

 

Link to the '97 justices' who have said 'you need a conviction.'

 

Yep, “constitutionally prohibited”. And there it is in black and white in Amendment 14…

 

For what? So you can just claim they are cowardly too because they don't agree with you?
You would make the same claim if every justice in the US except 4 made the same statement.
You already stated if the SCOTUS rules against Colorado they would only be doing it out of cowardice.
You're so blinded by your hatred for Trump, you will state anything in opposition.

 

So I can fact check what you are posting.

 

Removal from the ballot is also non criminal. Your argument makes no sense.

 

So which path do you want to go down now.
The one where Trump was acquitted of insurrection in his 2nd impeachment?
Leftist idiots impeached him for it and the judge acquitted him of it.

Or did you want to go down the path of no amendment stands alone. Each amendment must abide by the Bill of Rights.

Or did you want to go down the path that the 14th doesn't apply to presidents.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
These same leftist idiots have been taking the constitution out of context for years and getting slapped down by the SCOTUS every time.
They don't have the capacity to learn you can't take a single amendment language and apply it while ignoring the bill of rights.
But you'll find out soon enough. And when the SCOTUS rules you will be back here with another wild claim as to why you lost.

Just like the emoluments clause claims
Just like the abortion rights claims
Just like the mandated mask claims
Just like the mandated vaccine claims
Just like the 2nd amendment claims
Just like the gun confiscation claims
Just like the tuition to tax payers claims
Just like the bake the LGTBQ wedding cake claim
Just like the bathroom claims

And it goes on and on and on.

 

You can't read the parts of the constitution you like in a bubble.
Every amendment has to abide and is governed by the Bill of Rights.
No judge gets to convict anyone of a crime to remove them from ballots
Which is what has to happen if you want to use the (Shall have engaged in) 14th amendment.
Insurrection is a crime. Trump was actually acquitted of insurrection in his 2nd impeachment
No judge can claim Trump committed that crime without due process.

 

As I and others have said before…I have little doubt that the USSC will find a way to quash the findings in Colorado and Maine…but it will NOT be on the basis of an absence of criminal conviction, as you monotonously claim…

 

The case that Gorsuch ruled on, has no baring on a case to the SCOTUS(for starters, he wasn't presiding over SCOTUS at the time). Secondly, the issues germane to both cases are drastically different.

Here, the State is looking to exercise Federal Law(the 14th Amendment) within the State. Only the Federal Government has jurisdiction over federal laws(as States have jurisdiction over state law.)

States can only rule on eligibility given the applicable rules within the State. That does not apply if the State says "Okay, now we're going to enforce federal law.". If States could all of a sudden have the power of the federal government, that would break down the separation between the Federal Government and the States.

If civilians could invoke the criminal stature of insurrection, it would undermine the DOJ.

This is gonna get 9-0'd so hard. Not even a Liberal justice could see the disorder these irrational actions are taking as good for law, order and justice.

 

This ruling, like impeachment, doesn’t convict him of anything. More like a civil suit, where the penalty isn’t criminal. Just like him being found liable for rape, but not convicted of it.

 

So, which constitution do you think Gorsuch was referring to…?

 

I have little doubt that the SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of Trump in the "removal from the ballot" cases.

Just as I have little doubt that the SCOTUS is going to rule against Trump in his claims of "absolute immunity" for the actions he took while President.

There is also little doubt that the "documents case" in Florida is going to go against Trump, he is obviously guilty in what is a very open and shut case.

In NY, Engeron is going to rule against Trump and it will be upheld by the higher courts.

In GA, I'm pretty confident that Fani Willis will get a conviction against Trump for at least some (if not all) of the charges against him there.

I'll be surprised if Bragg is able to get a conviction against Trump in the "falsifying records" case in NY

Jack Smith's DC case of election interference, I'm 60/40 that Trump is going to be convicted there.

 

The one you are obviously unfamiliar with

 

Thats right, so you can't remove Trump from a ballot without a conviction. As guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Did you need the definition of shall have engaged in, or did you just want to take amendments out of context some more.