Supreme Court declines to hear long-shot 14th Amendment challenge to disqualify Trump

If Trump gets elected, I believe he will be assassinated. They won't have any cards left to play at that point.

 

We already have. A Federal court ruled against it. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, which means the Supreme Court doesn't disagree with the lower court ruling. That ruling kills ever other lawsuit regarding Trump's eligibility to run for office.

The Federal court ruled. No other court can overturn that ruling, especially at the state level.

 

Biden’s document case was accidental as was Pence’s document case. Biden and Pence did not claim that they can “do what I want” ( including stealing documents). Trump falsely claimed in interviews and at his rallies that he personally “owned” all presidential documents. You are attempting to dream false equivalency between Trump’s stealing government document and Biden’s accidental possession of documents. Biden and Pence case who’s document case you are conveniently ignoring fully operated with the authorities in turning over their documents. Trump tried to hide the documents he stole and of course ignored requests to cooperate.

 

1) Wrong. Castro's case is not "over." Your article literally cited his naming of his upcoming court dates, for appeals, in other states.

Ironic, and funny as hell, that a Republican would lecture on "judge shopping"-- you are familiar with Amarillo's judge Kacsmaryk, I take it? The one thing I can't call your double standard, though, is surprising: you prove, yet again, how "projection" deserves its own letter, in a renamed GOPP.


2) Wrong implication, that if Castro strikes out, in every state, in his case, that this in any way ends the drive to remove Trump from state ballots. As I've already told you, Castro is trying to bump Trump from the Republican Primary ballot. And his standing, for his suit, is that he is running in that Primary.

As I have explained-- and as you should know, anyway, from your past thread on the topic-- various state courts are hearing suits, to have Trump removed from their own, state ballots, in next November's general election. There is no Federal ruling, precluding these state courts, from finding in favor of the plaintiffs, even if it seems more likely than not, that they won't-- although, one never really knows, what a judge may decide.

If one does side with plaintiffs, to have Trump removed, that would begin a long process of appeals, which would likely end up, if the State Supreme Court affirms the decision, then in the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Constitution designates as the court to rule in disputes between a state and the federal government:

<Google Snip>
Who is the arbiter of conflicts between state and federal government?

The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.
https://www.supremecourt.gov › co...
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
<End>

 

I disagree. Anti Trump people are not blind cultists as the other guys people appear to be by nature of their behavior and what they say.

 

What, he thinks he's going to take the case back to the Supreme Court?...lol.

At some point, the SC is going to step and inform him that it's over.

 

The anti-Trump folks don't understand how our Judicial Branch works.

 

Dude, you really need to stop all that transference......

 

I really have to wonder, how well you read. I did not say anything about Castro getting a case to the Supreme Court-- read your own article! Castro says that, though the SCOTUS can refuse to hear his case, Federal Appellate Courts, can't.

My mention of the Supreme Court-- I am now telling you, for the THIRD TIME-- is because they are the specified venue, the jurisdictional Court, when a case is between a STATE and the Federal Government; Castro, in case you are unclear on this point, is not one of our 50 states.

I will add, here, that this scenario assumes the government would even object to any state removing Trump's name-- and I don't know why, in this case, Biden's Administration would contest an Appellate Court's affirmation, of a state's right to make this decision (though AG Garland, could still fight it). More likely, however, if any state decided to do this-- independently of Castro, OK, Sport?-- it would be sued by the Republican Party; yet because of the nature of the case, it seems a given that the SCOTUS would want to put their own stamp, on the decision.

 

It’s the other way around, but you know that.

 

You mean stop called a spade a spade.

 

If one of those is sedition, insurrection, or treason sure.
I'm not sure election interference counts. Certainly fraud doesn't.

Part of the "14th amendment" stuff OP is referring to is the idea that the 14th amendment's 3rd paragraph is somehow "self executing" IE no conviction need be had on that crime.
This seems to more or less put paid to that notion.

 

Obviously it isn't, because there are Leftists here that don't understand that this is a done deal.

 

The appellate courts are going to tell him to **** off.

 

That's a very strong possibility. I would advise Trump to strike a warning blow first. For example, bring the Biden family corruption case and his associates to trial.