Prediction: #SCOTUS will ban #DonaldTrump from the ballot in #America 🇺🇸.
Based on this article #Trump seems to have a skill of upsetting Chief Justice Robert’s.
👉🏾 Supreme Court may not escape unscathed from its latest date with Trump https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-2024-analysis/index.html
Not mentioned here, but #NikkiHaley keeps talking about staying in the race past #SouthCarolina.
I think she is predicting that Trump will be banned as well, making her the default #GOP nominee (upsetting many #republicans).
@darnell the Court doesn't have legal authority to ban Trump from the ballot in America.
That access is a matter of state law that the federal court simply doesn't have any authority over.
@volkris The US courts have used Article 14, section 3 to ban people from the ballot before. The most recent case was in 2022: https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/judge-removes-couy-griffin-from-office-for-engaging-in-the-january-6-insurrection/
@darnell he wasn't banned from the ballot, he was removed from office, which is exactly one distinction I was pointing out.
It was also a motion under New Mexico law, not federal law, with a different court.
So yep, that case really highlights the parts missing from what people are saying about the Supreme Court case.
Different court, different laws, different question before the court, just a vastly different circumstance.
@volkris He was removed from office based on the 14th which bars ANY insurrectionist from holding office.
Also, the judge applied a federal law against the insurrectionist, which disqualified the insurrectionist from holding office in both federal & state positions.
So yes, if the Supreme Court rules that Trump is an insurrectionist, he will be barred from office & because unable to submit his name as a candidate in the United States 🇺🇸.
It’s that simple.
Right, he was ordered removed from office, not the ballot.
As for law, the judge acted under New Mexico law citing NMSA 1978 section 44.
You're welcome to read it in the judge's opinion, linked here.
It's not me saying it's state law. It's the judge saying they were acting through state law.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/D101CV202200473-griffin.pdf
@volkris Reread the 14th again. If you are declared an insurrectionist, you can not hold office which would obviously ban you from being listed on the ballot (the latter is obvious).
Obvious? No, not at all, certainly not legally.
If it was obvious then states wouldn't have bothered passing legislation addressing the question, which they did, because it's not obvious.
If the 14th wanted to ban people from ballots it could have done so, but there are good reasons not to have done that.
So no, the 14th definitely doesn't, by its own words, ban anybody from a ballot.
You may want them banned from ballots, and I disagree with that approach, but at the least you should be able to see that there's a difference.
@volkris You should listen to the Supreme Court live broadcast right now as earlier they were discussing what we were chatting about.
One of the judges (I do not know who but it was a lady) briefly talked about Colorado’s decision could ban Trump from the ballot if SCOTUS sided with them.
I wish we could figure out who was speaking.
@darnell again I have to emphasize that this is an appeal of the CO state court decision implementing CO state law with regard to CO ballot access.
Colorado, like all states, is perfectly free to run ballots however they'd like, subject to few constraints. They don't need SCOTUS approval to remove Trump from their ballots.
The question before the Court is whether the CO court followed CO rules about ballot access.
That's the question the Court has jurisdiction to answer and the one it accepted.
Appeals are very different from initial hearings.
