Supreme Court to announce “Insurrection” Decision Today?!?

[Melensdad]

Waiting for an end to the foolishness:

SCOTUS Could Announce Ruling On Trump 14th Amendment, 'Insurrection' Case By Monday

Supreme Court watchers think justices will on Monday announce their decision on the Trump 14th Amendment, ‘insurrection’ case, based on an unusual weekend update. The high court signaled Sunday it will release at least one opinion Monday morning, a possible signal the justices could hand down a...

www.offthepress.com

SCOTUS Could Announce Ruling On Trump 14th Amendment, ‘Insurrection’ Case By Monday​

Supreme Court watchers think justices will on Monday announce their decision on the Trump 14th Amendment, ‘insurrection’ case, based on an unusual weekend update.

The high court signaled Sunday it will release at least one opinion Monday morning, a possible signal the justices could hand down a decision on the case, which involves the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that former President Trump, now a 2024 GOP presidential candidate, is ineligible because of his efforts to defy the 2020 election results.

Trump is on the state primary ballot on Tuesday after a hold was placed on the ruling, according to NBC News.

The Supreme Court held oral arguments in February on whether Trump can be barred from the ballot because of what he said before the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in opposition to the election results.

 

[300 H and H]

Should be open and shut.
It was not an insurrection at all.
If SCOTUS gets this wrong May God help us all.

 

[Melensdad]

FWIW "insurrection" is a legal term.

According to the Wall Street Journal the term is being grossly misused, for political purposes, by the (left of center) media.

The reality is, it is "fake news" to use a term President Trump often claimed.

My hope is that we have a UNANIMOUS ruling by the Supreme Court.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-calling-jan-6-an-insurrection-capitol-riot-civil-disorder-insurgency-protest-first-amendment-11641417543

. . . of the hundreds of “Capitol Breach Cases” listed at the Justice Department’s prosecution page, not one defendant is charged with insurrection under 18 U.S.C. 2383. That’s because insurrection is a legal term with specific elements. No prosecutor would dare mislabel negligent homicide or manslaughter a murder, because they are totally distinct crimes. The media has no legal or moral basis to do otherwise. ​

​

The events of Jan. 6 also fail to meet the dictionary definition of insurrection, which Merriam-Webster defines as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” A usage note adds that the term implies “an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.” A closely related term, “insurgency,” is “a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as a belligerency.”. . .​

 

[Lenny]

Insurrection? What about the riots that done billions of dollars of damage to our country? And most of the cities stood down while they were destroying their communities!!!

 

[Melensdad]

Insurrection? What about the riots that done billions of dollars of damage to our country? And most of the cities stood down while they were destroying their communities!!!

Legally it is best NOT to "compare" THIS versus THAT.

There are too many arguments, actually on all sides, to sway opinion based on "BUT WHAT ABOUT . . . ?"

It is more logical to simply argue the law, and in this case, the law looks to legally stand with Trump. The law is the law, and if there was nobody prosecuted for illegal insurrection, literally defined as an insurrection, then how can Trump have led an insurrection when the prosecutors never charged ANYONE with that legal charge?

 

[Melensdad]

WGN9 NEWS, broadcasting out of Chicago, interrupted their typically lighthearted morning news show, and just announced that the Supreme Court ruled that the STATES cannot remove Presidential candidate.

The court ruling applies to ALL 50 states.

So TRUMP IS ON THE BALLOT in all states.

The court states that it is up to Congress to determine who is able, or unable, to run for President and not up to the States.

The ruling was handed out "PER CURIAM" without signatures, meaning that ALL the jurists spoke as 1 voice in a UNANIMOUS rule.

 

[tiredretired]

Hey Liberals!!!!

……..…../´¯/)………… (\¯`\
…………/….//……….. …\\….\
………../….//………… ….\\….\
…../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯ `\….\¯`\
.././…/…./…./.|_……_| .\….\….\…\.\..
(.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. \….)….)….)… )
.\…………….\/…/….\. ..\/……………./
..\…………….. /……..\……………..…/
….\…………..(…………)…………….

 

[tommu56]

Tom Grove spells it out what they said
but the bottom line states can't use section 3 to remove a federal ballot

TRUMP WINS in Supreme Court: How + Why? Trump v. Anderson, Colorado Ballot, January 6, Insurrection

TRUMP WINS in Supreme Court: How + Why? Trump v. Anderson, Colorado Ballot, January 6, Insurrection#scotus #trump #january6Link to Supreme Court Trump v. And...

www.youtube.com

 

[Melensdad]

So after the UNANIMOUS rule by the Supreme Court, the liberals all had a collective hissy fit, pulled up their support hose so far they looked like panty hose, which were also in a bunch up their cracks and they decided to roll around the House floor to introduce an amendment to a bill that would give them the power to ban Trump from the ballot.

Now I see no way that Speaker Mike Johnson would allow that to be brought up, but remember we have something like a 1 seat majority in the House and we are the minority in the Senate . . . so in a different time this bill would pass, and since the SUPREME COURT said it is up to Congress, then they would have to allow it to be legal.

This is why we need to vote. Early. Often. By mail and in person. Even after we die. Just like the Democrats do.

 

[Patriot]

So after the UNANIMOUS rule by the Supreme Court, the liberals all had a collective hissy fit, pulled up their support hose so far they looked like panty hose, which were also in a bunch up their cracks and they decided to roll around the House floor to introduce an amendment to a bill that would give them the power to ban Trump from the ballot.

Now I see no way that Speaker Mike Johnson would allow that to be brought up, but remember we have something like a 1 seat majority in the House and we are the minority in the Senate . . . so in a different time this bill would pass, and since the SUPREME COURT said it is up to Congress, then they would have to allow it to be legal.

This is why we need to vote. Early. Often. By mail and in person. Even after we die. Just like the Democrats do.

This smacks of desperation. The Dems are nervously eyeing the polls, and will pull out all the stops to prevent a fair election between Trump and Biden in the Fall. Expect them to use every legal and political tool at their disposal, no matter how sleazy. They must stop the People from undermining their Power at all costs.

 

[FrancSevin]

This smacks of desperation. The Dems are nervously eyeing the polls, and will pull out all the stops to prevent a fair election between Trump and Biden in the Fall. Expect them to use every legal and political tool at their disposal, no matter how sleazy. They must stop the People from undermining their Power at all costs.

But, But,;BUT! They are trying to save Democracy!!!

 

[Patriot]

But, But,;BUT! They are trying to save Democracy!!!

And by Democracy they mean their sides' political wins, no matter how much these wins would undermine actual Democracy.