Supreme Court Colorado Trump Ballot Decision Expected Monday Morning
The Supreme Court has announced that it will release a single Opinion on Monday, March 4, 2024. Since the Colorado primary is on March 5, Super Tuesday, everyone is assuming the Court wants to get the decision out before Tuesday.
The Supreme Court has announced that it will release a single Opinion on Monday, March 4, 2024. What’s unusual is that normally opinions are read from the bench, at least in part, and tomorrow is not a decision day.
The Court didn’t say which Opinion will be released, but the prevailing wisdom is that it will be the case involving Trump being removed from the Colorado primary ballot. Since the Colorado primary is on March 5, Super Tuesday, everyone is assuming the Court wants to get the decision out before Tuesday.
As a reminder, just about everyone is expecting a Trump victory, as I wrote following the oral argument, Quick Take On SCOTUS Colorado “Insurrection” Oral Argument: Trump Likely To Stay On Ballot:
Making predictions based on oral arguments normally is risky, but I’ll take that risk: The Supreme Court will reverse not on the merits of whether Trump committed insurrection (that is not before them), but on any one of a number of issues raised that the Colorado Supreme Court exceeded its authority ….
I’m not sure it’s 9-0, Sotomayor may be a dissent, but it sure is looking like a strong majority if not unanimous result of SCOTUS saying: Not us, not now.
You can listen to more commentary from me here, “It’s going be a free-for-all in the country if they allow Colorado to get away with” keeping Trump off the ballot
We will cover the Opinion if it released in the morning.
Because the people in Colorado need to know if he’s on the ballot or not, numnuts. The Republican primary vote is Tuesday. 🙄
How are you this bad at this? https://t.co/7l4StpKP7s
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) March 4, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I feel like Flounder in “Animal House”….oh boy, is this gonna be great!
That’s a very good analogy.
Imagine if they uphold Colorado. What would result? Insanity. Does not seem possible, even in this upside down environment, that election interference would be normalized.
Insanity?
I predict that if half the nation is denied their chosen candidate (as the primaries currently indicate), the Democrats/Marxists/Nutbags will be in for a France level response not seen since the late 18th Century.
this will only apply to Trump,..no one else,..let some judge in say, Calvert County, MD, remove Joe from the ballot and watch everyone, including SCOTUS say, “that’s different”
Huh?
Biden is on the ballot in all 50 states, therefore it is logical to assume the court will rule that, if Colorado can remove his opponent who is qualified, the other states can remove Biden who is basically a vegetable. Hence, their judgment will be to leave Trump alone and quit screwing with him.
Either way, 2024 is shaping up to make history, if we survive to record it.
And the main point is that Jan 6 was no sort of insurrection and Trump had no responsibility in what happened at the Capitol, anyway … while Biden is an out-and-out traitor. A full-blown traitor who has been waging war on America with his orchestration of an invasion of America.
Biden most certainly should NOT be on any ballots. He should be in prison awaiting his well-earned punishment for the capital crime of Treason.
And the treason – real treason – extends far and deep into the dem party. In fact, you can pick pretty much any major democrat and quickly find more than a handful of separate treasonous or insurrectionist acts he has committed. The whole dem party is based on the idea of taking down America, which is treason.
While Biden is the face of the administration, do you believe that he is smart enough to be fooling most of the public by mumbling, making up words and aimlessly walking to prove he is incompetent, or do you believe he is a blameless elderly man with a failing memory who will be blamed for all of the recent decisions but had no say as to what his puppet master demanded?
I believe the latter, and hope beyond hope there are laws on the books that will make the Country whole again by destroying those that are culpable.
Facilitating an invasion should qualify as treason …
I think your right. If a state or states can arbitrarily declare any person they want ineligible to over a “crime” that person has never been convicted of or the Federal Government has not ruled on through the Legislative or Judicial Branch then anyone is fair game. Trump can be on a ballot because of the 14th? Biden can’t because of the 25th.
This is a very dangerous political game the TDS Left is playing with our country.
The 25th doesn’t make anyone ineligible for anything, and can’t be used to keep anyone off any ballot.
But violating your oath of office to faithfully execute the laws can be.
See student loans when SCOTUS said you couldn’t, also open borders.
No, it can’t be.
And SCOTUS not only never said Biden couldn’t cancel student loans, it can’t say that. It can only rule on actual cases that are brought before it, so all it can say is that this particular clause in this particular statute means this or that or the other thing. It can’t rule on anything else.
It ruled that “The HEROES Act allows the Secretary [of Education] to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act […] but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal.”
So the Secretary is not doing that. No loans are being forgiven under the HEROES Act. That is all. Loans are being forgiven under other, less sweeping statutes; if anyone with standing thinks the Secretary is misinterpreting those as well, they are free to sue.
Roberts wants a unified court at 9-0. So do I.
But the Betting Me puts his money on a 7-2, with the Wide Latina & the most recent (& worst) AA Hire as the skunks.
Still a win.
After listening to the (somewhat surprising) oral arguments, I think Brown-Jackson is as strongly opposed to Trump’s removal as any of the other Justices. She seemed heavily invested in the theory that presidents aren’t even covered by the relevant section of 14A. I think worst outcome is 8-1.
This ruling should really give us an incredibly clear view on how the individual justices see the constitution. The ones who vote to leave trump on the ballot will be fine, they are the ones who still see, at least here, that the constitution is important. Its those who vote against Trump being on the ballot that are the problem and will come back in every other appeal Trump has made to rule against him.
“The Wide Latina”. That’s priceless. Or was it a typo, since the D-key and the S-key are adjacent on the keyboard?
No type. Deliberate.
Oops. My typing “type” was a typo.
Quite happy that I was wrong, wrong, wrong in my prediction.
How’d that work out for you?
I expect it to be either 9-0 or 8-1, but with a ‘concurring’ opinion by the liberals whining and screaming that Trump TOTALLY DID an insurrection , but he has to be convicted first before they can remove him from the ballot, and lamenting that this has to be ‘proven’ before they can finish destroying democracy.
“he has to be impeached successfully and convicted first before they can remove him from the ballot”
FTFY. And I wouldn’t bet that a UniParty Congress and the DC courts won’t make that happen.
That is bullshit.
I think 9-0. Even the reliable leftests on the bench see the problems arising from Colorado, Maine and Illinois and the damage it could do.
Perhaps, but we’re in Bill of Attainder territory when it comes to Trump. The fear and loathing of him exceeds all reason.
I win!
I fear te Supreme Court is a political organization more than a law decider.
We will see
Methinks that those that are supposed to be originalists are cowards
Cowardice is everywhere these days, shot through the system. I take nothing for granted. I’m confident of Thomas and (on a good day) Alito. That’s it. Coney and Kavanaugh are hopeless.
They might be more reliable if “conservative” Governor Youngkin would enforce the VA law against intimidating judges on the SturmAntifa mobs outside their homes. Kavanaugh got an actual assassination attempt because those laws are being ignored.
I ask this not in a rhetorical way, but really want to know: is suc enforcement of the law in Younkin’s purview? Or, is this something handled on the county or city level?
The VA law in question is plainly unconstitutional, because it is not viewpoint-neutral, and would be struck down the moment anyone was brought into court under it.
I am not a predictor, but I spent my life reading people. Justice Roberts has laid out to each member the chaos that would ensue if they let states kick qualified persons off of the primary ballot. It’s not just Trump. If you allow it at the top, it’s not a stretch to see it happening down ballot. Roberts wants a unified stance in this case. We will see, but it’s how I read the tea leaves. FJB
It already has become like a cancer. A man was literally taken off a ballot in an adjacent county to me. The male candidate and office holder was stopped by police and hit with a “DUI”. There has been no conviction at all as yet and the DA stated it was a very flimsy case to the public. They succeeded in not only keeping him off the ballot but they elected a write in female candidate.
Serious question for the lawyers here: what would happen if the SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favor but Colorado does a Biden and just ignores them because they ruled “wrong”?
It seems like an unlikely scenario but we’ve been seeing a lot of those happening lately.
Not that unlikely at all.
Not a lawyer, but that would clearly be a bona fide constitutional crisis.
While I definitely understand your skepticism, that’s not going to happen. How do I know that? Because Colorado didn’t even print any ballots that DON’T have Trump’s name on them. This entire exercise has been performance art. Several days after the CO Supreme Court said Trump wasn’t eligible, the State of Colorado said that they were going to move forward with ballot preparation as if Trump was eligible. All the ballots that have been mailed out already…and returned, all had Trump’s name on them.
That’s impossible. If the court orders Colorado to include Trump on the ballot, Colorado has no choice but to obey.
And no, Biden has not done that either. He is in full compliance with the decision on student debt, and with every other decision that has come down against him.
Wanna bet? See Hawaii’s Supreme Court ignoring Bruen because at the time the 2A was enacted the Kingdom of Hawaii banned weapons.
Bullshit. You are repeating untruths told by “reporters” who ought to know better. Including, unfortunately, by one of the bloggers here at LI. And you’re adding more untruths of your own, that you made up yourself. Nothing in your comment even slightly resembles anything that the HI court actually said.
“He is in full compliance with the decision on student debt,”
Horsesh!t of the purest ray serene.
You are the one full of horseshit, as evidenced by your comment just above that completely misstates the HI Supreme Court decision.
Biden is in full compliance with Biden v Nebraska. His administration has not relied on the HEROES Act to cancel any loans.
The Republican Speaker can refuse to count the electoral votes of Colorado.
That would be nice.
Assuming the Republicans hold the House.
No, he can’t. It’s not up to him.
If not the merits, then what?
How can a citizen walk into a courtroom and complain Trump engaged in insurrection, lacking both standing AND merit, and the CO Supreme Court judicially noticing and ruling to remove Trump?
A sitting President questioning the validity of a ballot count and equating that executive function with insurrection is of course the hear of the matter that SCOTUS must address.
Anyone capable of the critical ability to rub two or more functioning brain cells together KNOWS what you just said is not an issue (sitting President questioning the veracity of an election). After all, every Democrat who has ever lost a vote has done this exact thing without penalty, some of them have even created entire hoaxes around this to hobble someone they thought they’d beat in an election.
It is Democrats who have created this situation through the weaponisation of language and entire Government departments.
“[E]veryone is assuming the Court wants to get the decision out before Tuesday.”
False—I assume they want to deliver a decision on Wednesday.
Stability depends on following unwritten rules. The first major violation of those was Gore in 2000. Since then it’s become the norm.
To preserve stability the Supreme Court is reduced to stamping out spot grass fires with written rules but it will never catch up.
Sociologist Erving Goffman wrote up unwritten rules as an occupation, rules that you don’t know are there but know enough to follow. A form of non-woke sociology that’s extinct.