I got thoughts.
The previous court cases on the matter have been decided in Trump’s favor because of issues of standing (except Colorado, that one was weird - they questioned whether the president was an officer of the U.S., but that was cleared up in a later court case). The cases found that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but determined they were not the right court to hear that case. And by found, I mean they ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection. That’s now considered a ‘capital F’ Fact by the U.S. legal system.
Any ruling by the SCOTUS that may favor Trump will have to engage in extreme tomfuckery to get around the fact that he engaged in insurrection, and they do have standing to block him from every ballot nationwide.
Unless they decide not to take the case and let the Illinois ruling stand.
Then… I don’t know. I would hope that every single state sees a lawsuit about it, but I honestly don’t have much faith anymore.
I got thoughts.
The previous court cases on the matter have been decided in Trump’s favor because of issues of standing (except Colorado, that one was weird - they questioned whether the president was an officer of the U.S., but that was cleared up in a later court case). The cases found that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but determined they were not the right court to hear that case. And by found, I mean they ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection. That’s now considered a ‘capital F’ Fact by the U.S. legal system.
Any ruling by the SCOTUS that may favor Trump will have to engage in extreme tomfuckery to get around the fact that he engaged in insurrection, and they do have standing to block him from every ballot nationwide.
Unless they decide not to take the case and let the Illinois ruling stand.
Then… I don’t know. I would hope that every single state sees a lawsuit about it, but I honestly don’t have much faith anymore.
deleted by creator
Were the confederate leaders that were barred from running (which I think is why that clause is there) found guilty of insurrection?