The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot

Did anyone think for even a moment that this illegitimate "supreme" court would rule in good faith? This court serves only conservatives and billionaires.

This court is a conservative roach motel. It should be tossed into the deepest part of the garbage.

In what warped reality is the President of the United States not "an officer of the US"? The amendment was literally made for this exact situation.

It makes less than zero sense that the drafters and ratifiers of the amendment meant to leave the highest office in the nation out of the purview of the amendment. Absolute horseshit.

Pretty disappointing to see the comments from some of the more liberal justices...

So that would mean insurrection would be legal in America. If Biden loses to Trump, I will feel empowered to riot in the same way. Time to get a gun I guess.

Funny how no one claims states rights here.

That only seems to be a Republican talking point.

"Supreme court seems poised to reject efforts to kick insurrectionist Donald Trump off the ballot over the January 6th insurrection, despite the law saying no insurrectionists can be on the ballot"

"top constitutional court ready to rule entire constitutional amendment unconstitutional"

This is why voting matters. The SCOTUS is basically an apparatus of the conservatives now, and will be for most of the rest of our lives.

I do not understand the US judiciary nullifying a portion of the "sacred" constitution. Seems like the beginning of the end, to an outside observer. Thanks for all the fish!!

Bye, bye 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS rules that they can overturn amendments.

States that believe he should not be on the ballot should keep him off the ballot regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Fuck them and their corrupt shit.

Any bets on where Clarence Thomas will get to spend his next luxury vacation?

Tldr:

Their excuse is he wasn't personally there.

So it's not saying an insurrection is ok, they're saying trump hasn't been proven to have participated yet.

Which is why not holding presidents accountable while in office is bullshit. This shit takes so long thru the courts, a lot can change.

We can't take a decade to prosecute an insurrection

I wouldn't count this as over just yet. it makes sense that the judges would reserve their harshest questioning for the side that feels they must upend an election. Even the Liberal justices were wary of that.

They spent very little time on the topic of whether Trump was engaged in insurrection. To me, that means their minds are made up on that, one way or the other. You would think if they were going to let him off the hook based on that, though, they would ask more questions.

I think they will rule that individual states can't use the amendment to keep candidates off of primary ballots. That much is clear. I wonder if they rule that Trump must remain on the ballot, but cannot serve if he wins -- unless waived by Congress. It would make the discussion of Trump's VP much more interesting.

I mean, yeah it’s disappointing but hopefully a legal case can prove he in incited an insurrection and then states can remove him from the ballot. Then the SCOTUS would have to quite literally just nullify a a part of the Constitution, which would be… not out of the realm of possibilities at this point

100% not suprising

Looks like 248 years is the cutoff for a democratic United States. We'll soon see if the Christians can contain their collective erection for destroying societies for 2 years so we can at least say 250.

Roberts basically layed it all out in saying other States will set up their own reasons to remove a candidate. (ie. Texas, Idaho)

We need a nationwide popular vote.

👏 We did it guys! We called it! 👏

dEmOcaRY

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Conservative and liberal justices alike questioned during arguments Thursday whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, ending with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president.

Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”

Trump, speaking to reporters after the proceedings, called the Supreme Court argument “a beautiful thing to watch in many respects,” even as he complained about the case being brought in the first place.

They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

The original article contains 1,087 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

"The 14th Amendment wasn't in the original Constitution so it's not valid" - The Supreme Court, probably

Having "democratic" or " Republican" labelled judges just means your system is broken and shit.

Listen to prosecuting Donald trump podcast, helpful to understand why this won't work from a legal perspective. Don't worry, this one is just noise

The disconnect is that this case isnt determining whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. There is already a case going on to determine that. And it's just common sense that it goes in that order, he has to be found guilty of insurrection before he can legally be labeled as an insurrectionist.

Good. Let him lose again, trying to litigate him off the ballot will create a WAY bigger problem.