SCOTUS RULES IN FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP’s FAVOR

Well that math makes it all better!!

Just like Trump claiming his vote total in 2020 was a WIN by itself.

Then again after NYC we understand he might be good at generating wealth but he sure sucks at math lol

You don't know what you're even talking about. Trump doesn't have 91 indictments. He has four indictments with 91 charges pending. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Excuse me. Trumpf has 91 FELONY CHARGES IN FOUR CASES. He's guilty of ever one of em.
This decision will have long lasting repercussions

Excuse me. Trumpf has 91 FELONY CHARGES IN FOUR CASES. He's guilty of ever one of em.
This decision will have long lasting repercussions Originally Posted by winn dixie

You have no clue how they'll turn out.

No. We're regressing as a people and nation. Terrible decision with limitless repercussions Originally Posted by winn dixie

So badly so that some are taking on the personification of a trash can rodent, aka racoon. With that we do surely agree.

No. We're regressing as a people and nation. Terrible decision with limitless repercussions Originally Posted by winn dixie

Don't get worked up over nothing, man. Trump is not going to win in any of those states against Biden where he was taken off their ballots. He will beat Haley in those states though... let his cult celebrate their irrelevant hollow victories for their Lord and Savior while they can.

The SCOTUS ruling might have been as hastily announced as the findings of the Mueller investigation. A little blowjobbery from the looks of it.

According to the records and metadata, it was more like a 5-4 vote. All of the women on the court disagreed. The three liberals co-authored an opinion. Barrett authored her own.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-disaster.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...p-dissent.html

The SCOTUS ruling might have been as hastily announced as the findings of the Mueller investigation. A little blowjobbery from the looks of it.

According to the records and metadata, it was more like a 5-4 vote. All of the women on the court disagreed. The three liberals co-authored an opinion. Barrett authored her own.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-disaster.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...p-dissent.html Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No, it’s unanimous, regardless of what some dipshit liberal pontificator says.

The vote most certainly was unanimous, Jackie. You're right there.

But the four justices did in fact pen those opinions.

SCOTUS ruled properly in the first part by stating that Colorado did not have the authority to remove Trump from the ballot.

The problem is that they ruled that only congress has the authority to decide who gets removed by section three.

If states deciding who can be on the ballot is considered chaotic can you imagine congress having to decide if Trump can be excluded from the presidency.

Effectively SCOTUS has decided that even if Trump is convicted for his part in the January 6th insurrection only congress can keep him from serving in office.

The dumbo rats thought they had a strong case and the Supreme Court voted against the 9 to 0.

...Effectively SCOTUS has decided that even if Trump is convicted for his part in the January 6th insurrection only congress can keep him from serving in office. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Clearly, it's been a while since we've had the occasion to experience actual jurisprudence. My fuzzy memory is that before adjudicating someone as guilty, don't you still have to charge them first?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I totally expected this outcome. And I support it. But the big SCOTUS ruling is yet to come -- is the POTUS immune from criminal prosecution? I thought that the ruling by the D.C Circuit court got it right and their questions asked of the defense were spot on. My opinion, even with a Conservative SCOTUS, Trump will lose his appeal.

It's a shame that it has come to this, that the Supreme Court has to bitch slap those states and demand that they be a democracy ..... but when this is the shit that Demoncrats try to pull, this is just Demoncrats getting what they deserve.....

This ruling was not a surprise.

Clearly, it's been a while since we've had the occasion to experience actual jurisprudence. My fuzzy memory is that before adjudicating someone as guilty, don't you still have to charge them first? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Yes i agree, but the ruling means that even if Trump is convicted of insurrection he won’t be removed from the office of president until congress clarifies the law. That’s the problem. The statute is clear. It’s not up to congress to decide. If he’s convicted of insurrection then he should be ineligible to serve. The constitution and the court should do their jobs and make a decision. Punting the issue to congress is an act of cowardice on their part.