A little SCOTUS to kick off this March Madness

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ald-Trump.html

Never thought for a minute SCOTUS would rule Trump can't be on a ballot or hold office. Don't believe they will side with him on Executive immunity to any real degree either.


But there is always a chance.

Got some popcorn ready and a few cold brews.

I think that the decision ends up in Trump's favor. I hope I am wrong about that, but unfortunately, I doubt it.

IMO they will issue an opinion that delineates when/where/whether Presidential immunity applies.

Immunity isn't zero. And it isn't 100%. It's in between.

Since the case against Trump is a criminal one, I would imagine SCOTUS will outline a more limited scope of immunity than it currently applies (under Nixon v. Fitzgerald) to civil lawsuits against the President.

I don't give a fuck whether the opinion is "in Trump's favor" or not. I just want it to establish a sound precedent for all future Presidents.

The Topic of this Thread is the decision made by the Supreme Court today, not any future Supreme Court Cases.

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.

... I'm not sure that I understand the Thread Hijack here.
The OP clearly mentioned BOTH the ballot case and the
immunity case... And even gave his opinion on the second one.
All in the original post.

Why wouldn't somebody be able to comment on either case?
Reckon I'm just asking for clarifications.

#### Salty

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.

Nine to nothing says something.

Not all justices were happy. There was one separate accenting opinion and a descanting opinion . . .even though all nine voted the same way.

That is a convoluted process for fine hair splitting beyond my deep understanding.

From where I stand, thinks is not a case of whether or not Candidate Trump won or lost. Supreme Court dictions are good or bad for the Nation as a whole.

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. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

True.
I can understand putting on the ballot decision.
The latter with Congress is the problem.

Idk who the Founders intend to declare insurrection was done. If it is Congress, than they need a clause that those who were associated with it need to be excused from the process.