For those that didn’t read the article, just wanted to point out that the author still states that it’s very unlikely that the stacked Supreme Court will rule against Trump.
The funny part is that Gorsuch ruled clearly against Trump’s position in a lower court decision, and it is going to be funny to watch him just make himself known as hypocrite as he overrules his own ruling it is effort to be a Trump sycophant.
Oh man… So the supreme court is going to say anyone can be on the ballot without regard for eligibility?
Or just that states are not authorized to assess the eligibility of a candidate?
In that case, at which point during the process do we stop an intelligible candidate from taking office? After half the country voted for him? Seems silly.
For those that didn’t read the article, just wanted to point out that the author still states that it’s very unlikely that the stacked Supreme Court will rule against Trump.
I was going to say- it doesn’t matter if the argument is weak. The current idealistic SCOTUS has made rulings on weak arguments before.
“I like beer”
The funny part is that Gorsuch ruled clearly against Trump’s position in a lower court decision, and it is going to be funny to watch him just make himself known as hypocrite as he overrules his own ruling it is effort to be a Trump sycophant.
Oh man… So the supreme court is going to say anyone can be on the ballot without regard for eligibility?
Or just that states are not authorized to assess the eligibility of a candidate?
In that case, at which point during the process do we stop an intelligible candidate from taking office? After half the country voted for him? Seems silly.
OR elected by the electoral college and the Chief Justice refuses to swear them in.
Dictating how states handle elections seems like a massive departure from how things have been dealt with in the past.
I believe that statement is true for waves hand freely at that whole situation
If they want to rule in his favor they’ll need to add a disclaimer about how the decision can’t be used as precedent. Like they did with Bush v Gore.