The dispute comes from Colorado — but it could have national implications for Trump and his political fate.

  • meshuggahn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    9 months ago

    Someone help me out with some legal definitions here. If I am not mistaken this lawsuite is about Trump’s eligibility to be on the Primary ballot. Not the actual election ballot. What is to stop the supreme Court from saying the constitutional requirements do not apply to the primary ballots because those ballots don’t elect a president. The RNC could nominate a golden retriever as their nominee in the primary if they want, it just wouldnt be eligible in the general election.

    We are just going to have to go through this all again ahead of the general election arent we.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The Colorado supreme court said that Trump is not eligible to be president, which means he can’t be on the general ballot either.

      The SCOTUS agreed to hear an appeal. That means they will have to decide whether the Colorado ruling was correct or incorrect. Either way, they will determine whether Trump will appear on the general ballot in Colorado.

      • meshuggahn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        From what I can find the lower court rulings had 3 points of order:

        1: Whether trump engaged in inurection - CO says yes he did.

        2: Whether the insurrection clause applies to the office of the President- CO says it does.

        3: If 1 and 2 apply then Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot.

        The supreme Court is not obligated to comment on each point. They could come back and say ‘We are not ruling on points 1 and 2 but we will over turn point 3as an ineligible person is still allowed on a primary ballot since a primary doesn’t elect them president.’

        This would leave CO in a spot where they could still attempt to keep him off the general ballot but the appeal on 1 and 2 would still be unsettled.

        Am I missing something?

        • jballs@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Listening to the arguments, it sounds like they basically conceded point 1. There was some semantic arguing over point 2, but nothing serious.

          The real arguments were on point 3. I think that the court is going to find that states don’t have the ability to keep a candidate for a federal election off the ballot. If someone is elected to a federal office and is ineligible to hold said office, it will be up to Congress to do something. Basically, it sounds to me like they’re punting and then hoping they don’t have to address this again in November.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            So by overturning 3, he’s not allowed to be president unless he wins AND congress allows it by 2/3 vote?

            If congress doesn’t vote 2/3rd to allow it, then he becomes disqualified and Biden wins?

            • jballs@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              That’s what could be argued. So on January 6, 2025 when Congress meets to certify the election, they could refuse to if Trump won, because he’s not eligible. It would be the ultimate irony.

    • NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ok first of all, a golden retriever would never support the GOP. A shit covered sewer rat however, fits the bill perfectly.