SCOTUS will issue decision on CO ballot question likely Monday

34,934 Views | 390 Replies | Last: 11 mo ago by Some Junkie Cosmonaut
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

In an unusual move, the Supreme Court announced that it would issue at least one ruling on Monday. Court watchers believe that the announcement indicates a major decision will be announced.
Quote:

Adding to the intrigue is that the court also announced that justices would not "take the bench" or enter the chamber and be seated while the decision is read.

The justices were originally scheduled to return on March 15.

Could the justices be announcing the Trump eligibility decision the day before Super Tuesday? Colorado Republicans had requested that the Supreme Court announce their decision before the Colorado Republican primary on March 5.
Quote:

The justices have moved with unusual speed on the challenges to Trump's eligibility. Trump's appeal was filed on January 3 and was granted review on January 5. Oral arguments were scheduled about a month later. Now, less than a month after the arguments, it appears we'll have a decision.
Quote:

The court indicated Sunday there will be at least one case decided Monday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it's the Trump ballot case that will be handed down.

Except for when the end of the term nears in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. But the next scheduled court day isn't until March 15. And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They won't be there Monday.

Any opinions will post on the court's website beginning just after 10 a.m. EST Monday.

LINK
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Adding to the intrigue is that the court also announced that justices would not "take the bench" or enter the chamber and be seated while the decision is read.
The stakes can be no higher and this is the absolute pinnacle of 'mailing it in.'

Perhaps a tacit admission that 'we've made this decision .... but we ain't gonna like it!'
Maroon Dawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They already have their talking points of "we didn't get our way so we need to stack the court with even more Sotomayor and KJB types who will rubber stamp whatever unconstitutional power grab we want!" ready to go when SCOTUS slaps down this latest Dem attempt at illegally suppressing the vote
Maroon Dawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Quote:

Adding to the intrigue is that the court also announced that justices would not "take the bench" or enter the chamber and be seated while the decision is read.
The stakes can be no higher and this is the absolute pinnacle of 'mailing it in.'

Perhaps a tacit admission that 'we've made this decision .... but we ain't gonna like it!'


Probably hoping it takes away Dem desire to turn loose the rent-a-mob on them
Post removed:
by user
Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maroon Dawn said:

They already have their talking points of "we didn't get our way so we need to stack the court with even more Sotomayor and KJB types who will rubber stamp whatever unconstitutional power grab we want!" ready to go when SCOTUS slaps down this latest Dem attempt at illegally suppressing the vote
If the decision isn't unanimous - the leftist justices deserve the tar and feather treatment.
JWinTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I realize that this isn't going to be allowed to keep Trump off these ballots, but if somehow the SC agreed and let them keep Trump off the ballots, what would this mean? Haley? Does DeSantis get back in? Trump stay as nominee and we just cede those states to the Dems?
DrEvazanPhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JWinTX said:

I realize that this isn't going to be allowed to keep Trump off these ballots, but if somehow the SC agreed and let them keep Trump off the ballots, what would this mean? Haley? Does DeSantis get back in? Trump stay as nominee and we just cede those states to the Dems?


What it means is that we're straight up a banana republic now.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The stakes can be no higher and this is the absolute pinnacle of 'mailing it in.'

Perhaps a tacit admission that 'we've made this decision .... but we ain't gonna like it!'


This really makes no sense.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Any predictions? 9-0? 8-1? Trump's favor?
Post removed:
by user
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
C@LAg said:

aggiehawg said:

Any predictions? 9-0? 8-1? Trump's favor?
7-2. because liberals are stupid and do not understand law.
I don't know about that even KBJ was pretty skeptical of CO's positio at oral arguments.
Post removed:
by user
Aggie Jurist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
8-1 - I think KJB actually cares about the legacy of the court (at least a little). SS on the other hand . . .
LGB
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BMX Bandit said:

Quote:

The stakes can be no higher and this is the absolute pinnacle of 'mailing it in.'

Perhaps a tacit admission that 'we've made this decision .... but we ain't gonna like it!'
This really makes no sense.
Members of the court got that pouty face.

They doing a duck-lipped selfie form the safe confines of their chambers.

Do they wanna do their duty and face the music?

No they don't.

On a matter of upmost constitutional importance, they choose to mail it in.

... which is par for the course as of late.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sticking with: 9-0 that Trump wins, could be a mixed bag or plurality on why he wins.

I expect concurrence supporting trial court finding it was a insurrection
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Adding to the intrigue is that the court also announced that justices would not "take the bench" or enter the chamber and be seated while the decision is read.
The equivalent of high-school fans holding up newspapers as the opposing team walks out.
TheHulkster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From listening to the oral arguments, I'd be shocked if it were any less lopsided than 8-1. Hard to tell with Sotomayor, but KBJ was asking pointed questions and seemed very skeptical of the constitutionality of the State's arguments.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

Sticking with: 9-0 that Trump wins, could be a mixed bag or plurality on why he wins.

I expect concurrence supporting trial court finding it was a insurrection
But the 14th doesn't apply to POTUS as not an "officer"? Or it is a federal question only?
ttu_85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Get Off My Lawn said:

Maroon Dawn said:

They already have their talking points of "we didn't get our way so we need to stack the court with even more Sotomayor and KJB types who will rubber stamp whatever unconstitutional power grab we want!" ready to go when SCOTUS slaps down this latest Dem attempt at illegally suppressing the vote
If the decision isn't unanimous - the leftist justices deserve the tar and feather treatment.
This should have never made it to the SCOTUS. It should have never been considered at all. The only court decision should be the penalty for those in Colorado that violated Trumps and the voters Constitutional rights. As Maroon Dawn said this is an attempt to illegally suppress the voting rights of the people of Colorado.
ttu_85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BMX Bandit said:

Sticking with: 9-0 that Trump wins, could be a mixed bag or plurality on why he wins.

I expect concurrence supporting trial court finding it was a insurrection
Is that like dynamic memory allocation when providing for space of an struct array of unknown size.

In other words in English please for us law illiterates.
Maroon Dawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
C@LAg said:

aggiehawg said:

Any predictions? 9-0? 8-1? Trump's favor?
7-2 (Trump). because liberals are stupid and do not understand law.



This


As usual Sotomayor and KJB will vote for any Unconstitutional thing the DNC wants. They would vote yes to poisoning every first born child under 18 if the DNC said it would win them votes in November
Maroon Dawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ttu_85 said:

Get Off My Lawn said:

Maroon Dawn said:

They already have their talking points of "we didn't get our way so we need to stack the court with even more Sotomayor and KJB types who will rubber stamp whatever unconstitutional power grab we want!" ready to go when SCOTUS slaps down this latest Dem attempt at illegally suppressing the vote
If the decision isn't unanimous - the leftist justices deserve the tar and feather treatment.
This should have never made it to the SCOTUS. It should have never been considered at all. The only court decision should be the penalty for those in Colorado that violated Trumps and the voters Constitutional rights. As Maroon Dawn said this is an attempt to illegally suppress the voting rights of the people of Colorado.



I've also said that SCOTUS should have a power of immediate review for laws like this that are so blatantly unconstitutional that even a first day law student could see it. Furthermore, if they overturn you on this, the person(s) who wrote, introduced and voted for that law should be banned from office immediately and permanently for violating their oath of said office

That would stop this unconstitutional Lawfare in its tracks
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I've also said that SCOTUS should have a power of immediate review for laws like this
Agreed.

Have also maintained the position that they do have that power but they refuse to exercise it.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

BMX Bandit said:

Sticking with: 9-0 that Trump wins, could be a mixed bag or plurality on why he wins.

I expect concurrence supporting trial court finding it was a insurrection
But the 14th doesn't apply to POTUS as not an "officer"? Or it is a federal question only?


For KBJ, she was big on the president not being listed. So I think the "not an office" argument appeals to her.

So I could see her doing like the Colorado
Trial court did. "Trump is a filthy insurrectionist, but 14th does not apply to him"
Aglaw97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It should be 9-0. While I rarely agree with Kagan, her line of thought, which was echoed by ACB, was surprisingly refreshing.

How about Texas just leave Biden off the ballot for selling influence to the Chinese. Is that an insurrection? It's a total race to the bottom if this is allowed to stand and frankly it should be 9-0 against.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Understood.
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think it'll be 9-0…KJB and EK weren't entertaining the arguments
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?


[Visual representation of justices releasing opinion]
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
9-0 Trump…
agsalaska
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
8-1

The diversity hire will be the 1
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agsalaska said:

8-1

The diversity hire will be the 1
You'll need to be more specific.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:

agsalaska said:

8-1

The diversity hire will be the 1
You'll need to be more specific.
I would expect the Biden one hired on the basis of her skin tone and genitalia (no idea if she is a woman) is the one. She/ze/he would be the logical one to stand up for voter disenfranchisement in the name of incoherent reasoning.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
8-1 with the not-wise Latina being the 1.

I also expect Jackson to have a concurring opinion saying Congress has to do it, and should.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
fc2112
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So do leftists riot over this decision?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.