Supreme Court Takes up Fourteenth Amendment Challenge to Trump's Candidacy

[JGalt]

Their Decision is expected by October 9. Let's dispense with these Democrat's nonsense once and for all.

Supreme Court to Take up First Fourteenth Amendment Challenge to Trump's Candidacy​

"The US Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution bars former president Trump from running for president in 2024. The case originates with alleged GOP write-in candidate John Anthony Castro of Texas. So far, he's filed lawsuits challenging Trump's eligibility for office in eight states: Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana, Kansas, and Idaho. A lawsuit by Castro in Florida has already been dismissed.

Castro's lawsuit is a long shot. The bar he has to cross is to prove he is personally injured by Trump's candidacy. He hopes to clear that hurdle by claiming that his candidacy is damaged by Trump's presence "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes."

Newsweek says we should have the Supreme Court's decision in about a month."

Supreme Court to Take up First Fourteenth Amendment Challenge to Trump's Candidacy

 

[JoeB131]

Meaningless because Castro has no standing.

When a State Secretary of State takes up the case in a BLUE state, then the issue will be more relevant.

 

[JGalt]

Meaningless because Castro has no standing.

When a State Secretary of State takes up the case in a BLUE state, then the issue will be more relevant.

Of course, because everyone knows how those blue state folks like to disregard the US Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. That's how they got "blue" in the first place.

 

[rampart]

Their Decision is expected by October 9. Let's dispense with these Democrat's nonsense once and for all.

Supreme Court to Take up First Fourteenth Amendment Challenge to Trump's Candidacy​

"The US Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution bars former president Trump from running for president in 2024. The case originates with alleged GOP write-in candidate John Anthony Castro of Texas. So far, he's filed lawsuits challenging Trump's eligibility for office in eight states: Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana, Kansas, and Idaho. A lawsuit by Castro in Florida has already been dismissed.

Castro's lawsuit is a long shot. The bar he has to cross is to prove he is personally injured by Trump's candidacy. He hopes to clear that hurdle by claiming that his candidacy is damaged by Trump's presence "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes."

Newsweek says we should have the Supreme Court's decision in about a month."

Supreme Court to Take up First Fourteenth Amendment Challenge to Trump's Candidacy

castro is a repub. the states where this is an issue are all red states. please change your first paragraph tp remove the word "democrats," unless you can connect this to a non republican party.

i think trump can win this in the supreme court with an "original intent" argument that the 14th applies to confederates only.

arguing that jan 6 was not an insurrection is really not working with most people, and might end up 7-2 against dear leader. .

on edit, the states involved are all red states. texas and florida also
Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana, Kansas, and Idaho.

 

[JGalt]

castro is a repub. the states where this is an issue are all red states. please change your first paragraph tp remove the word "democrats," unless you can connect this to a non republican party.

i think trump can win this in the supreme court with an "original intent" argument that the 14th applies to confederates only.

arguing that jan 6 was not an insurrection is really not working with most people, and might end up 7-2 against dear leader. .

on edit, the states involved are all red states. texas and florida also
Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana, Kansas, and Idaho.

The article states "The case originates with alleged GOP write-in candidate John Anthony Castro of Texas."

You can pretty much guess which way the Supreme Court's gonna roll on this case.

 

[rampart]

The article states "The case originates with alleged GOP write-in candidate John Anthony Castro of Texas."

so, since he is an alleged republican he must be a democrat? i don't think "logic" works that way.

 

[JGalt]

so, since he is an alleged republican he must be a democrat? i don't think "logic" works that way.

You probably thought the Lincoln Project was conceived, financed, and carried out by "Republicans" too, right?

 

[TNHarley]

arguing that jan 6 was not an insurrection is really not working with most people, and might end up 7-2 against dear leader

How many insurrection convictions you got?
More people might take you seriously about this issue if all you people didnt use hyperbole as your argument.

 

[justoffal]

The article states "The case originates with alleged GOP write-in candidate John Anthony Castro of Texas."

You can pretty much guess which way the Supreme Court's gonna roll on this case.

Sheesh.... Of all the names that anyone could pick to run for presidential office in the United States I would imagine Castro probably wins the contest for the worst one.

 

[rampart]

You probably thought the Lincoln Project was conceived, financed, and carried out by "Republicans" too, right?

do you think schmidt and the other lincoln guys, who sold the usa reagan and bush are democrats?

do you understand a "venn diagram?"

attributing any organized activity to "the democrats" is probably wrong, but this takedown of trump and his cult appears to be a republican project.

 

[rampart]

Sheesh.... Of all the names that anyone could pick to run for presidential office in the United States I would imagine Castro probably wins the contest for the worst one.

maybe castro should change his name to "none of the above" for a sure win.

do you think all "castros" are commies? actually, i would vote for fidel if he was running vs trump.

 

[JGalt]

do you think schmidt and the other lincoln guys, who sold the usa reagan and bush are democrats?

do you understand a "venn diagram?"

attributing any organized activity to "the democrats" is probably wrong, but this takedown of trump and his cult appears to be a republican project.

They were Never-Trumpers, which are no less disgusting as Democrats. Probably more so in my book.

Stick around, Bubba. You're about to see what I mean when RFK. Jr. or some "third party" runs away with a big chunk of Biden's votes.

 

[rampart]

How many insurrection convictions you got?
More people might take you seriously about this issue if all you people didnt use hyperbole as your argument.

oh sorry. that 22 year sentence was for "seditious conspiracy" to overthrow an election .

if tarrio (and his co conspirators, bannon, stone, flynn, and lindell, and over 100 congresscritters) had been successful, who would now be president?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Their Decision is expected by October 9. Let's dispense with these Democrat's nonsense once and for all.

Supreme Court to Take up First Fourteenth Amendment Challenge to Trump's Candidacy​

I'm sorry, but your RedState link is wrong. The SCOTUS is not being asked to kick FPOTUS#45 off the ballot.

The SCOTUS is being asked if a candidate for the same office from the same party has STANDING to challenge FPOTUS#45 being on the ballot because his lower court case was dismissed based on standing.

Those are two very different questions. It is very unlikely the court would go beyond the standing question and address if FPOTUS#45 is eligible to be on the ballots.

• A decision of "No Standing" will end Castro's attempts and all cases will be dismissed on the various courts.
• On the other hand a decision of "Standing" being valid, means the court will vacate the dismissal and the case allowed to proceed in the lower court to develop a case record for review.

If there is a decision of "no standing" by the highest court, that does not end challenges to FPOTUS#45 being in individual state ballots. The no standing ruling would mean that private citizens and candidates have not standing. It does not preclude state actors (Election Officials, Secretary of State, etc.) from making a determination that FPOTUS#45 isn't eligible, at that point FPOTUS#45 would need to sue the State and since he is the individual being "harmed" there would be no question of his standing to bring attempted relief to the court.

Just say'n.

WW

 

[Invisibleflash]

 

[Faun]

The article states "The case originates with alleged GOP write-in candidate John Anthony Castro of Texas."

You can pretty much guess which way the Supreme Court's gonna roll on this case.

Which is irrelevant since if any states with standing seek to keep Trump off the ballot, this upcoming ruling by the SCOTUS will have no bearing on that.

 

[TNHarley]

oh sorry. that 22 year sentence was for "seditious conspiracy" to overthrow an election .

if tarrio (and his co conspirators, bannon, stone, flynn, and lindell, and over 100 congresscritters) had been successful, who would now be president?

You are talking five people dude. FIVE. Get an actual argument. Its been long enough.

 

[Polishprince]

Its really a "moot" case unless and until the Presidential electors vote for Trump and he's about to be certified as the winner.

I'd recommend that the D's pressure Kamala to refuse to certify the results. At that point in time, the case becomes relevant.

BTW, plenty of undisputedly ineligible candidates have run for office, but they aren't an appropriate topic for a legal case unless it looks like they won.

 

[ReinyDays]

Meaningless because Castro has no standing.

We won't know that until October 9th ... to wit:

"QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Does a political candidate have constitutional standing to challenge the eligibility of another political candidate who competes for the same nomination by the same political party to be that political party’s nominee for the same political office based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes?"

I think this is premature ... The Donald has yet to be convicted of any crimes ... so there's no unjust political injury ... we don't require the Dallas Cowboys to bench their starting quarterback until they prove he's passing math class ... we have to wait until their quarterback fails in math before we can bench him ... otherwise it looks like we want him benched because he's so good ...

Rank-and-file Republicans are going to nominate Donald J. Trump ... and Republican Leadership is just going to have to pee in their pants again ... all that remains to find out is how Democrats fumble and lose this election ... maybe go into California and promise to triple insurance premiums ...

 

[JGalt]

oh sorry. that 22 year sentence was for "seditious conspiracy" to overthrow an election .

if tarrio (and his co conspirators, bannon, stone, flynn, and lindell, and over 100 congresscritters) had been successful, who would now be president?

Nobody tried to "overthrow" the government, that's just idiotic.