Us Supreme Court To Rule Whether Trump Can Run For Presidency

[Hymie]

Lower courts have already ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection – apparently Trump’s legal team are going to claim that the 14th amendment does not apply to former presidents (although there is no such exclusion in the amendment wording; or at least does not apply to Trump) and that to deny Trump would disenfranchise millions of Americans.

While this may be true, it is not a valid legal argument against him being barred from running, having sworn to uphold the constitution, and then engaged in insurrection.

 

It will be a challenging ruling for the Supreme Court to either ignore Trump’s insurrection (already been found in lower courts), or to decide that the 14th amendment does not apply to former presidents (or just Trump).

If elected, there is a good chance that Trump will dis-banned the Supreme Court, not wanting anyone with executive power to prevent him becoming a dictator.

[douglas9401]

I doubt he'll see the Oval Office again, for one reason or another.

[Untitled]

and who appointed three of them? donald trump. ridiculous system. 

[tomus42]

//If elected, there is a good chance that Trump will dis-banned the Supreme Court, not wanting anyone with executive power to prevent him becoming a dictator //

This could be a reason they might rule against him, (even the Trump appointees), because they see that coming.

Netanyahu has tried a similar thing with the Israeli supreme court.

I doubt it though.

[Atheist]

Lots of them get away with it. Hitler, Putin.....

[douglas9401]

Not sure the Germans or Russians had/have access to high powered firearms and the will to use them though.

 

[jno]

it's not lower courts exactly, it's courts in different states. Some states ban insurrectionists from seeking office, some don't, as I understand it.

[Ellipsis]

8th February:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67899435

[jno]

I was wrong, it's actually in the constitution, just interpreted in different ways locally

[tomus42]

//just interpreted in different ways locally//

It's a technicality about whether the President is an 'officer' of the govt or not.

When they drafted the amendment it seemed so absurd that the POTUS might take part in an insurrection, they didn't feel it necessary to specifically include that in the wording. Yet here we are with that exact thing having happened, and different courts having to interpret it differently.