Surprise!!

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wouldn’t count this as over just yet. it makes sense that the judges would reserve their harshest questioning for the side that feels they must upend an election. Even the Liberal justices were wary of that.

    They spent very little time on the topic of whether Trump was engaged in insurrection. To me, that means their minds are made up on that, one way or the other. You would think if they were going to let him off the hook based on that, though, they would ask more questions.

    I think they will rule that individual states can’t use the amendment to keep candidates off of primary ballots. That much is clear. I wonder if they rule that Trump must remain on the ballot, but cannot serve if he wins – unless waived by Congress. It would make the discussion of Trump’s VP much more interesting.

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think they will rule that individual states can’t use the amendment to keep candidates off of primary ballots. That much is clear.

      But the challenge isn’t that he’s not eligible to run in the primary. The challenge is that he’s not eligible to run for President. So if they rule that he isn’t, and they do it quickly, states will have to leave him off the ballot in September(ish) when early ballots are printed.

      I wonder if they rule that Trump must remain on the ballot, but cannot serve if he wins – unless waived by Congress.

      If he’s eligible to be on the ballot, he’s eligible to run for President. There’s no mechanism where SCOTUS can say “yes you can run, but we say you can’t be sworn in.” Their only opening is on the eligibility question, which is a simple yes or no.