The Colorado situation was always going to be an uphill battle. How do you envision this happening? Federal goons going into every swing state and forcing him onto their ballots? And then people proceeding to vote in a candidate they know shouldn’t be on there?
Republicans have a primary, Trump wins overwhelmingly, some blue state sues and it goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says “Sure, the Constitution explicitly forbids this, but we can’t just disenfranchise all those republican primary voters” and rules 5-4 that he must be allowed on the ballot.
Some blue states that wouldn’t have voted for him anyway try and keep him off, and maybe succeed, but nobody really cares about those. Red states include him without a fuss, and a very well funded and organized pressure campaign to get Trump on the ballot takes place in every purple state.
If he wins, GG, if he loses, it’s Jan 6th 2 Electric Boogaloo.
I’m trying to think of other possible justifications that the Supreme Court could use. Could they possibly nullify or neuter the 22nd Amendment? What justification could they use based on historical precedent, which the Heritage Foundation members cling to so tightly?
Could they just delay, delay, delay until making a decision after the election, then citing said election as precedent?
I am not familiar with the majority opinion in Trump v Anderson which must have laid out the legal reasoning why the Supreme Court was able to keep Trump on the ballot. It looks like it uses a clause in the fourteenth amendment to simply devolve the decision making power which seems to be an effective dodge and deflection to political winds.
Thing is, they had legitimate reason to exclude him from the ballot after Jan 6. The Supreme Court said no, and the states all gave in.
The Colorado situation was always going to be an uphill battle. How do you envision this happening? Federal goons going into every swing state and forcing him onto their ballots? And then people proceeding to vote in a candidate they know shouldn’t be on there?
Republicans have a primary, Trump wins overwhelmingly, some blue state sues and it goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says “Sure, the Constitution explicitly forbids this, but we can’t just disenfranchise all those republican primary voters” and rules 5-4 that he must be allowed on the ballot.
Some blue states that wouldn’t have voted for him anyway try and keep him off, and maybe succeed, but nobody really cares about those. Red states include him without a fuss, and a very well funded and organized pressure campaign to get Trump on the ballot takes place in every purple state.
If he wins, GG, if he loses, it’s Jan 6th 2 Electric Boogaloo.
Bang. That’s the way it could feasibly play out.
I’m trying to think of other possible justifications that the Supreme Court could use. Could they possibly nullify or neuter the 22nd Amendment? What justification could they use based on historical precedent, which the Heritage Foundation members cling to so tightly?
Could they just delay, delay, delay until making a decision after the election, then citing said election as precedent?
I am not familiar with the majority opinion in Trump v Anderson which must have laid out the legal reasoning why the Supreme Court was able to keep Trump on the ballot. It looks like it uses a clause in the fourteenth amendment to simply devolve the decision making power which seems to be an effective dodge and deflection to political winds.
In this timeline, yea pretty much exactly that. Plus you’ll have the die hard trumpers pretty much ready to riot if he isn’t on the ballots.