Supreme Court Roasts Trump Ballot Challengers: TOTAL HUMILIATION, “President Trump HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED with insurrection.”

Supreme Court appears set to STRIKE DOWN Colorado ruling to kick Trump off 2024 ballot.-Independent

NYT: “The Supreme Court seemed poised on Thursday to issue a lopsided decision rejecting a challenge to President Donald J. Trump’s eligibility to hold office again.”

Uh huh. As one X commenter pointed out: “The rule of law is a lopsided thing in a civilized society.”

“Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh told plaintiffs regarding their bid to keep former President Donald Trump off Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot. pic.twitter.com/Su3Kz4e6vj

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) February 8, 2024

It is clear SCOTUS’ decision will not even be close.

And it will represent a TOTAL HUMILIATION to so many “legal experts” and “historians” who filed amicus briefs to defend Colorado’s actions. pic.twitter.com/yDGR29KmWT

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) February 8, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito smacks Joe Biden during Donald Trump’s 14th Amendment Case before SCOTUS.

“Suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the United States is its biggest enemy, and suppose that the president of the United States for… pic.twitter.com/3s4onZ1ewR

— Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) February 8, 2024

BREAKING NOW: Supreme Court appears set to STRIKE DOWN Colorado ruling to kick Trump off 2024 ballot. -Independent

DEVELOPING… https://t.co/Qv44LSvicr

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) February 8, 2024

https:/twitter.com/GrahamAllen_1/status/1755634115813036324?s=20

SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts to Murray: (X)

“If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed. Some of them will have different standards of proof. Some of them will have different rules about evidence. Maybe the Senate report won’t be accepted and others because it’s hearsay. Maybe it’s beyond a reasonable doubt whatever. In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is you’re off the ballot and for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot & it’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence”

Murray: “Well, certainly, your Honor, the fact that there are potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision isn’t a reason”

Roberts interrupts: “Well hold on. I mean, you might think they are frivolous but other people who are bringing them may not think they’re frivolous. Insurrection is a broad, broad term and if there’s some debate about it, I suppose that will go into the decision and then eventually what we will be deciding whether there was an insurrection when 1 president did something as opposed to when somebody else did something else. And what do we do? Do we wait until near the time of counting the ballots and sort of go through which states are valid in which states aren’t?”

Murray: “There’s a reason Section 3 has been dormant for 150 years and it’s because we haven’t seen anything like January 6, since Reconstruction. Insurrection against the Constitution is something extraordinary.

Roberts: “That seems to me that you’re avoiding the question, which is other states may have different views about what constitutes insurrection. And now you’re saying well, it’s all right, because somebody, presumably us, are going to decide, well, they said they thought that was an insurrection, but they were wrong. And maybe they thought it was right, and we’d have to develop rules for what constitutes an insurrection”