* Republican AGs from 27 states filed a brief on Saturday backing Trump
* Trump is appealing a Colorado court decision to remove him from state's ballot
* The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on February 8
Republican attorneys general from 27 states have filed a court brief supporting Donald Trump in his Supreme Court battle to remain on Colorado's 2024 presidential ballot.
In a 22-page 'friend of the court' brief filed on Saturday, the attorneys general called on the high court to strike down a Colorado court decision barring Trump under the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on February 8, and its decision on Trump's eligibility to run for president will have far-reaching implications for the November election, after Maine acted separately to ban Trump on similar grounds.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I am confident that the Supreme Court will overturn efforts by Democrats to use the law and regulations to ban the former President. But in the interim the Democrats are accomplishing their goal of not only diverting Trumps' focus away from the campaign and to the courts, but also draining his campaign coffers.
Here is an easy prediction. In the even that the Supreme does choose to keep the ban (or some version) in place, the "chaos" and precedent that it will spawn will damage the entire US electoral process for decades.
3 comments:
The point is to cause hatred between left and right. Of course the supreme court will reverse it but they're going to do it anyway.
I don't see why dems are trying to remove Trump. No Trump means DeSantis takes over. Think logically who do you think is a bigger problem?A mid 40s guy who already has full control over Florida and whose policies are fully in line with Trumps or a guy in his mid 70s?Ie Trump. Be careful what you wish for.
1258
This is not about trump or DeSantis or the man in the moon.
This is about one Political party trying to create a weaponized legal system to influence an election.
The creation of a very dangerous precedent.
Post a Comment