2024 Presidential Election

Warning On Air GIF by Adult Swim
 

Arizona GOP introduces resolution to declare Trump 2024 winner regardless of the vote


Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives have introduced a resolution that would seek to declare former President Donald Trump the winner of the 2024 presidential election — regardless of what the voters decide, reported KPNX's Brahm Resnik.

The resolution would not carry any force of law because it is not a bill, noted Resnik.


However, it is in response to rulings in Colorado and Maine disqualifying the former president from the ballot under the Insurrection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It will be reviewed by the House Election Committee Wednesday.


According to Resnik, the resolution advocates "to change the manner of the presidential election by appointing the eleven presidential electors to the republican primary winner to offset the removal of a republican candidate in Colorado and Maine," and "that Governor Hobbs sign the election reform measures listed below, and if not, the presidential electors be appointed to protect the 2024 presidential election from another maladministered and illegally run election."

There is no evidence that the 2020 presidential election in Arizona was rigged or otherwise "illegally run."

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case reviewing whether states have the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment to disqualify presidential candidates in the manner Colorado and Maine did.

Most of the justices appeared uncomfortable with the idea of states constitutionally disqualifying presidential candidates, and are widely expected by legal observers to overturn those decisions.
 
My wifes company literally couldn't hire Trump to wash toilets with his 91 felony counts. But somehow he's definitely fit to run the country. What a world.
 
My wifes company literally couldn't hire Trump to wash toilets with his 91 felony counts. But somehow he's definitely fit to run the country. What a world.
Supreme Court decision made no determination at all....didn't even discuss....whether or not he actually committed insurrection or whether he is fit to run the country.

They all agreed that individual states can't disqualify someone from a federal office under the insurrection clause of the 14th.

They disagreed somewhat on what would be necessary to enforce that provision so you had concurring opinions in the result.
 
Supreme Court decision made no determination at all....didn't even discuss....whether or not he actually committed insurrection or whether he is fit to run the country.

They all agreed that individual states can't disqualify someone from a federal office under the insurrection clause of the 14th.

They disagreed somewhat on what would be necessary to enforce that provision so you had concurring opinions in the result.
interesting thing I read about this decision

Reading from the opinion, Rubin noted Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson urged the rest of the court to rein itself in.

'In the concurrence from justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, a warning of sorts in my view to some of the other justices saying, we didn't need to decide anything more here than the principle that states don't have the authority to disqualify candidates for federal offices," she explained.


The court ruled that the states can only bar people from state offices under the 14th Amendment. For federal offices, the decision has to be made by Congress. SCOTUS did not make any ruling on if Trump was an insurrectionist, which Colorado's Supreme Court had found he was based on actions taken on Jan. 6, 2021.


Rubin then added, "By going further than that and saying that only Congress has that enforcement power, 'You have decided something that didn't need to be done,' and they say, 'We protest the majority's efforts to use this case to define the limits of federal endorsement of that provision because we would only decide the issue before us. We concur only in the judgment.'"


Don't decide anything you don't have to. Let's not do that. That's what I read in that."
 

A question of timing​

For six weeks in June and July 2022, a House committee held public hearings about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. During those hearings, millions of Americans heard new details about the efforts by Donald Trump and his supporters to overturn the 2020 election result.

Less than four months later, Americans voted in the midterm elections — and rejected many of Trump’s favorite candidates. Republicans whom he had backed in primaries performed about five percentage points worse on averagein the general election than other Republicans, a Times analysis found. The difference was large enough to decide several races.

The message seemed clear. Americans may be politically divided and (as I’ve written before) dissatisfied with both the Democratic Party’s liberalism and President Biden’s performance. But when voters focus on the anti-democratic behavior of Trump and his allies, a small but critical slice becomes less willing to vote for them.

This history feels particularly relevant after the Supreme Court issued a decision last week that will delay Trump’s federal trial for election subversion. The court agreed to hear Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution because the alleged crimes occurred while he was president. The justices scheduled arguments about his immunity claim for April, which is likely to push back the start of any trial until at least September. The court’s move reduces the chances of a trial verdict before Election Day.

A benefit to Trump​

In doing so, the court has almost certainly helped Trump’s campaign. He has made clear that delay is central to his strategy for fighting the cases against him. And for obvious reason: If he becomes president again, he can order the Justice Department to end any federal case against him.

The delays also make it more likely that he will become president again. The public will be less focused on his attempts to overturn the 2020 election if he isn’t on trial for them. Polls have also found that a significant share of Trump’s current supporters claim they will not vote for him if he is convicted.

As Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, said to me: “The possibility that Trump would be convicted of federal crimes by the election was one of the better reasons to think the race could shift toward Biden. That’s looking less likely now, especially as the D.C. case seemed like the fastest and clearest path to a conviction.” And as my colleagues Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman wrote, “Trump’s delay strategy seems to be working.”

(Two other cases — a Georgia trial involving his attempts to overturn the result and a federal trial involving his handling of classified documents — have moved even more slowly. The charges in a fourth case — a New York trial set to start this month, involving hush money to conceal a sexual affair — may not seem as serious to many voters.)

The Supreme Court is not the only reason that the cases are moving slowly. Prosecutors in both federal cases and the Georgia case have moved with less urgency than some legal observers thought was savvy. And the Supreme Court justices will no doubt argue that they are merely following a reasonable timetable for an important case.

But the court has acted very quickly when dealing with past cases related to elections, including in Bush v. Gore in 2000. This year, by contrast, the justices have made two different decisions that have pushed back Trump’s trial for election subversion.

No, then yes​

First, the justices rejected a request in December from Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, that they immediately consider Trump’s claim of immunity. The case was so important, Smith said, that only the Supreme Court could resolve it and should not wait for an appeals courts to hear it first. The justices said no to Smith.

Second, after the appeals court ruled against Trump, the justices agreed last week to hear his challenge — and scheduled the hearing for late April, almost two months from now. “The schedule the court set could make it hard, if not impossible, to complete Mr. Trump’s trial before the 2024 election,” Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, wrote. (I recommend this article by Adam, in which he explains the relevant history, such as Bush v. Gore.)

In a newsletter last week, I argued that the Supreme Court’s recent decision on diversity and high school admissions offered a reason for Americans to be less cynical about the court. On that subject, the justices seemed to be following a consistent principle across several cases. Sometimes that principle disappointed the political left, and sometimes it disappointed the right.

Last week’s decision feels different. When urgent action could help a Republican presidential candidate in 2000, the court — which was also dominated by Republican appointees at the time — acted urgently. When delay seems likely to help a Republican presidential candidate in 2024, the court has chosen delay. The combination does not make the court look independent from partisan politics.


 
Justice delayed by the most partisan and blatantly political Supreme Court ever. Activist judges making policy from the bench to benefit Republicans. Clarence Thomas (POS) refused to recuse himself from cases directly involving his gullible wacko wife. Bribes and benefits paying dividends in this court at this very time. Several justices living WAY above their means. Shouldn’t be surprised in this pay to play some are above the law world. I can’t even imagine what shape our country will be in with a second Trump term.
 
Back
Top