Supreme Court might give election to Trump

By that logic, then, Trump's unfitness for office will be proved in November 2020.

 

An interesting concept. However, states do control ballot access today. Through laws passed by the various state legislatures, they set requirements as to signatures, time periods in which those signatures must be obtained, how many, whether the signatures must come from registered voters or just adults, etc. Many third party and independent candidates are denied ballot access via these laws.

As far as I know, all 50 states give the two major parties automatic ballot access. Everyone else must jump through hoops to get on the ballot as stated in the various election and ballot access laws of the 50 states. Just meeting the Constitutional qualifications doesn't automatically grant ballot access whether presidential, House or Senate candidates. You had four states in 2016 that refused to allow Jill Stein the Green party presidential candidate on the ballot and another three states which her name didn't appear on the ballot, but one could write in her name. It was much worst for Castle, Constitutional Party, McMullen independent and on down the line. The states determine whom they grant ballot access to.

You had 25 other minor or third party candidates that field candidates for the presidency. Winning the lawsuit as you outlined in the SCOTUS, basically stating a presidential candidate only has to met the constitutional requirement would required placing all these minor party candidates on all state ballots. The SCOTUS would be determining denying them ballot access is unconstitutional. That could lead to a listing of 50 candidates if the lawsuit was won on each state ballot.

What the lawsuit would decide if the SCOTUS rules on it, it would decide whether the states have the power to decide who is on their state ballots or if they don't. If the laws passed by their state legislatures dealing with the requirements of ballot access are constitutional or not.

I won't hazard a guess as to how the SCOTUS would rule on this, I usually get their rulings wrong. But I think it is past time for a ruling on it. Either a presidential candidate meeting the constitutional requirement must be included on the ballot or the states can add requirements to the constitutional requirements to disallow candidates ballot access that doesn't meet their criteria as passed by their state legislature. Bring it on.

 

Appearing on the ballot is a state prerogative. That is why 1/2 the independent candidates don't get on the ballot in some states.

 

Just an observation here and using your posts as a bounce off point, not actually directed at either of you:

Funny thing about "partisanship". Everyone believes that they are 'centrist" and aren't partisan. Some people are correct in this assessment. But for the most part, most people aren't. I have both liberal and conservative friends. Both sides like to claim that they are "centrist". But in reality they are both on the far side of their political spectrum. My liberal friend believes in open borders, medical care of all (including illegals..of course they wouldn't be illegals with open borders so....), free medical care, free education for life etc etc. All the usual tropes of a leftist. My conservative friend is as far right as they come without the racism held by alt righters. Strong border security, getting rid of entitlements, extremely limited gun control (basically if you're in prison/jail you don't get a gun but everyone else should be allowed one...no licenses) etc etc. They both believe they are centrist and right in their beliefs. They can't stand each other, but like me....go figure. :shrug:

 

No one believes in "open borders", which is merely a fright right wing trope.

 

Reality is not your friend. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...calls-for-decriminalizing-illegal-immigration
California's border is already open to illegal immigrants of every persuasion, and the DNC will officially open it's borders to all illegal aliens if a (D) wins the 2020 presidential election.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...criminalize-illegal-immigration-during-debate
The preoccupation with "RW tropes" had made progressive rubes tone deaf and myopic to their own party's platform and pledge. Citizenship has no value or privilege in the progressive globalist Utopia the DNC is promoting.

 

When you support not going after people in the US illegally unless they commit some felony not related to being in the US illegally AND support giving them free medical care and education for life then yes...you ARE for open borders because that is exactly the outcome that such a belief results in. Just because you refuse to call it "open borders" specifically does not mean it isn't. As the old saying goes...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...then its a duck.

 

Nope, #57, that definition is flatly wrong. I support sensible policies, where as you don't, as you have not in other forums.

No one supports 'open borders.'

Democrats support a sane border security policy, but Trump keeps trumpeting his folly, "I wanna wall."

Nope, Moscow Donny, nope.

 

Not if state law like federal law protects that privacy. Not if like in my state information on my state return is derived from my federal return.

So which state is going to pass a law making the citizens tax returns no longer protected private documents? I thought the left were adamant defenders of the right to privacy?

 

Which means passing these laws mean nothing since they cannot keep anyone off the ballot based on Constitutional requirements.

 

LOL, before democrats voted for walls, now they are for sanctuary cities, get rid of ICE and CBP, mass amnesty, etc, some even call for no borders.

 

State law can be waived by the Court.

 

Hogwash. Fear mongering and fake news from start to finish by fake news outlets.

 

I have a feeling that if this ever gets to the sc. There wil be a Massive amount of drama eitherway No matter wich side they eventualy pick

 

What you meant to say was it goes to something I don't care about. His rudeness. He is the most fit for office of any president in my lifetime. The only problem I have with him is his willingness to expand spending and the debt.

 

That is not a qualification of the person. That is merely showing political support.

If the person does not want to release personal tax data then the voters will take that into consideration when they vote. I don't believe the SCOTUS will agree to statutory requirements.

 

How so? He filed his tax forms and paid any taxes due like every citizen is required to do.

 

Fitness for office requires far more than that. Tell us why anyone thinks he is fit: be specific.

 

First there is the primary where the parties not the state decides who is in their ballot. Primaries are held for the convenience of the parties. Then if the Democrats in a state say that Trump cannot be listed on the ballot there will be a revolt in the state and a HUGE write in vote which the state would have to deal with and count and then numerous lawsuits.

 

They waive the signature and filing requirements of any party which received X number of votes or X% of the votes in the previous election.

 

And that is for the voters to decide at the ballot box.

 

imo, no one should be denied on any ballot, whether national or local, to do so 'rigs' the election... *see california for a prime example of how it does go 'all wrong'...

 

Most but not all. Working for Perot in 1996 although he received 19% of the vote we still had to go through the petition route in roughly 30 states. Such a long time ago, I forget how many. The percentages you are talking about vary largely by state. As each state has their own ballot access laws, 50 different set of laws and 50 different requirements.

 

Yes that is why I used the "X". I have voted Libertarian on occasion just to to my little part to help them with ballot access for future elections, so they don't have to go out and collect signatures. Didn't Perot run as an independent candidate in those states which in my state requires a 3% of the electorate who voted for governor.