The case raises a novel legal question under a constitutional clause that prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" from serving in the federal government.

The justices will review a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said Trump could be barred from the Republican primary ballot in that state, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is likely to have national repercussions, potentially setting guidelines that would determine how every other state would handle the issue.

The brief order said the case would be argued on an accelerated schedule on Feb. 8, indicating that a ruling will follow soon after.

  • @afraid_of_zombies
    1•6 months ago

    And how is their trying going? Did they pull it off yet? They control the house and have such for nearly two years.

    It’s dumb and incorrect, but it’s pretty effective at diluting the seriousness of those particular actions to their own voter base. You could argue that that’s the point.

    Citation needed. I want you to show that polling has gone up for them as a result of their lackluster efforts.

    • @Seasoned_Greetings
      3•6 months ago

      I don’t need to show you statistics to shed light on their intent. It’s not hard to figure out what they’re doing. It’s also not hard to see that what they’re doing is damage control. The result of that would be keeping their polls from going down, not making them go up. You can’t prove a negative, so I don’t know what you want me to do.

      As far as diluting the seriousness of what they’ve done, go turn on fox news. They blast Biden’s “insurrection” and impeachment “proceedings” 24/7. Do you need more proof than that?

      Lastly, if you’re trying to defend your original statement, you’re preaching to the choir here. You don’t have to be an asshole about it. It’s a bit asinine to assert that they aren’t doing it with intent.