As a general rule, courts are not supposed to entertain motions by bad actors—litigants are supposed to have “clean hands.” This legal precept ought to negate any arguments the trumpers decide to fling, but the rule of law has not much been in evidence these last few decades
Georgia is the place to do it, because there are Georgia courts already addressing Trump's claim to have won the election THERE as well as in the US, so it's more likely to cause him trouble.
I’m sad to see this failed as a path forward and for the right reasons (“political grandstanding does not trigger the bar of the Twenty-Second Amendment”).
But the consequence is :chefs-kiss:
Either
trump was elected twice and can’t run
OR
trump is a loser and a liar but can run
Somebody definitely should make this argument in court. And keep making it for every state that agrees to hear this case. Either he finally concedes or he’s ineligible. Pick one.
Yeah, one of the bigger states needs to go there. Illinois, maybe. Maine only has 4 electoral votes and we consistently split them 3:1 for the Democrat candidate in both 2016 and 2020.
No, we need at least three of these states (Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania) to kick him off the ballot. Those are the swing states.
My understanding is that if the Supreme Court allowed the Colorado decision to stand, it wouldn’t matter what other states do it, because he’d be constitutionally unqualified to serve as president. All or nothing.
Q: "How many times were you elected President?"
(Trump) A: "Twice, 2016 and 2020"
Q: "So having been elected President twice, the 22nd Amendment forbids you to run again?"
A: "(blusters incoherently)
Yeah, but we’re talking about a guy who, back in 2017 or 2018 was whining that his first term shouldn’t count because everyone was so mean to him (i.e. didn’t let him do whatever the hell he felt like in a given moment & said mean things about him)
