🏅 Top traders

@mods How did this resolve YES? The U.S. Supreme Court heard Trump v. Anderson on March 3, 2024. The case involved a group of Colorado voters challenging whether Trump could even appear on the presidential ballot in November because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

@ReeMARKable this was already litigated in the comments below. BTE resolved No on 4 March 2024 but reopened based on SemioticRivalry's comment. It appears a yes resolution required the following:

• in one or more cases brought to the SC involving Trump

• The SC declines to intervene

And then Erik shared one such instance from August.

@Eliza Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

Resolves YES?
https://newrepublic.com/post/184572/supreme-court-declines-save-trump-sentencing-hush-money-trial

@mods

Sure, that seems to qualify for a yes resolution. But I feel like I might be missing something because the market hovered around 50 % after your message.

Anybody want to argue for a no resolution?

@Agh Can we resolve?

maybe I'm misunderstanding but I'm not sure why this resolves no- they could still decline to intervene in a trump case?

@SemioticRivalry Sorry you are right. Can you reopen for me?

Does this include the case to exclude him from the ballot in Colorado?

Edit: Nevermind, misread the question.

Does this mean “there has to be at least one case involving Trump that they decline to intervene in” or “for every single case involving Trump, they decline to intervene”?

And “case involving Trump” seems quite ambiguous as well. For example, the court recently heard arguments in the case Vidal v. Elster, about whether a trademark should be granted for the phrase “Trump too small”; would that count?