An "activist" judge has decided that he can rule, on his own authority, that Trump may not run for president in the state of Illinois.

A Cook County judge has ordered the removal of former President Donald Trump from Illinois' primary ballot, but has put her order on hold until Friday in anticipation of an appeal. The decision comes on the same day the Supreme Court agreed to take up consideration of Trump's presidential immunity in his January 6th case.

Key Details:

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Tracie Porter issued the ruling Wednesday, citing much of a similar ruling out of the Colorado Supreme Court called the state's "rationale compelling."

Porter immediately stayed her own ruling, writing that the "decision could not be the ultimate outcome" given expected appeals.

Trump's campaign has dismissed the ruling as "unconstitutional," slamming Porter as an "activist Democrat judge."

...

The State Board of Elections previously and unanimously rejected the same bid to block Trump from Illinois' ballot under the 14th Amendment last month, but Judge Porter found the board's decision to be "clearly erroneous."

The Supreme Court will dispense of this one when it rules on the others.

A judge has rejected Trump's motion to pause the enforcement of the half-billion dollar unconstitutionally excessive fine levied against him.

A New York judge has ruled that former President Trump must continue to pay a $454 million penalty in a civil fraud case, but granted a temporary pause on some restrictions, allowing Trump to apply for loans.

Key Details:

Justice Anil Singh denied Trump's request to pause the enforcement of $454 million in penalties but allowed loan applications and leadership positions in NY businesses.

Trump offered a $100 million bond during the appeal, stating that securing a bond for the full amount was "impossible."

The ruling is temporary, pending a full panel review of Trump's motion to delay payment.

Diving Deeper:

In a significant decision, Justice Anil Singh of the New York appellate division ruled against former President Donald Trump's request to stay the enforcement of over $454 million in penalties. These penalties were imposed in a civil fraud case for allegedly inflating his net worth to gain tax and insurance benefits. Trump's proposal to post a $100 million bond during the appeal process was part of an effort to address the challenge of securing a bond for the full penalty amount, which he claimed was unfeasible.

It's my opinion that this is so obviously outrageous and unconstitutional on its face the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to New York's law and this particular ruling, and will dispose of it. I think Trump right now is spamming out motions, because getting a Supreme Court review requires, as a first step, that you exhaust all possible avenues of legal relief in lower courts.

I'm not worried about this one. You cannot levy an unconstitutionally excessive fine which a defendant cannot pay and then say "We will not hear your appeal until you pay the unconstitutionally excessive fine you cannot pay." That is an obvious Catch-22, and basically just denying all due process to a defendant.

And this is on top of the obvious selective, partisan prosecution: Kathy Hochul has reassured all other land developers that this twisted application of the law will not apply to anyone except Donald Trump, and the partisan DEI AG is literally trolling Trump on Twitter by posting the daily interest increases to the fine, $114,000 per day.

So it is my suggestion as a Legal Expert (I am in the media; I am an expert in whatever is in the news this minute) that people relax a little about this one. Justice will be done.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump's argument that he has some degree of immunity for actions he took as president. I think he hurt his cause by claiming total immunity, but the Supreme Court doesn't have to find that he has absolute immunity. They can just find he has some.

Crucially, this delays the the DC prosecution for "insurrection" that the partisan liberal activist Democrat judge is speedrunning so that she can get Trump convicted before the election.

The Supreme Court of the United States will decide if former President Trump can be prosecuted on election interference charges.

On Wednesday, the SCOTUS said that it would hear arguments and issue a ruling on the immunity claim on April 22, resulting in the case being put on hold. This means no trial can take place.
Advertisement

According to the order, the case could take months to resolve.

A trial was initially set for March 4, however, Trump's case has been on pause while the former president pushes for an immunity appeal in the lower courts.

The order states that the court will decide "whether and if so to what extent a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

This is a great point from Bonchie: Now they're screaming that it is imperative that the trial be held as soon as impossible. (I meant to do that.)

But they had nothing to say when J6 political prisoners languished in jail without trial for two years!

Now, wait a second. I was assured that the election-related case against Trump was strictly non-political, presided over by a special prosecutor with only justice on his mind. Given that, why are the three horsemen of the apocalypse in the clip above having a mental breakdown over this? Why do they care about the timeline? They certainly weren't concerned about the January 6th defendants who sat around waiting two to three years for their trials to start.

Why, it's almost as if the entire point of this prosecution is to influence the election, and Maddow and her cohorts are upset it might not happen before November.

Are you sure these trials aren't just Politics By Other Means?