Neal Katyal noting that SCOTUS did not clear Trump of insurrection as he requested

[Kennah]

[FalloutShelter]

1. Bur they were unanimous in keeping the rapist, traitor on the ballot anyway.

They seem to want to have it both ways.
I don't understand how they took this case in the first place if not to rule on the insurrection portion of the question.

It is my understanding that the states run elections independently of the federal government.

Please feel free to correct me.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. They concurred on the essential question before them, which was:

“Shall an individual state have the power to enforce article 3 of the 14th amendment for the entire nation?”

I agree with their answer to that question.

[atreides1]

6. Okay

Then what is the point of article 3 of the 14th amendment?

If the powers that be either can't or won't enforce it, then it's nothing but dried ink that has no real meaning...and should be removed!

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. I haven't read the ruling

But rejecting the notion that individual states can enforce disqualification for federal office in no way renders that part of the constitution meaningless.

It simply means that, in order to be disqualified for federal office, that disqualification must be determined either by a federal court (SCOTUS wasn’t asked to determine if Trump was disqualified under the 14th, only if CO had the power to enforce the 14th), or through enforcement legislation passed by congress.

[gab13by13]

17. Explain enforcement legislation passed by Congress.

What would that procedure look like? Did the ruling say that a federal court had to make the decision? Would the case automatically go to a District federal court and then to the Appeals court? The state Supreme court will have no jurisdiction.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. I can only give an example of what I imagine the law could look like, not predict what it would actually be

Congress could pass a law amending various laws such as seditious conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, etc. to include the phrase “conviction of this offence renders the defendant disqualified for office under section 3 of the 14th amendment”.

Of course, this would require conviction on federal charges, and any conviction/disqualification could be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.

Or, I suppose congress could pass a specific declaration stating “Donald J Trump is hereby disqualified from holding federal office under section 3 of the 14th amendment”. Not sure how SCOTUS would handle that- haven’t read today’s ruling yet.

I don’t know what the ruling said, other than reports that it rejected the assertion that individual states could choose how and whether to enforce section 3 of the 14th.

[Zeitghost]

26. Congress would and has enforced this legislation

By passing the Insurrection Act, which creates the federal crime of insurrection. Conviction of the federal crime of insurrection would be the pathway to proving someone had engaged in insurrection and was therefore ineligible for office under the 14th amendment.

[people]

30. Yes, but . . .

Jack Smith has not charged Trump with a violation of that Act. Maybe he will do so now.

[notKeith]

28. Bullshit.

Alexander H. Stephens was V.P. of the Confederate States. Post-civil war, he was disqualified for running for Congress in 1866 - was attempting to run as a representative out of Georgia. I believe "running for Congress" is related to a federal office. Ergo, the state of Georgia prevented Stephens from running for a federal office. I believe the argument that the SCOTUS used is - malarkey.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. In 1866, There was an enforcement act that was later repealed.

Congress passed legislation granting the states the authority to implement section 3 of the 14th amendment, specifically against former members of the confederacy, and the legislation contained the guidelines for doing so.

At some point, I believe in the 1870’s that enforcement act was repealed, and since then only two people have been disqualified under the 14th- one last year for a county commissioner position, and one in the 1920’s for congress. The latter disqualification was reversed when the individual’s conviction was overturned, and he ran for and served in congress.

[notKeith]

34. Yep - you're right - I stand .. er.. sit.. corrected!

[sinkingfeeling]

13. The SCOTUS ruled that only Congress could enable Section 3 of the 13th., as was done back in

Post-Civil War years. That enabling law was overturned by the Amnesty Act of 1872. Congress acted again against Victor Berger in 1919 and 1920.

[bluestarone]

15. For sure not being a lawyer here, but my thoughts are they are ruling that

Only the Supreme Court can make a ruling regarding article 3 of the 14th amendment!! Kinda plain and simple to me..

[gab13by13]

18. Exactly,

If Iowa felt that Chuck Grassley engaged in insurrection only the Supreme Court could remove him from the ballot.

Scott Perry from Pa. engaged in an insurrection but only the Supreme Court can keep Perry from the Ballot.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. You misunderstand the question

It’s not about removing someone from the ballot, it’s about who gets to determine who is disqualified for federal office, and AFAIK, congress still has that power.

[Texin]

32. Their ruling argued that Constitution only allows congress to address that matter, and while

the House convicted TFG of insurrection the Senate gave him a pass.

[riversedge]

11. Thanks. Actually it was a good decision in that think IF yes, Abortion laws to could apply to ALL States, but

I think this only applies to allowing someone on the ballot--but you never know what the SC could do with it!!

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. Exactly, or think of the second amendment

States could pick and choose how to or whether to enforce the constitution.

[Dave says]

36. Except Colorado was not ruling for the entire nation, but just for the election being held in Colorado

Just another really bad ruling by a really not-so-Supreme Court.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. But the constitution says if someone is disqualified, it is nationwide

That’s why it was a correct unanimous decision to reject the argument that an individual state has the unreviewable power to take someone off the ballot.

[Dave says]

38. Hmmm. That seems correct. Thank you.

[former9thward]

4. If states ran things independently they could set their own election days.

They can't (for federal elections). They are governed by the Constitution.

[ITAL]

5. They do

However, something that was brought up in the oral arguments/questioning was the 14th Amendment was originally written for the Federal government to oversee that States, since the Feds couldn't trust the old Confederacy to run elections. In other words, it wasn't initially intended to be something for the States to use, but for the Feds to challenge/refuse to seat people. Kind of a technicality, but so much of what is decided in court cases are technicalities.

[FalloutShelter]

8. Thanks.

[marble falls]

7. He hasn't been convicted of rape or insurrection. Let him run. And we'd better bring out a huge turnout.

[DoBW]

35. defacto clearing

if he's on ballot

[former9thward]

2. He may have requested that but that was not the issue the Court considered.

The court is not going to go beyond the issue before them.

[Nictuku]

10. Unless it is the Immunity question where it is not narrow, but wide open (will take longer/more delay)

[onenote]

20. The immunity issue as stated by the Court is limited

[gab13by13]

12. So states don't have standing for federal candidates,

it is the role of Congress. How would Congress enforce the 14th Amendment? What is the procedure?

If a Senator like Chuck Grassley, fell under the stipulations of the 14th Amendment, how would Congress keep Grassley off 1 states ballot? Isn't Congress telling an individual state that it can or can't remove Grassley? How would that be done?

[Kid Berwyn]

16. Mr Drumpf, he gonna get convicted.

Then his pimply ass is grease. I mean, grass.

[Hugin]

19. It doesn't matter. While the truth is still putting on its bunny slippers.

The big lie that this is an acquittal is being chiseled in stone all across the court of public opinion via the media.

[moniss]

24. They will eventually.

[elleng]

25. Right, didn't clear him of ANYTHING, did not address the substance at all,

'merely' procedural decision (tho rather political.)

[Cheezoholic]

27. Screw the SCOTUS, we gotta keep him and as many repukes as possible out of office in Nov.

The revolution WILL be televised at the ballot box on 11/5/24. It's all we got. Fuck this playing around in the court shit. Vote this asshole and every repuke we can out. This is a Ballot Revolution, it's all we got.

Big D Straight Ticket in 2024

[bucolic_frolic]

29. It seems the only practical decision for elections for national office, but

weren't there times when 3rd party candidates sued for ballot access, or were denied ballot access by several states? I'm thinking Perot, Wallace, Nader, Anderson ...................

[lame54]

31. Not yet...

That decision is still pending