The Supreme Court just turned us all into vigilante voters

[Nevilledog]

https://www.editorialboard.com/the-supreme-court-just-turned-us-all-into-vigilante-voters/


The conventional wisdom appears to be the US Supreme Court was right in ruling that neither Colorado nor any other state can remove Donald Trump from the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds. There appears to be a consensus of elite opinion believing it’s best to “let voters decide.”

However, as worthies such as Madiba Dennie and Thomas Zimmer have said, voters did decide. In 2020, they voted Trump out. He didn’t like that, so he organized an attempted paramilitary takeover of the US government in order to overthrow the democratic will of the American people. The Colorado Supreme Court decision to disqualify him as an insurrectionist was a lonely attempt to hold him legally accountable.

Colorado’s high court was doing what’s expected by a republican order founded on the principle of checks and balances. When the system’s integrity is under threat, as it was on January, 6, 2021, the rule of law demands democratic institutions administer commensurate justice. The Colorado Supreme Court tried that, as did elected officials in Maine and Illinois, but the US Supreme Court said no. Worse, elite opinion appears to believe that accountability is better left to voters.

I get it. It’s probably not a good idea to allow states to kick presidential candidates off their ballots, whether for good reasons, as was the case in Colorado, or for phony reasons, as would be the case in virtually any state controlled by the Republicans. But that’s not my point here.

*snip*

[Autumn]

1. It just amazes me that one fucking dirtbag party wants a man like that in charge of the country.

[eShirl]

2. They think it's worth the shortcut to power.

It's not; they are fools.

[Mr.Bee]

24. Don't think 'charge of the country'

think NUCLEAR CODES.

[PSPS]

3. "it's best to 'let voters decide.'"

That's the thing. As the writer points out, the voters "did decide" in 2020. But the corrupt supreme court can't have that. There must be do-overs until they get the outcome they desire. And, if that doesn't work, they'll just install him against the will of the voters as they did in 2000.

[FBaggins]

4. Not at all

Insurrection is a federal crime. If he’s an insurrectionist… then the DOJ could have indicted him on that charge years ago. Upon conviction he would be barred from office.

No need for vigilantes or divergent interpretations of who can apply the 14th amendment.

The problem is that the DOJ didn’t think that he could be convicted of the crime (and they’re probably right). And now it’s too late

[limbicnuminousity]

7. But governors can also declare a state of insurrection.

That fact seems to imply that the authority to label and hold an individual accountable as an insurrectionist is a shared at both federal and state levels. It's an apparent logical inconsistency that bugs the hell out of me.

The argument against having a "patchwork" of laws is nonsense. There's a patchwork of laws affecting reproductive healthcare, LBGTQ+ rights and immigration among others. Either apply all of the laws uniformly or GTFO.

[FBaggins]

9. Not sure why you think that matters

Declaring an insurrection grants the governor certain powers - but it doesn't equate to convicting any of the participants of the crime.


That fact seems to imply that the authority to label and hold an individual accountable as an insurrectionist[

It really doesn't. Governors can also declare that a forest fire was the result of arson or that a given death was a homicide - but only unanimous juries (after grand jury indictments) can convict the arsonist or murderer

[limbicnuminousity]

13. Appreciate the response.

It's gradually sinking in, it just seems bizarre.

He was convicted by the CO court and the decision was upheld by the CO SC. SCotUS responded by saying Congress is the ultimate arbiter. But the Insurrection Act says the Executive is the ultimate arbiter. From the outside it looks like a game of musical chairs intended to avoid addressing the issue.

Would it have made a difference if the CO governor issued the initial charge of insurrection?

[FBaggins]

16. He was in no sense "convicted" by the CO courts. That's the point

A civil state court has no power to convict people of federal crimes. Only a unanimous jury in a federal court can do that.

SCotUS responded by saying Congress is the ultimate arbiter

Not really. They said that only Congress (through legislation) can say who the arbiter is… and all they’ve currently “said” in that way is as I outlined above (and years ago). Note that this wouldn’t be Congress determining anything… it would be a grand jury and a criminal prosecution/jury.

Would it have made a difference if the CO governor issued the initial charge of insurrection?

No - only the DOJ can bring federal charges

[limbicnuminousity]

19. SMHL.

Thank you for patiently explaining. Okay, at least I can see how the situation allowed room for the SC to supercede the CO decision. The decision they reached still seems screwy as hell but I am obviously not a lawyer.

Kinda wish Biden had Trump summarily executed, or at least locked up, on day 1. If wishes were fishes...gdi.

[Farmer-Rick]

14. There is plenty of evidence to charge the stinking Nazi

The DOJ didn't even try. There are still a lot of Nazi lovers working in the DOJ. I think Garland let's them run things.

Colorado used the federal constitution to keep the Nazi off their ballot. I wonder what would have happened if Colorado had an insurrection clause in their own state Constitution? Would the Supremes still have forced Colorado to put the Nazi back on the ballot then?

[FBaggins]

17. Probably... but also probably not convict him

[Zeitghost]

22. If CO had an insurrection clause

It would not be enforceable on acts outside of CO.

[Farmer-Rick]

25. Oh, so you're saying

Since the Nazi did the actual insurrection act in DC and Not Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court still couldn't keep him off the ballot.

So considering everything, the Federal Supremes have effectively totally neutralized the 14 Amendment clause 3 for the stinking Nazi's insurrection.

I guess we'll have to be satisfied with the 4 count indictment on felony charges for working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the violent riot in DC.

[KS Toronado]

5. I would love to see Colorado change their voting laws

to include a "no insurrectionists allowed" provision and remove him again. STATE'S RIGHTS could be
their rallying cry while telling the SCOTUS to go to hell. Fight 'em, other States might follow.

[FBaggins]

10. That would fail even faster

It's settled law that states can't add to the constitutional eligibility standards. We learned that again when California tried to block trump unless he released his tax returns. Unanimous courts in both the state and federal systems overturned it.

Colorado only came as close as they did (which was never all that close) because they claimed that they were only implementing an existing constitutional requirement... not adding their own.

[stopdiggin]

18. thanks. appreciating the solid info

and maybe learning a little bit this AM!
I'm one of those that anticipated - and wasn't unduly upset ... Did appreciate that the liberal three wrote a scathing (addendum?) to the unanimous opinion - which I found instructive for it's detail and explanation of where the ruling took us.

[BobTheSubgenius]

6. That whole "states' rights" sentiment is quite malleable, apparently.

[rubbersole]

8. If the shoe fits....

...boof it!

[BobTheSubgenius]

28. Or, as we used to say when I was young - if the foo shits.

[CaptainTruth]

12. I've been thinking about that...

I can see some justification for not allowing states to eliminate federal office candidates from the ballot (a state action affecting a federal candidate), but what about state candidates?

What if a state eliminates a candidate for state office from the ballot (a state action affecting a state candidate)? That would seem to be further in the direction of "states rights" territory.

[Farmer-Rick]

15. Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

But not just State candidates but federal too, if they had an insurrection clause in their own state constitution.

[CaptainTruth]

27. Good point. SCOTUS has ruled in favor of state constitutions in cases where...

...there was no conflict with the federal constitution.

Gerrymandering comes to mind as an example, in cases where maps violated provisions of the state constitution.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. Not show some respect. No. Don't make a scene. Really low class dung.

[ShazamIam]

20. The U.S. Supreme Court is saying, leave it to the voters while they attack voting rights and legalize voter suppression.

[Zeitghost]

23. They didn't really say that at all

They said it is up to Congress to determine who has engaged in insurrection, not a state civil court.

And while there are other possible options, they have already established one such way with the passing of the insurrection act.

[Farmer-Rick]

26. Yeah,

And there's that 4 count indictment against Trump in DC that the justice department has filed.

But I doubt it will be finished before Trump and the Nazi crew go to work on rigging the next presidential election. Especially with the Supremes plan on slowing down the immunity decision.

Way to get your Nazi buddy on the ballot Supreme Court.

[keopeli]

21. Excellent and short article. Worth the click.