Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off Colorado ballot
Source: NBC
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a Colorado court ruling that said former President Donald Trump was ineligible to run for office again because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol -- bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.
The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under a provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado, the decision is likely to affect similar cases that have arisen. So far only two other states, Maine and Illinois, have followed Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions were put on hold.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291
Text of the opinion (PDF)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
machoneman
(4,128 posts)
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)The decision was 9-0.
Fiendish Thingy
(22,948 posts)SCOTUS isn’t about to allow states to be the final interpreters of the constitution.
PortTack
(35,819 posts)
Attilatheblond
(8,747 posts)A dark horse candidate is often the beneficiary of people's hopes and projection, thus getting an edge against a known person. This could actually hurt DEMs in November.
If Trump gets bumped out, and a lesser known (IOW, less opo research and exposure to voters from media) could be a bigger threat. The old 'time for a CHANGE' emotion can come into play.
toesonthenose
(188 posts)I truly believe he is such damaged goods, he would be easier to beat than someone that might take more of the independent vote.
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)I think he's the best candidate for us to face in November. That doesn't mean it'll be easy, of course, but easier than some other possibilities. It's all relative.
I think this was always the outcome we were going to see. Without a conviction for insurrection or something similar, the SC simply wasn't going to kick him off the ballot.
toesonthenose
(188 posts)And agree about the not being easy, I hope everyone is as motivated as can be in getting the vote to turnout. I will be working the polls at my location and make sure to engage people in my neighborhood and other places as much as possible to highlight the successes that President Biden has had but don't get enough coverage.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)but they took oaths to uphold the Constitution, and they did not. Who's not going to understand the source of the authority when tRump rewrites the Constitution on Day One? This action is probably not that consequential, although it could have been. But, their intent is to stand by Donald when they had a pathway not to do so. They had a clear pathway given to them by those who fought a war to uphold our Democracy, and they fell flat on their faces at Donald Trump's feet.
As far as seeking a race against Trump because he is the weaker candidate, did anyone ever think that he isn't the weaker candidate because he has demonstrated a willingness to lie and cheat to get what he wants, a ticket out of prison? This one will lie to the nth degree. He has no business running for President after he incited an insurrection. And now he can run for President even we get him convicted at trial, because he can run from jail. That's what this decision gives us.
I have NO respect for this Court.
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)Much of it is left up to interpretation, and that itself is an issue. This issue was never anywhere near as cut-and-dried as pundits and celebrity lawyers claimed it to be. Many had formed completely unrealistic expectations of this case based on those statements. We really need to stop taking media personalities and TV lawyers who get paid to support an agenda at face value. We hear what we want to hear and ignore the rest.
https://democraticunderground.com/100218742262
"their intent is to stand by Donald when they had a pathway not to do so"
Including the liberals? They're clearly not standing by Donald. That assertion is ridiculous. Read what they wrote in the ruling.
"demonstrated a willingness to lie and cheat"
That applies to anyone would might realistically replace him in this race. Trump isn't the disease. He's a symptom. Until very recently, Haley was running as just another variety of Trump, and the others, except for Christie, are even worse.
He's the weakest candidate because he's damaged goods. He motives his base, certainly, but he motivates Democrats just as much, if not more. Look at 2020. The more losses he racks up (he's already on the hook for $500 million and a criminal trial starts in three weeks), the more we're going to be motivated and the better the chances that independents will swing back to Biden, as they did in 2020.
Haley does significantly better than Trump head-to-head vs. Biden. She almost certainly would be a better GE candidate. The claims that white guys won't vote for her if she's the nominee are just wishful thinking based on silly stereotypes. Republicans will vote for the person with the (R) by their name in November.
FoxNewsSucks
(11,666 posts)of all the myriad ways they cheat, steal and suppress voters.
He didn't "win" last time, but got the office anyway. As do many with an R after their name.
bdamomma
(69,503 posts)Putin but he is not immune either, his country is done with him too.
Attilatheblond
(8,747 posts)The important thing it to get DEMs elected at state & county levels so we can stem the tide of voter suppression and election tampering at local governmental levels.
GET DEMS ELECTED! ALL levels of government.
Trump is basically just a distraction away from how the powers behind GOP are sneaking in methods of destroying our democracy.
PatrickforB
(15,415 posts)news, Biden is much less popular than he should be. It might be that someone who seems sane like what's her name could win.
I don't think Trumpy stands a chance.
COL Mustard
(8,151 posts)T*ump is a known evil. It's easy to get under his skin, and I'm sure Dark Brandon will do that at the debates (and at the events leading up to them). Haley or someone else would be much harder to beat in the General. So while I'm rooting hard for cardiovascular disease to do its inevitable thing, I don't really want it to happen tonight. Mid-September would be just fine.
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)I agree with everything you said. In the court of public opinion, beating him straight up in November is the best option, especially if Biden can beat him convincingly. It would shut down much of the post-election nonsense.
Counting on any of this other stuff is just asking for trouble. This case, in particular, really had no chance, but people were convinced otherwise by media talking heads and other self-proclaimed experts. It's still my hope that he's convicted in one of the other cases, but we simply can't count on that to help in November.
Jose Garcia
(3,493 posts)cstanleytech
(28,432 posts)MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)Bastards
Polybius
(21,820 posts)The three liberals are not "bastards."
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)Maybe you should rethink what you said.
mahatmakanejeeves
(69,339 posts)Decision comes a day before Super Tuesday and as justices weigh other key cases affecting Donald Trump
By Ann E. Marimow
March 4, 2024 at 10:01 a.m. EST
The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously sided with Donald Trump, allowing the former president to remain on the election ballot and reversing a Colorado ruling that disqualified him from returning to office because of his conduct around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The ruling leaves Trump as the leading candidate for the Republican nomination and for now removes the Supreme Court from directly determining the path of the 2024 presidential election. The justices fast-tracked the challenge from voters in Colorado, and issued their decision one day before Super Tuesday when that state and more than a dozen others hold primary contests.
In a sign of the high court’s awareness of the election calendar, the justices took the unusual step of announcing the opinion on the Supreme Court’s website on a day when the court is not in session, instead of issuing it from the bench later this month.
The justices were reviewing a decision from Colorado’s top court that relied on a long dormant post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment to declare Trump ineligible to return to the White House. The unprecedented case thrust the Supreme Court into a pivotal role not seen since 2000, when the high court’s decision in Bush v. Gore handed the presidency to George W. Bush and bitterly divided the nation.
{snip}
The case is Trump v. Anderson.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
By Ann Marimow
Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005, and has spent a decade writing about legal affairs and the federal judiciary. She previously covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Twitter https://twitter.com/amarimow
BeyondGeography
(41,032 posts)Would that the oh-so-complicated question of presidential immunity received similar treatment.
Nah.
dalton99a
(93,793 posts)
wiggs
(8,779 posts)might succeed. Or at least might be a split vote.
wiggs
(8,779 posts)
FBaggins
(28,703 posts)The court (correctly) points out that Congress has the power to craft legislation enforcing 14A... and that convicting someone of insurrection would be enough...
... but there's no way to indict him now and get a conviction prior to election day... and zero chance of Congress passing legislation by that time either.
So to the extent there's any "attention Jack" in the ruling... it's "you had your chance"
creeksneakers2
(7,990 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(22,948 posts)I’ll wait to read that, and who voted which way before passing judgement.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)bdamomma
(69,503 posts)so what can the Colorado Judges do anything about this????? Fuck the SC.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Colorado Courts overstepped their bounds.
If this had been anything but a 9-0 decision, I would be pissed but unanimous? Unanimous decisions usually mean that that one side royally screwed up in their ruling.
Fullduplexxx
(8,624 posts)msfiddlestix
(8,178 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(69,339 posts)I don't see any requirement that he be currently alive.
Take my legal advice, along with $4, to the nearest Starbucks, and they in turn will present you with a cup of coffee.
And good morning.
wiggs
(8,779 posts)others. In the general election, should be used as a hammer to point out this guy engaged in insurrection and that he needs a questionable ruling to even be eligible.
PLUS...In ruling that a state can't keep him off the ballot, should there be a claim that the federal courts should keep him off the ballots in November? Can still claim he's ineligible....
wiggs
(8,779 posts)Polybius
(21,820 posts)Let's defeat him in November.
MichMan
(17,081 posts)wiggs
(8,779 posts)disability by section 3. Colorado and probably individual states can't unilaterally decide his eligibility under section 3 without an official federal procedure.
Congress can act to resolve this. Perhaps not in time for November but that's no reason not to introduce legislation. Perhaps not in time for November but that's no reason to point out repeatedly for voters that this guy, in addition to a thousand other reasons, is an insurrectionist who SHOULD be disqualified.
Also...it is not clear that if he's indicted on insurrection at some point that the finding by a jury and court could represent another pathway for TFG and/or people like him. Read the dissent, read emptywheel...analysis is just starting.
Perhaps not in time for November but the right thing to do is pursue justice...not legislate or indict or not indict based on politics.
FBaggins
(28,703 posts)It simply wasn't part of the case. We can't spin silence into agreement.
wiggs
(8,779 posts)consequential. Consequential in what sense is to be determined.
https://twitter.com/NormEisen
FBaggins
(28,703 posts)Their entire judgement was reversed.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)In a civil trial was determined not to be relevant to the 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court was never asked to review that finding and their indecision on it establishes nothing with regards to Trump and the election.
creeksneakers2
(7,990 posts)The court ruled only Congress can bar Trump from taking office.
Plain text in the Amendment that states: " But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." For that to make sense there must be the possibility of a disability being found. It would have to come from somewhere. For the Supreme Court's opinion to be right they framers of the amendment would have had to think Congress would disqualify a person and then vote by two thirds to remove the person. That makes no sense at all. The framers must have expected states or the courts to disqualify insurrectionists. Our Supreme Court has to be wrong.
Novara
(6,115 posts)They just re-wrote the Constitution.
And Thomas has NO FUCKING BUSINESS participating.
bdamomma
(69,503 posts)did not say if he is an insurrectionist??? They just said he could be on ballot????
thesquanderer
(12,973 posts)...to take him off the ballot (regardless of whether or not they had determined that he was an insurrectionist). They said that the enforcement mechanism for that aspect of the 14th amendment rests with congress, not the individual states.
AncientOfDays
(261 posts)... is on what basis did they make that determination. I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to that.
Certainly a State can enforce the 14th against Representatives and Senators? Why not President and Vice President.
It's my understanding that we DO NOT have a national election - rather we have 50 State Elections followed by the Electoral College.
24601
(4,139 posts)determined Christy was disqualified under the 14th Amendment's Section 3, the House of Representatives took the issue and refused to seat him, and also refused to seat his opponent who had served in the Confederate Army.
The attached link shows the result of multiple disqualification cases. When it was a Congressional seat, either the House or Senate determined the result.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Chart-of-Past-14.3-Disqualifications-rev.-07.10.23.pdf
thesquanderer
(12,973 posts)They answered that in extensive detail at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
AncientOfDays
(261 posts)- but I could find no legal basis for their decision.
Their decision also ignores the case of Abdul Karim Hassan which was heard by Neil Gorsuch (before he was appointed to SCOTUS). Gorsuch concluded "it is a state's legitimate interest" to protect the political process and exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
Yeah, it is chaos - a big hole that needs to be fixed. But this decision is worse - it may eventually reside with the Dred Scott decision.
FBaggins
(28,703 posts)Those are also federal offices.
They said that states could apply 14A to their own state offices.
Mistwell
(569 posts)"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency...As an initial matter, not even the respondents contend that the Constitution authorizes States to somehow remove sitting federal officeholders who may be violating Section 3. Such a power would flout the principle that “the Constitution guarantees ‘the entire independence of the General Government from any control by the respective States.’” ...Indeed, consistent with that principle, States lack even the lesser powers to issue writs of mandamus against federal officials or to grant habeas corpus relief to persons in federal custody...The Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not
affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5...The text of Section 3 reinforces these conclusions. Its final sentence empowers Congress to “remove” any Section 3 “disability” by a two-thirds vote of each house. The text imposes no limits on that power, and Congress may exercise it any time, as the respondents concede. "
bdamomma
(69,503 posts)do anything about this. The Colorado Court also mentioned the insurrection correct?
The 14th Amendment part is over.
bdamomma
(69,503 posts)“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or
hold any office, civil or military, under the United
States, or under any State, who, having previously
taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any
State, to support the Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
each House, remove such disability.”
Polybius
(21,820 posts)Or if Congress votes that he's ineligible, maybe the SC will re-look at it.
smh.
bluestarone
(22,041 posts)What the hell, that in itself is insurrection in my eyes! 
Mr. Evil
(3,457 posts)He can lie, cheat and steal the election but, the House and Senate should they choose have to vote by a two thirds majority to allow him to be sworn in as president.
wiggs
(8,779 posts)
samnsara
(18,763 posts)...once hes found guilty in a court of law, i would say bring it to the court again
Shrek
(4,415 posts)They're saying enforcement is up to Congress and not the courts.
LeftInTX
(34,168 posts)FBaggins
(28,703 posts)"Up to Congress" means (as 14A says clearly) that Congress has the power to enact legislation enforcing the provisions of the amendment.
They have done so (twice - though one has since been repealed). A conviction under the crime of insurrection that Congress created would absolutely be enough (as all sides agreed during oral arguments)
Polybius
(21,820 posts)A simple majority, or two thirds?
thesquanderer
(12,973 posts)But of course, it's not always that simple. Johnson stopped a bill that would have passed with simple majority, simply by refusing to bring it to the floor. There's also the variable of the filibuster.
thesquanderer
(12,973 posts)onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)They're twisting the law into a fucking pretzel. Never to be usable again.
thesquanderer
(12,973 posts)In short, states do not have the independent right to determine eligibility for federal office.
You can agree or disagree, but it is not an argument without foundation, as even the partial dissents in this 9-0 decision indicate.
Here are some relevant paragraphs from the decision:
Because federal officers “‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’” powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically “delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.”
the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.
Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates...would not derive from Section 5, which confers power only on “[t]he Congress.”
...state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that “the President. . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.”
Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations. Some States might allow a Section 3 challenge to succeed based on a preponderance of the evidence, while others might require a heightened showing. Certain evidence...might be admissible in some States but inadmissible hearsay in others. Disqualification might be possible only through criminal prosecution, as opposed to expedited civil proceedings, in particular States. Indeed, in some States—unlike Colorado (or Maine, where the secretary of state recently issued an order excluding former President Trump from the primary ballot)—procedures for excluding an ineligible candidate from the ballot may not exist at all. The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record).
creeksneakers2
(7,990 posts)We've had elections before with candidates that weren't on every ballot. In 2,000 Ralph Nader was only on 43 state ballots. Chief Justice Roberts said if a candidate wasn't on every ballot there would be "chaos." But we got through 2,000 with no chaos due to Nader being left off the ballot in some states. There have probably been many minor party candidates that were on less than 50 state ballots too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_2000_presidential_campaign
thesquanderer
(12,973 posts)and as you point out, many times, they are not.
I wasn't commenting on the validity of their arguments, just pointing out what they were... but yes, that aspect does seem weak. I think the SC could really have made the same decision leaving that part out altogether. Which I guess is consistent with the statements from the liberal judges, that the court unnecessarily went farther than it had to to reach the conclusion that it did.
Bacl to my comment, I was replying to the comment that "Elections are run by states. NOT congress." But there are limits on state controls over federal elections. Like, the Constitution says nobody under 35 can be president. If states could make their own eligibility requirements, a state could conceivably add a requirement that candidates must be under 80 (which a red state could use to keep Biden off the ballot). I know, it's not the same thing, but the point is, states do not have entirely free reign to determine who can be on a federal ballot.
creeksneakers2
(7,990 posts)They must have a lawful reason for excluding someone. I just read a case that said states can't add qualifications.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)But he hasn't been charged with insurrection or treason in any of his pending cases.
MichMan
(17,081 posts)TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)Treason isn't even applicable because it requires a declared enemy involved in an active war.
If you meant insurrection, he has yet to be charged with that, either.
DownriverDem
(7,007 posts)should motivate folks to VOTE!
Bengus81
(10,115 posts)Your witnessing it right here,right now.............
moniss
(8,993 posts)believe that if this were about a Democratic candidate that the vote would have been the same? I think it is safe to assume it would have been 6-3 for removal from the ballot.
thesquanderer
(12,973 posts)FBaggins
(28,703 posts)You would have to find a Dem candidate whose opponents claimed engaged in insurrection.
Since the word is not defined - it would be whatever they said that it was.
Fullduplexxx
(8,624 posts)sarge43
(29,173 posts)However, it's perfectly all right to give states to power to control half the population's reproductive choices.
bdamomma
(69,503 posts)I noticed that too.
FoxNewsSucks
(11,666 posts)RocRizzo55
(980 posts)put Putin on the ballot!
WestMichRad
(3,210 posts)… to determine if a candidate for federal office (or more specifically, for president) is eligible. So who does? As there is no enabling legislation for the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, that means it is just an ideal that cannot be enforced?
Of course Congress could pass enabling legislation, but hahaha, like that’ll ever happen.
Botany
(77,124 posts)14th Amendment and Article #3 says that if you:
Violated your oath to protect and defend the Constitution you are off the ballot.
Participated in trying to overthrow our elected Constitutional Democracy you are off the ballot.
**********
Don’t spread bull shit on toast and tell me that it is just “country style” apple butter so
eat up and enjoy it.
thesquanderer
(12,973 posts)Other text in the amendment implies that it should be up to congress, not the individual states.
Traildogbob
(12,979 posts)In that even if we win by 12-15 million more votes, after suppression nation wide, and them using bull shit polls for an augment that it was stolen again, which we know is coming, we can not have him turn his unregulated militia loose to stop killing at will.
Taking him off the ballot in the cult eyes is just another Stealing of power. Trump would use that for the next 10 months as campaign outrage messaging.
And if it’s only a few states, he would continue his KKKlan Jamborees with full coverage and support from MSM.
We HAVE to beat him head to head with massive numbers. If we can’t with all his crimes, hate, insurrection, lies, thieving and convictions, we do not deserve a free democracy. And all the dead and wounded soldiers throughout history, was just a waste of lives. And many more innocent will die at his command, supported by his God.
And this “Trust In God” bullshit needs removed from currency and all government docs and courthouses and anywhere it now resides. Because we can’t.
The ballot is our only weapon, yet they are trying like hell to disarm it.
We Are At War here on our own soil. From our current courts and one party and the media.
General McConnell has been staffing his warriors for decades. Fight or flight, which do we choose.
Just an opinion. Nothing more.
berksdem
(920 posts)
MichMan
(17,081 posts)FBaggins
(28,703 posts)Just not the way he argued
Note - I doubt that he was surprised. He was advocating for a position... not really evaluating what the constitution actually says.
Midwestern Democrat
(1,029 posts)objective legal analyst/observer on any matter with political/ideological implications. I'm not kidding - if I was seeking an opinion on any legal matter with a political component, I would trust the opinion of the average mediocre country lawyer before I would trust Tribe's.
patphil
(8,984 posts)I haven't read anything about their ruling, but I believe the SC isn't considering civil cases as relevant.
Their thinking is most likely that he would have to be convicted in one of the criminal cases for the 14th Amendment to come into play. If that's the case, Trump could run until such time as he gets convicted.
Of course, the plan is for none of these cases to be completed this year, and if Trump wins, he can shut all the Federal cases down once he is sworn in as President.
Trump's biggest problem is still the State of Georgia election fraud case. That's why they are going after Fani Willis.
In any event, the SC will do all they can to keep Trump on the ballot.
onetexan
(13,913 posts)
Deep State Witch
(12,697 posts)While I don't agree with it, I can see the point. He has not even been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted.
lark
(26,057 posts)Putin and Repugs and anti-democracy traitorism wins. Fascist SCOTUS is picking our next president and Merrick Garland is complicit.
bdamomma
(69,503 posts)
We still have to VOTE.
Polybius
(21,820 posts) lark
(26,057 posts)and not be held legally responsible. It's about refusing to hear Smiths' petition until it went to appeal court, then when presented with a unanimous and hard disapproval of the notion of presidential unlimited immunity put off hearing it for 2 months. Clear prejudice in favor of the ex
Condescenturion
(14 posts)"Our state has rules that govern who and how someone gets on the ballot. Break those rules and you're out." Unless SCOTUS says otherwise. So much for States' Rights.
I was bothered by one of the liberal justices saying words to the effect of, "We can't have one state deciding this election!"
OK, fine. Then get rid of the electoral college. Because one state can and has decided elections for years.
I'll be reading the decision.
kimbutgar
(27,183 posts)
duhneece
(4,499 posts)In my little spot in the world, we’re concerned that Couy ‘Cowboys for Trump’ Griffin will run again.
Bayard
(29,434 posts)I agree with others--trump is the best candidate for Biden to run against. REALLY hoping there is a debate between the two to show the total difference between them.
Otherwise, this is a very poor interpretation of the Constitution.
republianmushroom
(22,253 posts)
SpankMe
(3,701 posts)But it bugs me that they got this ruling out nice and quick, while slow-walking the presidential immunity question.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)The immunity question is only time sensitive in our opinion.
Marthe48
(23,052 posts)I early voted in Ohio today. On my ballot, there were 13 positions with no Dem to vote for. About 22 positions altogether. I'm in S.E. Ohio. There has been a dearth of Dem candidates for years.
E. Normus
(113 posts)for Trump, magats, the GOP, or any right wingers. TFG will be roasted in the General election! They will all still claim it was rigged anyway. That really goes without saying.
elleng
(141,926 posts)at what they said was the majority’s needless overreach. “Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue,” they wrote, “the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a brief concurring opinion, agreed that the majority had gone too far, saying that it should not have addressed “the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” But she urged the public to focus on common ground. “For present purposes," she wrote, “our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/04/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)that they threw away the Constitution. I have zero respect for this Court. They have cleared the way for a truly bad man to prevail. And, it makes no sense for them to dissent only to point out that they all agree! 9-0 is still 9-0. Chicken shit little people in black robes, throwing our Democracy away.
We need to get rid of lifetime appointments to the Court.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)When it's 9-0 they got the matter before them correct.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)they're posturing to soothe our outrage at them. Their position isn't in the Constitution. They rewrote the Constitution without a blush. Why, so Clarence and Ginny can get another free vacation? Their twisted opinion is worthless.
I suppose there is a mechanism for handling their problem that 3 out of 9 dissented, when they wanted to appear to be united in their "wisdom." Why not, you bought it. So, 3 of them were able to dissent while not dissenting. How amoral and chickenshit is that?
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)All 9 agreed on the primary question of the case, A state civil trial can not determine eligibility under the 14th amendment. That's going to take a congressional law (which we have, the Insurrection Act) and a federal criminal trial or some other act of Congress (impeachment or otherwise) to determine.
6 of the 9 wanted to take things further.
flying_wahini
(8,268 posts)elleng
(141,926 posts)at what they said was the majority’s needless overreach. “Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue,” they wrote, “the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a brief concurring opinion, agreed that the majority had gone too far, saying that it should not have addressed “the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” But she urged the public to focus on common ground. “For present purposes," she wrote, “our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/04/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot
Novara
(6,115 posts)Say he wins steals the election. Say Congress flips solidly blue - both houses. Joe Biden is still president until January 20. The new Congress gets sworn in right at the beginning of January. Congress could theoretically convene, pass legislation that since a state court held that he participated in an insurrection, any person DEEMED to have committed insurrection by ANY court is ineligible to serve, as per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, Biden is still president.
SCCOTUS* wants to leave it up to Congress? They could theoretically do this.
They didn't say Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection and they didn't say he WASN'T an insurrectionist. The lower court's findings that he did participate in an insurrection is still in force.
*SCCOTUS = Supremely Corrupt Court of the US
MichMan
(17,081 posts)Overturning an election to install the loser as the president? Even if like you said, Trump was disqualified, why wouldn't the VP assume the office ?
But Congress has already given a pathway to declaring someone as having participated in insurrection, the Insurrection Act that establishes the federal crime of insurrection.
FBaggins
(28,703 posts)The lower court was entirely reversed. Not "reversed in part" - not merely vacated.
AllyCat
(18,781 posts)The only amendment that amounts to anything with the tarantulas is the 2nd.
Torchlight
(6,738 posts)I get the feeling the vote will be so lopsided he'll wind up on late night infomercials hawking "tell them, 'don't be overconfident'" t-shirts.
Trust_Reality
(2,287 posts)need to ensure that Trump is wasting his time being on any of our ballots...
as well as the MAGA insurrectionists and the lily livered members of the Putin Party US, otherwise known as Republicans.
jimfields33
(19,382 posts)
nuxvomica
(14,045 posts)Yet there are a bunch of state laws restricting ballot access for presidential candidates. So the "patchwork" already exists.
https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-07/research-ballot-access-president-Jan20_0.pdf
SoFlaBro
(3,773 posts)They are 50 state level goddamn elections.
Mysterian
(6,386 posts)But were ineligible nevertheless.
Farmer-Rick
(12,599 posts)In order to use the 14th amendment.
In fact the law 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Was enacted in the middle of the civil war before the 14th amendment was drafted. So Congress did not pass the law to be able to prosecute under the 14th Amendment. They passed the 14th Amendment to support the law.
So the federal government, that's Merrick Garland, need only prosecuted the stinking Nazi for insurrection now.....
But me thinks our AG has waited too long. It's too late to prosecute him before the next election.
And the Supremes helped out their favorite Nazi while acting as if they are some sort of unbiased refs.
I wonder how much money was exchanged to get this ruling?
FBaggins
(28,703 posts)Then what was the 1870 Enforcement Act?
So the federal government, that's Merrick Garland, need only prosecuted the stinking Nazi for insurrection now.....
You're right that it's too late to try that. But do you really think that the DOJ was unaware of the law?
I think it's far more likely that they didn't think that they could win a conviction.
Farmer-Rick
(12,599 posts)The voting rights of Black Americans under the 15th Amendment, not the 14th Amendment. It was passed during the Reconstruction Era, to combat attacks on the voting rights of African Americans from state officials or violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
The DOJ of course knew about the law. But I honestly think Garland thought he didn't need to prosecute the stinking Nazi. Garland is fine with the Nazi running for a second term. He really doesn't care if Trump, as an insurrectionist and wannabe dictator, becomes president again.
There are a lot of GQP loyalist in the DOJ.
FBaggins
(28,703 posts)It was passed immediately after the Civil War amendments as a direct fulfillment of "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." (which 13A and 15A also include).
Relevant to this discussion - it also created quo warranto writs - which was the process to remove people who had violated section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Layzeebeaver
(2,285 posts)CO didn’t try him and find him guilty of an insurrection. They just assumed it. And then banned him.
If the scotus allowed the banning then any state could ban any candidate based on an assumption.
I hate the result, but I accept the outcome from a long game perspective.
The feds must find him guilty of insurrection. But that charge isn’t likely.
nakocal
(625 posts)It should have been he is disqualified from all ballots for insurrection unless congress votes to let him run.
cstanleytech
(28,432 posts)CONN
(280 posts)OK not a state enforcement, then Feds should step up.
Blues Heron
(8,725 posts)ineligible, that would be the states. This ruling flipped the amendment on its head. Congress is mentioned as the body to REMOVE the ineligibility, not PLACE it on someone. If they were the ones to enforce it in the first place That would have been written but its not, so these enablers just made that part up out of whole cloth. They effed this one up bad, all 9 of them.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)And has done so through enacting criminal statutes.
It's on DOJ to bring charges and the federal courts to oversee the trials.