The Supreme Court has agreed to consider Colorado’s decision to deem Trump ineligible to run under the Constitution’s insurrection clause.

[The Evil Genius]

I guess only Congress can only set up rules for each state for who goes on the ballot? That's why every state has the exact same number of people and exqct same people on the Presidential ballot?

 

Spoiler

Yeah. The ballots don't. Each state has different ballot rules.

 

Edited March 4 by The Evil Genius

[Fergasun]

Actually.  The decision is perhaps 5-3-1. 

 

The opinion is written that a state cannot enforce 14A.  But the opinion goes further.  Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan argue that perhaps there is a role for the Federal judiciary in enforcing the 14A, but the opinion as written also seems to indicate "only Congress can answer". Barrett also wrote an opinion that leans with the liberal justices.  The liberal justices quotes Bush v. Gore.

 

I do agree with the Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson reading. 

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Actually.  The decision is perhaps 5-3-1. 

 

The opinion is written that a state cannot enforce 14A.  But the opinion goes further.  Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan argue that perhaps there is a role for the Federal judiciary in enforcing the 14A, but the opinion as written also seems to indicate "only Congress can answer". Barrett also wrote an opinion that leans with the liberal justices.  The liberal justices quotes Bush v. Gore.

 

I do agree with the Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson reading. 

can you link to any of this?

 

everything I read says it’s unanimous and the opinion is unsigned. 
 

edit. I see now that I look at the *actual* opinion and not the various articles about it 

Edited March 4 by tshile

[Larry]

I think Arnold Schwarzenegger needs to declare for the Republican nomination.  

 

I mean, since nobody but Congress can decide whether the constitution establishes qualifications for the Presidency.  

 

[Fergasun]

The actual decision here.

 

Read the Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson opinion. Yes, they agree States cannot enforce it.  I would argue that it seems like they were forced to sign onto the Per Curium opinion.

 

 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

  I would argue that it seems like they were forced to sign onto the Per Curium opinion.

lol that’s rich. So all 3 of them were forced into their decision? Come on. 
 

(I do see where it is in the opinion now, thanks!)

[tshile]

So it seems the whole “this would create chaos” idea won the day on this issue. 
 

which is unfortunate. I thought the lawyers arguments that there was indeed a process for this, that you can’t just pretend the process would produce chaos, and that it’s interesting to decide that the law should factor in or cater to those that would abuse it to creat chaos… were good arguments and they made perfect sense to me. 
 

That’s just a weird standard to me. I don’t know what a good analogy is - but we certainly don’t decline to punish a murder because punishing them might mean they try to murder you. (Sorry terrible analogy idk a better one at the moment)

[Spearfeather]

Unanimous Supreme Court restores Trump to Colorado ballot

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1230453714/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot

 

Quote

Chief Justice John Roberts said he could foresee, in the not-too-distant future, a world in which some states would try to boot the Democratic nominee from the ballot, and others would use Section 3 to do the same for the Republican candidate.

 

 

 

Edited March 4 by Spearfeather

[The Evil Genius]

He foresees a Democrat Presidential candidate fomenting an insurrection? 🤔

 

 

Edited March 4 by The Evil Genius
Quoted wrong post

[TheGreatBuzz]

 

 

 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

He foresees a Democrat Presidential candidate fomenting an insurrection? 🤔

It is interesting they seemed to just punt on that part of the whole thing. 
 

somehow the idea that you have to actually commit insurrection was lost in the wash, and it turned into - well then states will just start removing people willy nilly and it’ll be CHAOS!!!

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

 

 

right… but it seems to me those 4 say that within the context of “that topic is beyond the scope of this case” and they’re just rejecting that the other 5 are trying to use this case to say that. 
 

I think the last sentence says as much in the opinion. 

My copy paste isn’t working right, but yes it’s the last 2 sentences. 

[Fergasun]

Their opinion still reads like a "Concurring in part, dissenting in part" seperate opinion on a non political case.

[Spearfeather]

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

He foresees a Democrat Presidential candidate fomenting an insurrection? 🤔

 

 

Each state would be able to decide for itself what " fomenting " ( technically " engaging in " ) would mean. So, yes.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Their opinion still reads like a "Concurring in part, dissenting in part" seperate opinion on a non political case.

The dissent (if I understand correctly) is just about them broadening the decision. They want this decision to be specific to the context of this case. 

4 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Each state would be able to decide for itself what " fomenting " ( technically " engaging in " ) would mean. So, yes.

No. Each states court. 
 

it was already found to be an insurrection and that he played a role in it. That was decided and not considered in appeals. 
 

if you listened to oral arguments it was a point of contention with all the justices. I happened to agree with the lawyer when she outlined how there is a process, the process was followed

 

the idea states would willy nilly decide to remove people from other parties required ignoring there was an actual process that established the facts. 
 

for instance - one republican said they’d remove Biden.  But no ones outline how to get a ruling through a court that Biden engaged in an insurrection… for some reason that fundamental part of all this was lost in the wash. Makes no sense to me. 

[Bang]

That really is a shame for th GOP.

Dopes.
This was a way out from under that fat ****ing Russian stooge that has dragged you (and all of us) to the brink.

and you ****ing blew it.
This clear criminal, this traitorous lying snake..  you had a chance to not only get out and away from this disaster, but you could have blamed it ALL on Dems and Activist Judges and any ****ing boogie-man you wanted., and you'd have had more credibility in doing so than ANYTHING he has said or done for the last decade.

AND YOU BLEW IT. 

 

~Bang

[Spearfeather]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

for instance - one republican said they’d remove Biden.  But no ones outline how to get a ruling through a court

 

Getting a ruling through a state court would be all they need though,  right ?

Because no one has faced federal charges of insurrection.

 

 

 

Edited March 4 by Spearfeather

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Getting a ruling through a state court would be all they need though,  right ?

Because no one has faced federal charges of insurrection.

 

 

 

Right

 

which is different than some politicians deciding they would just do it. 

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

 

 

Got it.  

 

So only 5 Supreme Court justices have ruled that a constitutional amendment that was passed 150 years ago has been null and void since the day it was passed.  

[PeterMP]

You gotta love how the conservative Supreme Court justices are so gung ho states' rights, historical examples, and a literal reading of the Constitution.

 

(If we actually had a conservative judicial movement/group with any logical/philosophical consistency, this country would be more interesting and IMO a better place.)

[hail2skins]

15 minutes ago, Bang said:

but you could have blamed it ALL on Dems and Activist Judges and any ****ing boogie-man you wanted., and you'd have had more credibility in doing so than ANYTHING he has said or done for the last decade.

Bang, the GOP voters are already doing this. "We would've voted for Ron or Nikki in the primaries, but you are persecuting him." 

 

And if he gets back into office and starts going hog wild, they'll say the same thing.

[ixcuincle]

9-0 😂

[Larry]

18 minutes ago, Bang said:

That really is a shame for th GOP.

Dopes.
This was a way out from under that fat ****ing Russian stooge that has dragged you (and all of us) to the brink.

and you ****ing blew it.
This clear criminal, this traitorous lying snake..  you had a chance to not only get out and away from this disaster, but you could have blamed it ALL on Dems and Activist Judges and any ****ing boogie-man you wanted., and you'd have had more credibility in doing so than ANYTHING he has said or done for the last decade.

AND YOU BLEW IT. 

 

~Bang

 

Heck.  I figured that when Trump fired the head of the FBI because he would not promise to cover up the fact that his campaign was involved in the national security investigation he was running, that was the GOP's chance to whip out the "he was never really a Republican anyway" card, and let President Pence run the country for 3.5 years, and run as an incumbent.  

[Renegade7]

I said early on if states had waited to point to an actual conviction of a related federal crime this might be a different conversation.

 

I stand by that, there'd be a more clear path then leaving it up to congress.

Edited March 4 by Renegade7

[Chachie]

38 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I said early in if states had waited to point to an actually conviction of a related federal this might be a different conversation.

 

I stand by that, there'd be a more clear path then leaving it up to congress.

 

 

Which kind of pulls me back to the old, "If Merrick Garland had moved on these charges by summer of 2021, we wouldn't be in this predicament."

 

It still gives me rage that the J6 committee had to practically shame the DOJ into pursuing charges at all by doing their job for them. 

[88Comrade2000]

Trump’s yapping now.