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

[Spearfeather]

1 minute ago, PokerPacker said:

If only there were a higher federal court that could overrule a state court in such a case.  Oh well...

 

What if the SC ruled that states are free to call it as they see it ?

[PokerPacker]

9 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

What if the SC ruled that states are free to call it as they see it ?

What if they ruled that everyone should give me a pony?

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

34 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

What if the SC ruled that states are free to call it as they see it ?

Weak hypothetical argument when Trump is a clear and present danger to the United States and our democracy. It’s appalling that so many cannot see the obvious threat right in front of their faces. 

[EmirOfShmo]

Hmmm...looks like SCOTUS forgot to delete the associated metadata...

 

Article with further explanation...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-forgot-scrub-metadata-215839364.html

Edited March 5 by EmirOfShmo

[Fergasun]

13 hours ago, Fergasun said:

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.

 

 

@EmirOfShmo

Well, well, well....

 

Here's another analysis via Volokh Conspiracy Professor Ilya Somin

Quote

There are multiple flaws in the Court's reasoning. Start with the fact that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court pointed out in its ruling, Section 5 allows Congress to enforce not just Section 3, but every other part of the Fourteenth Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. All these other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Thus, state governments and federal courts can enforce these provisions even in the absence of federal Section 5 enforcement legislation. Otherwise, as the Colorado Supreme Court notes,  "Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation." Why should Section 3 be any different? Today's Supreme Court decision doesn't give us any good answer to that question.

 

[Wildbunny]

8 hours ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Weak hypothetical argument when Trump is a clear and present danger to the United States and our democracy. It’s appalling that so many cannot see the obvious threat right in front of their faces. 

I do agree, but that's what you get when you have politicians that doesn't think at anything else that their next election.

At some point that's going to backlash you in the form of a Trump guy or close to it.

 

You can see that happening in many western countries nowadays.

 

Problem is that many politicians aren't changing their way to see things so they are funding the Trump side even more.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I wanna know if the SC ruiling means each individual state is allowed to keep Congress members from their state off the ballots if it's determined that they participated in insurrection...because if so...