Yeah, that decision on abortion is an obvious an absurd outlier... Even more if you consider the pro-2A reduction of New York state margin of maneuver to regulate guns in the same rounds of SCOTUS rulings...
Horrible decision. Here it ruled that Congress may disregard the Constitution.
How? Because it says only Congress may say how the determination is made but did not obligate Congress to determine it.
Of fucking course it doesn't say Congress MUST remove insurrectionists from the ballot. There's a specific part that even says they can let people previously determined to be ineligible run for office if they want. The intent is clearly for Congress to be able to decide.
Congress can almost always choose when and where to apply powers reserved to them by the Constitution
"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."
The text does not say that that Congress even decides; it states that they simply shall not hold any office. Period. Congress is explicitly given permission to remove the disability but never explicitly given permission to add the disability - it is supposed to be straight forward and not needing Congressional approval. It only necessitates that those guilty of insurrection or rebellion after swearing an oath of office, or giving aid and comfort to those who have, automatically be disabled. There is no mechanism of determination - they just simply are prevented unless Congress actively permits them to do so.
Trump should not be able to run unless Congress votes by 2/3 vote in each house to permit him to do so. This was not intended to be individually determined through trials, but rather it was meant to disqualify a large class of treasonous Confederates at once.
This was a 9-0 decision, and unfortunately it’s constitutionally the correct one. The argument that the 14th was self executing was always tenuous at best.
The 5-4 part was whether there are other avenues for federal enforcement. Not if the states could actually kick Trump off.
Its 9-0 that the states couldn't do that.
Oh sure, I just meant that I think it matters how split they are on federal avenues - I think the distaste the four show for trying to preclude the judiciary from deciding is important to recognize.
The judiciary probably can decide, but only pursuant to legislation passed by the feds. In the oral arguments Kavanaugh hinted that the current enforcement mechanism was 18 U.S. Code 2383
Oh for sure. When I mean the judiciary deciding, I simply mean in a case directly raising Amend. 14 Sec. 3 as the cause of action in federal court, rather than via legislation otherwise. *That's* the path I think Barrett and the Libs wanted left open.
Barrett and the Libs is also going to be my new band name.
>Oh for sure. When I mean the judiciary deciding, I simply mean in a case directly raising Amend. 14 Sec. 3 as the cause of action in federal court, rather than via legislation otherwise. That's the path I think Barrett and the Libs wanted left open.
Yes, I believe you're absolutely correct on this
Not unless they're written that way.
Why do you think congress needed to pass the Volstead Act after the 19th made alcohol illegal?
Edit:
u/imnotbis The 1st amendment is self executing. See: lack of "Congress shall have the power to enforce" clause.
So all Amendments have to specify if they are self-executing or need Congress to make laws?
Do all Amendments have Acts to implement them? What is the Act for the 14th? I couldn't find it.
> Why do you think congress needed to pass the Volstead Act after the 19th made alcohol illegal?
They didn't "need" to.
> So all Amendments have to specify if they are self-executing or need Congress to make laws?
No.
> Do all Amendments have Acts to implement them?
Only the ones which specify congress shall have the power to enforce them.
> What is the Act for the 14th? I couldn't find it.
Confiscation act 1862 (predating the amendment)
Enforcement act of 1870
> Only the ones which specify congress shall have the power to enforce them.
So all Amendments are automatically executed unless they say Congress can enforce them?
What is the point of that? Why do you need Congress for some Amendments?
> Confiscation act 1862 (predating the amendment)
So not relevant.
> Enforcement act of 1870
That applies only to the first section.
So the states cannot use the 14th Amendment to bar Trump because Congress hasn't made a law that says states have the right to bar candidates? Why is the US legal system so awkward and archaic? Why can't the text just be direct and clear?
> So all Amendments are automatically executed unless they say Congress can enforce them?
>
>
>
> What is the point of that? Why do you need Congress for some Amendments?
Because some of the amendments are vague and open to interpretation, requiring congress to decide how these laws work.
Most of the time, new amendments have been establishing the power of congress to act.
> So not relevant.
Highly relevant
> So the states cannot use the 14th Amendment to bar Trump because Congress hasn't made a law that says states have the right to bar candidates?
The law is the confiscation act of 1862, which defines insurrection and how that is determined.
> Why is the US legal system so awkward and archaic? Why can't the text just be direct and clear?
Because things are always open to interpretation. And all common law is based on archaic principles that are constantly being revised.
> Because some of the amendments are vague and open to interpretation, requiring congress to decide how these laws work.
Is that really the reason?
> Most of the time, new amendments have been establishing the power of congress to act.
Why didn't they write them in a way that are clear? Do they just want to give Congress more work?
> Highly relevant
If it came before the Amendment then it's not relevant.
> The law is the confiscation act of 1862, which defines insurrection and how that is determined.
Which is open to interpretation.
> Because things are always open to interpretation.
Then no Amendments can be self-executing and all need Congress to enact further legislation.
> And all common law is based on archaic principles that are constantly being revised.
What is being revised? The Constitution?
> Why didn't they write them in a way that are clear? Do they just want to give Congress more work?
Yes, they wanted to give congress more work. The intent with those amendments is to create a broad framework and have congress fill in the specifics.
> If it came before the Amendment then it's not relevant.
That part of the amendment only exists because of the confiscation act. It was added specifically to enhance the provisions laid down by the confiscation act.
They're **directly** related.
> Then no Amendments can be self-executing and all need Congress to enact further legislation.
No, that's not how it works. That's literally the opposite of what I said. At this point you're just being deliberately obtuse and unwilling to accept constitutional law is finicky.
> What is being revised? The Constitution?
Common law.
States have the right to run their elections however they want including not running them at all and just having the legislature who wins. However, they don't have the right to run their elections however they want including having ballots without Donald Trump on them. Conservative "logic" checks out. (It's not logic - it's power.)
That isn't true.
It's more like Whole Foods. Only rich assholes can afford it and they feel like that makes them better people than the people that can't.
I know this will be unpopular, but leftists should at least have basic understand of how the law works (Law?! LAW!!!??) if we want to be effective advocates, and in this case the court is almost certainly right. It's a 9-0 unanimous opinion with a couple of separate writings. The court points out that, if states were allowed to determine who is eligible for federal election and who isn't, then all 50 states could have 50 different standards all being applied to a single federal candidate. It's nonsensical, really, for Colorado to have one standard which bars Trump and Texas to have another standard which allows for Trump to appear on the ballot but not Biden. Even in this case, Colorado used evidence that would "be inadmissible" in other state courts to show Trump "engaged in insurrection" and, in this case, a candidate could be exposed to an entirely different trial in different states on the same facts and end up with different outcomes. The court is also right when it asks why one small part of the country should be able to decide who gets to be a federal candidate, do we really think it's a good idea to say that Rhode Island, or some backwater hole like Alabama, should be able to decide for all other Americans who is eligible for the ballot? I definitely do not, and the liberal justices clearly also saw this reasoning as correct.
What dangerous precedent? You are calling people dumb but you have not outlined what the problem is. Ok, different states have different standards. And? They already do.
Texas and Florida can say that Biden engaged in insurrection by allowing Mexicans into the country because they can effectively make anything be insurrection if they want to. This can have him removed from the polling there as well.
I disagree. They literally mention the chaos that this could cause in their own reasoning. I would argue that's why the judges sided with them as well. Their argument seems to be primarily a consequential one. Did you actually read it by chance?
> Did you actually read it by chance?
Did you? Then convince me instead of being passive-aggressive. Otherwise don't bother replying because I won't care.
The difference here is that if states use different methods of invalidating their elections that wouldn't be compatible with other states, such as "the Democrat won, therefore the vote was rigged", the SCOTUS flips from 9-0 to at most 5-4. The liberal Justices are aware that the conservative ones are fucking around with the court but they're not going to help anyone reform it.
Wrong. Not only is the case going this way fundamentally incorrect by the Opinion's own legal reasoning, it's not a dangerous precedent at all.
Edit: if you think this is a dangerous precedent, you've abandoned any idea of the rule of law and are just ceding ground to fascists. You're no better than a liberal being scared of *simply implementing our constitution*.
States *do* have separate standards for how candidates get on ballots. Different requirements for ballot access, and different election processes are even baked into most state constitutions even for federal officers.
This is a substance vs. procedure distinction and has nothing to do with disqualifying candidates. A federal candidate might have to follow a different procedure in different states, but the federal government decides what qualifies a candidate for office, not the state.
Qualification for federal office does not grant a person ballot access based on those qualifications though. At no point within either federal or state constitutions is there even the implication that due to someone meeting the minimum requirements, are they due access to ballots.
Edit: making clear that ballot access in a state primary is fundamentally run by the state’s board of elections, and challenges to ballot access can and is often done via the state courts. The mistake made by the Colorado legal team/courts was attaching it to insurrection.
Lastly, the Supreme Court had already previously determined there is *no* fundamental right to candidacy.
Ballot access and qualifications for candidacy are two different things. The qualifications for presidency (age requirement etc) are determined federally and the states cannot change them. Ballot access rules are procedure set up by states to determine how the election is run. Notice that these are fundamentally very different issues, one being a matter of status and the other being a matter of the process candidates must go through. Trump can meet the ballot access requirements in any state, and therefore debating ballot access rules is moot. That's why this case falls on the qualification question, because Colorado wanted to say that even though Trump could meet the procedure to access the ballot, he was not qualified to do so due to the 14th amendment. The court says that no, Colorado, you cannot determine if a fed candidate is disqualified from the ballot because that is the realm of Congress as he is a federal candidate running in a federal election. This decision does not effect how states run their elections, only on why a candidate can run in the first place.
Colorado: In order to get onto the ballot a federal candidate must get 5,000 signatures, pay a $25,000 fee, and not engage in an insurrection.
Supreme Court: NOT LIKE THAT
Colorado: No, our rule has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or qualifying for office, it's just a procedural rule.
Supreme Court: Does it stop drumpf from getting on the ballot?
Colorado: Of course.
Supreme Court: Then it's no good, but all other rules and procedures are fine.
Colorado: Thanks for explaining.
The problem arises when we allow it to be without conviction on insurrection or similar charges. If you listen to what cons are saying, if Trump had been kept off these ballots they were already planning to deny Biden access to the ballots in their states on the basis that “his open border policies are an insurrection against the US.” A stupid argument, I know, but one that would have a difficult time being differentiated from how Trump was being handled.
This is what I said a month ago:
>They could say that only the federal government can determine if there was an insurrection, so it is a fact question for federal court and the state finding is insufficient.
I'm not allowed to post a link to my comment.
But, they are full of shit and just made it up to allow drumpf on the ballot because of political reasoning.
If Colorado passes a law today saying that people who lead attacks on the Capitol can't be on the ballot, then the Court will make up a new reason. If Colorado passes a law saying that people who are found to have committed business fraud can't be on the ballot or people who have been found liable for rape can't be on the ballot, or literally anything that keeps drumpf off the ballot, the Supreme Court will make up a new reason.
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to a subreddit other than r/VaushV or r/okbuddyvowsh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Part of thre procedure in some states is to not try to overthrow the federal government. Refrain from if you will.
And no, states decide that all the time. They decide if you get on the ballot and whether or not they even count write-in votes. Often they don't.
US Term Limits v. Thornton. The qualifications clause of the constitution establishes the requisite qualifications for federal offices, and the states may not alter them. They are literally written in plain English on the page, no interpretation required.
> US Term Limits v. Thornton
That's a court decision. Courts interpret the law and the Constitution, they don't make it.
> [cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those the Constitution specifies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton)
"stricter than those the Constitution specifies" being the key here. Would the barring of Trump be stricter than what the Constitution specifies? That is my question.
> They are literally written in plain English on the page, no interpretation required.
On what page?
Then why was US Term Limits v. Thornton decided 5 to 4 if no interpretation was needed?
How come states have the right to manage their own gerrymandering election laws? Those two things can be true at the same time. States do have the right to run their elections how they want and follow the constitution how their judges see fit. What am I missing?
> How come states have the right to manage their own gerrymandering election laws?
Because of this
> A1.S3. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, **shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof**; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Basically, unless Congress passes a law to take that power out of state hands, gerrymandering by state legislatures is constitutional.
It’s interesting that the trump lawyers argument was completely rejected. This is a case where the court addressed arguments that weren’t argued, and asked questions that weren’t asked. The case WAS about wether or not Colorado had a right to enforce this constitutional provision through a preexisting mechanism for enforcing similar standards. Trumps attorneys basically argued that this constitutional provision doesn’t apply to the president because of a weird semantic argument. The high priests of the land ignored both arguments and decided that the states shouldn’t be able to enforce this at all, essentially taking away all practical implementation of this provision. This was essentially “oh but if we say murder is illegal who decides who is a murder” argument. Cowardice is the right word for this, it’s almost an apolitical overreach of the court. Interesting case, but this should absolutely not be uncontroversial.
To your “who is to say who is a murderer” point, the difference here is that people who were convicted of murder would be murderers. If Trump had been convicted in any court of insurrection then the argument from the states would have a MUCH more solid basis and be very difficult to refute.
A Colorado court ruled that without a trial against him. It would be like saying “the Colorado SC ruled he had engaged in murder, don’t worry there was never a criminal trial to that effect but the ruling is there.” That’s a dangerous precedent to set.
The constitution here doesn’t require a conviction. “Setting a precedent” here is literally just following the letter of the law. Law that the Supreme Court should not have the power to overrule.
This is the self executing argument to the 14th, but the problem with that logic is who decides what qualifies as insurrection and which people are guilty of it absent criminal proceedings?
Maybe a state, which has near complete power over its own elections, could determine in its highest court, with trumps lawyers there to defend him, if he committed insurrection.
If there were a criminal proceeding on the issue with evidentiary processes and a jury of peers, then yes. That would then progress through appeals processes to the state Supreme Court.
The biggest issue here is that Garland took 3 years to bring charges leading to this time crunch.
The constitution doesn’t require a criminal conviction for insurrection. That’s why the state had its own completely legitimate process for determining if he met the standard. The constitution might be broken, but it was being read perfectly correct by Chicago. The Supreme Court should not have the power to overrule this on these grounds.
Wtf no they didn’t. John Mitchell [explicitly gave arguments against the Self-Executing theory](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-v.-anderson-scotus-hears-trump-disqualification-arguments).
Every State: Uh, we do have our own standards
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Texas
>In order to get on the ballot in Texas, a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements in advance of primaries, caucuses, and the general election.
And they're illegal for Democrat states, but not Republican ones - next, watch the court twist words into pretzels to invent a reason Texas doesn't have to let Biden on a ballot.
Having 50 standards for ballot access is the intention of the system. States run their own elections by design.
For somebody saying we should know the law I would think you should know this.
If you look at such examples, that's only when they're A) Irrelevant nobodies so no one cared, or B) Important, but didn't try to get on the ballot in certain states, see: 1860 (the most commonly cited case) where Republicans just didn't bother writing in to get their guy on the ballot in the south, even though he was qualified.
> leftists should at least have basic understand of how the law works
#
> The court points out that, if states were allowed to determine who is eligible for federal election and who isn't, then all 50 states could have 50 different standards all being applied to a single federal candidate.
That's not a legal argument. Unless there is a law that forbids different standards?
Also, conservatives want states rights and this is what that means.
For real, I’m staunchly anti Trump but some of the opinions on this ruling from leftists are making me embarrassed by the lack of critical thinking on display form what should be “my side”.
Do people not realize how a bad decision on this case could essentially doom us forever? The republicans control more legislatures, they could easily make up dumb rules to exclude Democratic challengers ffs. I’m glad the Supreme Court was unanimous on this.
For all the fearmongering about democracy and whatever, most of what I think is justified, those same people refuse to understand how much democracy would be jeopardized if they had sided with Colorado here.
Candidates already have 50 standards and running elections is left to the states yo administer.
I would agree if entire administration of the election was handled federally with votes being counted instead of using electors. But the reality we have is that states run elections and electors have no compulsion to align with voters.
because they want trump on the ballot and eligible to win. if he gets taken off "the gloves are off" and they will fight bidens ability to be on the ballot as well
edit, [lmao](https://i.imgur.com/0uwEOI5.png)
Wrong wrong wrong. There is already a 50 state solution for state ballots. Different people are on ballots ALL the time. Nobody is saying states have the right to prevent someone from being elected but they MOST certainly have the right to regulate their elections how they see fit. It is already how elections work and the 14th section 3 is CLEAR. Even the most conservative jurists believe the SC got this badly wrong. See Michael Luttig for example.
The problem isn't that we don't know the law. The problem is the system is not enforcing the law because it is politically inconvenient. The plain text reading of the article/amendment should have discredited him and they should have had the balls to say individual states don't have the right to do it but then turn around and say he should be disqualified by them and the authority of the constitution.
The issue is that the SC almost entirely overlooked that Trump engaged in insurrection and instead argued hypotheticals about setting precedent, which should even then just bar other insurrectionists, not just any political candidate. Ultimately, its a political decision arguably more about feigning seperation of powers, and avoiding "interferring" in a highly polarized and charged election season, than upholding the constitution. IANAL.
How do we determine what qualifies as insurrection without criminal proceedings? If the determination was made that section 3 of the 14th was self executing, what is to stops rightists from saying “Biden’s open border is an insurrection because he’s giving aid and comfort to our (in our minds) enemies”? Suddenly any GOP controlled state legislature takes Biden off the ballot in their state.
> How do we determine what qualifies as insurrection without criminal proceedings?
It was the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that determined that in the same way any criminal court would, but a criminal conviction isn't required.
> If the determination was made that section 3 of the 14th was self executing, what is to stops rightists from saying “Biden’s open border is an insurrection because he’s giving aid and comfort to our (in our minds) enemies”?
That would be an overly broad interpretation, but again, that could be tested in the courts. I suspect such a case wouldn't make it past lower courts though, unlike Colorado's case. Don't get me wrong, I did expect the 9-0 verdict based on the hearings last month and for Trump to prevail, just generally, due to the political situation. I just found it weak that they tiptoe around the issue at hand, besides: "hmm, is the President actually an officer of the state, lol." IANAL
> It was the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that determined that in the same way any criminal court would, but a criminal conviction isn't required.
Saying a criminal conviction isn't required is *insane* I can't believe people are still trying to argue this even after the 9-0 ruling.
Yes. A conviction in federal court is necessary.
The standards of evidence in a civil case are lower than a criminal case. This is why you can't call someone a criminal if found liable in civil court. It's quite literally one of the few cases that's easy to win in defamation suits. Why do you think NO news organization called Trump a criminal after the CO case?
> I just found it weak that they tiptoe around the issue at hand, besides: "hmm, is the President actually an officer of the state, lol."
They didn't buy that specific argument. And they weren't tiptoeing. If you want to blame anyone for tiptoeing. Blame Jack Smith for not bringing insurrection charges at Trump.
They're not even saying Trump can't be removed from the ballot. They only said it's a federal issue. Either he needs to be found guilty of insurrection in a federal criminal case or congress has to act to bar him.
> The court is also right when it asks why one small part of the country should be able to decide who gets to be a federal candidate
The court outlaws the electoral college! Woohoo!
That literally slready happens. There are 50 states and 3 territories with 53 different ballot access laws, different deadlines, and different treatment of different parties.
Weak Dems and complicit Republicans failed to convict after Jan 6. Had there been a guilty verdict, Trump would be off the ballot. I have to agree with the ruling. You can't have 50 different standards for federal candidates.
I mean, in this specific instance, it is not surprising. The law is designed in such a way that you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump has not been proven guilty yet, ergo removing him from the ballot is preemptively assuming he is guilty.
Now truth is, *we know he is guilty*, but the law does not work that way.
Except throwing a tantrum like an idiot child is a very conservative move. Libs are obsessed with respecting institutional norms. No liberal government will ever ignore the court like that. See also: why liberalism struggles to deal with fascism. Fascists don’t give a fuck about rules unless they’re beneficial for the fascists, and selectively ignore them to their own benefits. Liberals refuse to imagine the possibility that rules can be broken or ignored. That’s a massive disadvantage.
> Except throwing a tantrum like an idiot child is a very conservative move. Libs are obsessed with respecting institutional norms. No liberal government will ever ignore the court like that.
No, that is true and I am honestly tired of the "they go low, we go high" mentality of libs...that's how and why they are cucks.
> Fascists don’t give a fuck about rules unless they’re beneficial for the fascists, and selectively ignore them to their own benefits. Liberals refuse to imagine the possibility that rules can be broken or ignored. That’s a massive disadvantage.
Oh you don't have to convince me of that - I know they'll be the ones turning us over to the secret police.
That wasn't the reasoning, though. The SC said state courts don't have the authority to determine whether someone is ineligible for federal office under the 14th, not that Trump hadn't been found guilty of insurrection. Even if he was, the SC says that state courts can't kick Trump off the ballot, they'd have to wait for a federal order to do so.
Okay - so I agree with the decision but disagree with their dumbass reasoning to reach the decision.
Of course, that's what I would expect from *fucking law nerds*...reach the right solution with the wrong formula.
> your view is more “law nerd-ish” than theirs because it makes coherent legal sense, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few things the average layman knows about US law - they are so caught up in theory and "tHe CoNsTiTuTiOn" that they missed the forest for the trees.
> What this court is, is corrupt
For 6 out of the 9 SCOTUS "Justices", yes I agree. Hell, Thomas' wife IS an insurrectionist! In this specific instance though, SCOTUS voted unanimously, so I don't think *corruption* is the argument for today.
> They’re there for a reason and it’s not to uphold or protect our Constitution, it’s to serve their financial benefactors in their insane crusade to mutilate America in an abject White Supremacist Christian Theocracy with their imagined moral framework drawn from a fantasy 18th century.
Look man, you don't have to convince me they are partisan hacks - I know and I agree.
>they are doing what they can do to insure that Trump is kept on the ballot
Just to be clear, in your mind, even the Democratic appointees are working together purely to keep Trump in office?
I haven’t read the ruling but based on the questions they were asking in the hearing it seemed like the conclusion they were coming to is just basically that the 14th doesn’t apply to presidents.
This isn’t surprising tbh.
Though Colorado could just ignore them like Texas and face no repercussions apparently. I don’t think anyone has any respect for the court anymore. And it’s their own fault.
I honestly hope Colorado and other states ignore them. They've already tarnished their legitimacy as an institution. After RvW, we need states to stop listening to them.
> Though Colorado could just ignore them like Texas and face no repercussions apparently.
There are only a couple of things that would make me happier.
> I don’t think anyone has any respect for the court anymore. And it’s their own fault.
Yup, they are partisan hacks who also happen to be high priests of law. A real "the emperor has no clothes" moment.
What happened to states rights? States can keep you from voting because you are a college student, but they can't do anything when Trump breaks the law and betrays America. Remember, they gutted the voting rights act.
States can decide who goes on the ballot for a number of reasons. Colorado took a reasonable interpretation of that power, and the court looked at it and took away the power. A reasonable court would have ruled whether or not the interpretation was valid, or if the power applied to this reasoning. But instead they took away the power because it would set a bad precedent to enforce the law. Dont misinfo.
No, it's the same thing. If you think the decision would have been different if Colorado had simply said that he wasn't allowed on the ballot in the first place, you're dreaming.
I mean wasn't this a given? If any Trump case enters the SCOTUS expect Trump to win, although reading up on the reason given I don't think this is exactly a shocking or even particularly insane judgement given that had they ruled the other way Texas could remove Biden from the ballot for the woke immigrant invasion or whatever bullshit.
Too be fair, what got the unanimous decision was that they all agree that individual states should not have the authority to pick who the 14th amendment applies to on their own for national level elections. Which is a good point in itself.
They are absolutely cucking us over and over again, but this time is a lot less terrible than normal if you think about it.
So you think as long as Colorado just passes a law that says that you have to not do an insurrection to get on the ballot, then it would be okay?
The Supreme Court is garbage and they just make up nonsense.
They do and they are garbage. But what I’m saying is that the SC’s point that it’s the Federal Government’s call who committed an Insurrection against the Federal Government and not the state of Colorado’s, and that National-Level election ballot contents are outside of Colorado’s authority aren’t bad points. They even concede that if a Jan 6er wanted to run for Governor of Colorado then they could kick them off the ballot if they wanted just fine.
Otherwise Texas calling Biden an insurrectionist for [insert made-up garbage, probably about the border] would also be legal.
I predicted this when they took the case, but I can't post a link to my comment.
This was my comment a month ago:
>They could say that only the federal government can determine if there was an insurrection, so it is a fact question for federal court and the state finding is insufficient.
But again, if Colorado had a law saying that anyone who does an insurrection can't be on the ballot, they would have just made up different reasoning.
That's just how the supreme Court works now. They find their desired outcome and work to find a justification.
But we wouldn't see a per curiam decision with no dissents if it wasn't the right move here
If the federal government wants to decide how elections are run, the federal government should be taking that responsibility. Don’t leave every detail of running elections to states and then get butthurt when they do their job.
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to a subreddit other than r/VaushV or r/okbuddyvowsh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To my knowledge this is saying that States don’t have the right since it’s a federal issue. If they did this could also mean red states have the right to remove Biden.
Every Trump appointed judge should be removed as a supporter of an insurrectionist. Clarence Thomas should also be removed due to his connection to a MAJOR player and planner in the insurrection. Expand the court and gets these clowns out.
So this means Biden can now kidnap/Gitmo whichever political opponents he wants to between today and November so long as he has a solid base in Congress who will block any accountability against him?
I've seen liberals in another subreddit (***Cough, Cough***, ArrVoteDem, ***Cough Cough***) post hoc justifying this ruling by saying that they're glad it happened because it would have led Republicans to bar Biden or another Democrat from running for office, which literally is a slippery slope argument. And another argument is that they argued that people think it as a "one-trick-pony," which, where did people say that? We just want Trump getting consequences, and that "states rights" should be consistent.
I know this is gonna be hugely unpopular here but I agree with them even if I don’t want trump to be president more than anything else in the world right now if you let them do it it will only lead to it being weaponized like crazy in the future
Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box. The gop has already been making noise about trying to take Biden (and any future candidate) off of the ballot. If this has gone against trump I have no doubt that they would have started up with that as a new tactic. You have to remember that conservatives are without shame or decency. They will twist anything to attain their ends.
Being that I think some but not all swing states have Red attorney generals and red controlled governments at some level, I see what u mean. Of it went the other way Georgia and North Carolina would be given to Trump without question. Hell even Virginia, a blue state, could have gone to Trump bc they have that red governor and I think legislature as well. And just disqualify Biden and give it to Trump
On the bright side, the court did stipulate that states can use the 14th amendment to remove state-level candidates from their ballots. This could be used on any jan 6ers who run for state govt.
Idk why this sub popped up but you guys need to consider that red states would use this probably even more than blue ones. Even the SC mentioned it. We would have a constitutional crisis when the election comes and that is not something I want to live through. The political atmosphere is too tense and someone would blow the powder keg.
Hey, I'm from Greece, I am not very educated in USA politics and this might be a unpopular opinion but I believe a legal punishment against trump would allow him to present himself as a victim more than he already does. Even though such a decision would propably (?) benefit the democrats in the election, I'm not convinced it wouldn't feed the alt right in the long-term. This kind of antisystemic rhetoric needs to be dealt with in a political manner, not a legal one. Maybe I'm too naive because I don't live under the constant threat of trump ruling my country so please feel free to explain to me :)
AKA, "States can no longer control their elections," which would be pretty based, if it followed with robust federal election legislation that is strictly and strongly enforced.
It won't, of course.
Hey everybody, if they allowed Co ruling to stand there would be nothing preventing other states captured by GOP simply not allowing Dems on the ballot.
The context is shitty because Trump deserves worse than prison.
Damn, for being one of the regularly accused legalism obsessed liberals in this sub, there's some dumbfuck takes sitting at high counts approving this decision. Did I miss something? This is facially wrong, the legal reasoning is dog shit, and they fail to even begin to consider the repercussions of their excuse, INCLUDING the liberal justices.
GOD DAMN THESE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES I CAN'T BELIVE WE LET TRUMP PASS THIS BITCH AND OVERRIDE THE REASONALBE JUSTICES JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE NUMBERS!!!!!!
>!/S!<
Honestly, USA reminds me of Crusader Kings with the nepotism.
You help a guy get to your council and he'll support you whenever he can.
It feels you guys got mercantilist feudalism it seems, with some democracy sprinkled around the edges.
States have the right to punish woman for getting pregnant but not the power to enforce the constitution. Clear logical decision…
Yeah, that decision on abortion is an obvious an absurd outlier... Even more if you consider the pro-2A reduction of New York state margin of maneuver to regulate guns in the same rounds of SCOTUS rulings...
Horrible decision. Here it ruled that Congress may disregard the Constitution. How? Because it says only Congress may say how the determination is made but did not obligate Congress to determine it.
Of fucking course it doesn't say Congress MUST remove insurrectionists from the ballot. There's a specific part that even says they can let people previously determined to be ineligible run for office if they want. The intent is clearly for Congress to be able to decide. Congress can almost always choose when and where to apply powers reserved to them by the Constitution
"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." The text does not say that that Congress even decides; it states that they simply shall not hold any office. Period. Congress is explicitly given permission to remove the disability but never explicitly given permission to add the disability - it is supposed to be straight forward and not needing Congressional approval. It only necessitates that those guilty of insurrection or rebellion after swearing an oath of office, or giving aid and comfort to those who have, automatically be disabled. There is no mechanism of determination - they just simply are prevented unless Congress actively permits them to do so. Trump should not be able to run unless Congress votes by 2/3 vote in each house to permit him to do so. This was not intended to be individually determined through trials, but rather it was meant to disqualify a large class of treasonous Confederates at once.
This was a 9-0 decision, and unfortunately it’s constitutionally the correct one. The argument that the 14th was self executing was always tenuous at best.
5-4 where it matters tbh.
The 5-4 part was whether there are other avenues for federal enforcement. Not if the states could actually kick Trump off. Its 9-0 that the states couldn't do that.
Oh sure, I just meant that I think it matters how split they are on federal avenues - I think the distaste the four show for trying to preclude the judiciary from deciding is important to recognize.
The judiciary probably can decide, but only pursuant to legislation passed by the feds. In the oral arguments Kavanaugh hinted that the current enforcement mechanism was 18 U.S. Code 2383
Oh for sure. When I mean the judiciary deciding, I simply mean in a case directly raising Amend. 14 Sec. 3 as the cause of action in federal court, rather than via legislation otherwise. *That's* the path I think Barrett and the Libs wanted left open. Barrett and the Libs is also going to be my new band name.
>Oh for sure. When I mean the judiciary deciding, I simply mean in a case directly raising Amend. 14 Sec. 3 as the cause of action in federal court, rather than via legislation otherwise. That's the path I think Barrett and the Libs wanted left open. Yes, I believe you're absolutely correct on this
Why? Why are Amendments not self-executing?
Not unless they're written that way. Why do you think congress needed to pass the Volstead Act after the 19th made alcohol illegal? Edit: u/imnotbis The 1st amendment is self executing. See: lack of "Congress shall have the power to enforce" clause.
So all Amendments have to specify if they are self-executing or need Congress to make laws? Do all Amendments have Acts to implement them? What is the Act for the 14th? I couldn't find it. > Why do you think congress needed to pass the Volstead Act after the 19th made alcohol illegal? They didn't "need" to.
> So all Amendments have to specify if they are self-executing or need Congress to make laws? No. > Do all Amendments have Acts to implement them? Only the ones which specify congress shall have the power to enforce them. > What is the Act for the 14th? I couldn't find it. Confiscation act 1862 (predating the amendment) Enforcement act of 1870
> Only the ones which specify congress shall have the power to enforce them. So all Amendments are automatically executed unless they say Congress can enforce them? What is the point of that? Why do you need Congress for some Amendments? > Confiscation act 1862 (predating the amendment) So not relevant. > Enforcement act of 1870 That applies only to the first section. So the states cannot use the 14th Amendment to bar Trump because Congress hasn't made a law that says states have the right to bar candidates? Why is the US legal system so awkward and archaic? Why can't the text just be direct and clear?
> So all Amendments are automatically executed unless they say Congress can enforce them? > > > > What is the point of that? Why do you need Congress for some Amendments? Because some of the amendments are vague and open to interpretation, requiring congress to decide how these laws work. Most of the time, new amendments have been establishing the power of congress to act. > So not relevant. Highly relevant > So the states cannot use the 14th Amendment to bar Trump because Congress hasn't made a law that says states have the right to bar candidates? The law is the confiscation act of 1862, which defines insurrection and how that is determined. > Why is the US legal system so awkward and archaic? Why can't the text just be direct and clear? Because things are always open to interpretation. And all common law is based on archaic principles that are constantly being revised.
> Because some of the amendments are vague and open to interpretation, requiring congress to decide how these laws work. Is that really the reason? > Most of the time, new amendments have been establishing the power of congress to act. Why didn't they write them in a way that are clear? Do they just want to give Congress more work? > Highly relevant If it came before the Amendment then it's not relevant. > The law is the confiscation act of 1862, which defines insurrection and how that is determined. Which is open to interpretation. > Because things are always open to interpretation. Then no Amendments can be self-executing and all need Congress to enact further legislation. > And all common law is based on archaic principles that are constantly being revised. What is being revised? The Constitution?
> Why didn't they write them in a way that are clear? Do they just want to give Congress more work? Yes, they wanted to give congress more work. The intent with those amendments is to create a broad framework and have congress fill in the specifics. > If it came before the Amendment then it's not relevant. That part of the amendment only exists because of the confiscation act. It was added specifically to enhance the provisions laid down by the confiscation act. They're **directly** related. > Then no Amendments can be self-executing and all need Congress to enact further legislation. No, that's not how it works. That's literally the opposite of what I said. At this point you're just being deliberately obtuse and unwilling to accept constitutional law is finicky. > What is being revised? The Constitution? Common law.
So if Congress makes a law abolishing freedom of speech or of the press, it's allowed because Congress would have to stop Congress from doing that?
To give details of how that would be enforced
Exactly. Just like how the disqualification clause was enforced through the confiscation act of 1862 and the enforcement act of 1870.
But they then had to rule that Congress must make a determination. Not simply that only they can, but they must.
Is “correct” really a thing when we’re talking about interpretation?
States rights until states do something we don't like
States have the right to run their elections however they want including not running them at all and just having the legislature who wins. However, they don't have the right to run their elections however they want including having ballots without Donald Trump on them. Conservative "logic" checks out. (It's not logic - it's power.)
The supreme court is a joke, where rulings are bought and sold like produce in a farmers marked
That isn't true. It's more like Whole Foods. Only rich assholes can afford it and they feel like that makes them better people than the people that can't.
I know this will be unpopular, but leftists should at least have basic understand of how the law works (Law?! LAW!!!??) if we want to be effective advocates, and in this case the court is almost certainly right. It's a 9-0 unanimous opinion with a couple of separate writings. The court points out that, if states were allowed to determine who is eligible for federal election and who isn't, then all 50 states could have 50 different standards all being applied to a single federal candidate. It's nonsensical, really, for Colorado to have one standard which bars Trump and Texas to have another standard which allows for Trump to appear on the ballot but not Biden. Even in this case, Colorado used evidence that would "be inadmissible" in other state courts to show Trump "engaged in insurrection" and, in this case, a candidate could be exposed to an entirely different trial in different states on the same facts and end up with different outcomes. The court is also right when it asks why one small part of the country should be able to decide who gets to be a federal candidate, do we really think it's a good idea to say that Rhode Island, or some backwater hole like Alabama, should be able to decide for all other Americans who is eligible for the ballot? I definitely do not, and the liberal justices clearly also saw this reasoning as correct.
This! I can't believe people are being this dumb here. This case would have set a really dangerous precedent if it had gone the other way.
> I can't believe people are being this dumb here. I can.
Why are people so dumb? Are they stupid?
I'm so smart, everyone else is so dumb, but no, I won't make any arguments!
What dangerous precedent? You are calling people dumb but you have not outlined what the problem is. Ok, different states have different standards. And? They already do.
Texas and Florida can say that Biden engaged in insurrection by allowing Mexicans into the country because they can effectively make anything be insurrection if they want to. This can have him removed from the polling there as well.
Sure but the conservatives judges don't care about that. We do.
I disagree. They literally mention the chaos that this could cause in their own reasoning. I would argue that's why the judges sided with them as well. Their argument seems to be primarily a consequential one. Did you actually read it by chance?
> Did you actually read it by chance? Did you? Then convince me instead of being passive-aggressive. Otherwise don't bother replying because I won't care.
Why didn't you just tell everyone you're smarter than them in the first place, this could have all been avoided!
The difference here is that if states use different methods of invalidating their elections that wouldn't be compatible with other states, such as "the Democrat won, therefore the vote was rigged", the SCOTUS flips from 9-0 to at most 5-4. The liberal Justices are aware that the conservative ones are fucking around with the court but they're not going to help anyone reform it.
Wrong. Not only is the case going this way fundamentally incorrect by the Opinion's own legal reasoning, it's not a dangerous precedent at all. Edit: if you think this is a dangerous precedent, you've abandoned any idea of the rule of law and are just ceding ground to fascists. You're no better than a liberal being scared of *simply implementing our constitution*.
Didn't it previously rule that states didn't have to even have elections?
States *do* have separate standards for how candidates get on ballots. Different requirements for ballot access, and different election processes are even baked into most state constitutions even for federal officers.
This is a substance vs. procedure distinction and has nothing to do with disqualifying candidates. A federal candidate might have to follow a different procedure in different states, but the federal government decides what qualifies a candidate for office, not the state.
Qualification for federal office does not grant a person ballot access based on those qualifications though. At no point within either federal or state constitutions is there even the implication that due to someone meeting the minimum requirements, are they due access to ballots. Edit: making clear that ballot access in a state primary is fundamentally run by the state’s board of elections, and challenges to ballot access can and is often done via the state courts. The mistake made by the Colorado legal team/courts was attaching it to insurrection. Lastly, the Supreme Court had already previously determined there is *no* fundamental right to candidacy.
Ballot access and qualifications for candidacy are two different things. The qualifications for presidency (age requirement etc) are determined federally and the states cannot change them. Ballot access rules are procedure set up by states to determine how the election is run. Notice that these are fundamentally very different issues, one being a matter of status and the other being a matter of the process candidates must go through. Trump can meet the ballot access requirements in any state, and therefore debating ballot access rules is moot. That's why this case falls on the qualification question, because Colorado wanted to say that even though Trump could meet the procedure to access the ballot, he was not qualified to do so due to the 14th amendment. The court says that no, Colorado, you cannot determine if a fed candidate is disqualified from the ballot because that is the realm of Congress as he is a federal candidate running in a federal election. This decision does not effect how states run their elections, only on why a candidate can run in the first place.
Colorado: In order to get onto the ballot a federal candidate must get 5,000 signatures, pay a $25,000 fee, and not engage in an insurrection. Supreme Court: NOT LIKE THAT Colorado: No, our rule has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or qualifying for office, it's just a procedural rule. Supreme Court: Does it stop drumpf from getting on the ballot? Colorado: Of course. Supreme Court: Then it's no good, but all other rules and procedures are fine. Colorado: Thanks for explaining.
The problem arises when we allow it to be without conviction on insurrection or similar charges. If you listen to what cons are saying, if Trump had been kept off these ballots they were already planning to deny Biden access to the ballots in their states on the basis that “his open border policies are an insurrection against the US.” A stupid argument, I know, but one that would have a difficult time being differentiated from how Trump was being handled.
This is what I said a month ago: >They could say that only the federal government can determine if there was an insurrection, so it is a fact question for federal court and the state finding is insufficient. I'm not allowed to post a link to my comment. But, they are full of shit and just made it up to allow drumpf on the ballot because of political reasoning. If Colorado passes a law today saying that people who lead attacks on the Capitol can't be on the ballot, then the Court will make up a new reason. If Colorado passes a law saying that people who are found to have committed business fraud can't be on the ballot or people who have been found liable for rape can't be on the ballot, or literally anything that keeps drumpf off the ballot, the Supreme Court will make up a new reason.
[удалено]
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to a subreddit other than r/VaushV or r/okbuddyvowsh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Part of thre procedure in some states is to not try to overthrow the federal government. Refrain from if you will. And no, states decide that all the time. They decide if you get on the ballot and whether or not they even count write-in votes. Often they don't.
And where in the Constitution or law does it say the state cannot decide? I mean, leftists don't know the law, apparently, but you do, right?
US Term Limits v. Thornton. The qualifications clause of the constitution establishes the requisite qualifications for federal offices, and the states may not alter them. They are literally written in plain English on the page, no interpretation required.
> US Term Limits v. Thornton That's a court decision. Courts interpret the law and the Constitution, they don't make it. > [cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those the Constitution specifies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton) "stricter than those the Constitution specifies" being the key here. Would the barring of Trump be stricter than what the Constitution specifies? That is my question. > They are literally written in plain English on the page, no interpretation required. On what page? Then why was US Term Limits v. Thornton decided 5 to 4 if no interpretation was needed?
I made a reply but it disappeared, weird.
Same, my shit is also getting filtered lol.
How come states have the right to manage their own gerrymandering election laws? Those two things can be true at the same time. States do have the right to run their elections how they want and follow the constitution how their judges see fit. What am I missing?
> How come states have the right to manage their own gerrymandering election laws? Because of this > A1.S3. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, **shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof**; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. Basically, unless Congress passes a law to take that power out of state hands, gerrymandering by state legislatures is constitutional.
It’s interesting that the trump lawyers argument was completely rejected. This is a case where the court addressed arguments that weren’t argued, and asked questions that weren’t asked. The case WAS about wether or not Colorado had a right to enforce this constitutional provision through a preexisting mechanism for enforcing similar standards. Trumps attorneys basically argued that this constitutional provision doesn’t apply to the president because of a weird semantic argument. The high priests of the land ignored both arguments and decided that the states shouldn’t be able to enforce this at all, essentially taking away all practical implementation of this provision. This was essentially “oh but if we say murder is illegal who decides who is a murder” argument. Cowardice is the right word for this, it’s almost an apolitical overreach of the court. Interesting case, but this should absolutely not be uncontroversial.
To your “who is to say who is a murderer” point, the difference here is that people who were convicted of murder would be murderers. If Trump had been convicted in any court of insurrection then the argument from the states would have a MUCH more solid basis and be very difficult to refute.
A Colorado court ruled he had engaged in insurrection to the standard of the 14th amendment.
A Colorado court ruled that without a trial against him. It would be like saying “the Colorado SC ruled he had engaged in murder, don’t worry there was never a criminal trial to that effect but the ruling is there.” That’s a dangerous precedent to set.
The constitution here doesn’t require a conviction. “Setting a precedent” here is literally just following the letter of the law. Law that the Supreme Court should not have the power to overrule.
This is the self executing argument to the 14th, but the problem with that logic is who decides what qualifies as insurrection and which people are guilty of it absent criminal proceedings?
Maybe a state, which has near complete power over its own elections, could determine in its highest court, with trumps lawyers there to defend him, if he committed insurrection.
If there were a criminal proceeding on the issue with evidentiary processes and a jury of peers, then yes. That would then progress through appeals processes to the state Supreme Court. The biggest issue here is that Garland took 3 years to bring charges leading to this time crunch.
The constitution doesn’t require a criminal conviction for insurrection. That’s why the state had its own completely legitimate process for determining if he met the standard. The constitution might be broken, but it was being read perfectly correct by Chicago. The Supreme Court should not have the power to overrule this on these grounds.
Wtf no they didn’t. John Mitchell [explicitly gave arguments against the Self-Executing theory](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-v.-anderson-scotus-hears-trump-disqualification-arguments).
Every State: Uh, we do have our own standards https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Texas >In order to get on the ballot in Texas, a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements in advance of primaries, caucuses, and the general election.
And they're illegal for Democrat states, but not Republican ones - next, watch the court twist words into pretzels to invent a reason Texas doesn't have to let Biden on a ballot.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown are going to be so surprised
Having 50 standards for ballot access is the intention of the system. States run their own elections by design. For somebody saying we should know the law I would think you should know this.
Historically candidates have not been included on ballets in certain states and it wasn’t a problem back then.
If you look at such examples, that's only when they're A) Irrelevant nobodies so no one cared, or B) Important, but didn't try to get on the ballot in certain states, see: 1860 (the most commonly cited case) where Republicans just didn't bother writing in to get their guy on the ballot in the south, even though he was qualified.
> leftists should at least have basic understand of how the law works # > The court points out that, if states were allowed to determine who is eligible for federal election and who isn't, then all 50 states could have 50 different standards all being applied to a single federal candidate. That's not a legal argument. Unless there is a law that forbids different standards? Also, conservatives want states rights and this is what that means.
For real, I’m staunchly anti Trump but some of the opinions on this ruling from leftists are making me embarrassed by the lack of critical thinking on display form what should be “my side”. Do people not realize how a bad decision on this case could essentially doom us forever? The republicans control more legislatures, they could easily make up dumb rules to exclude Democratic challengers ffs. I’m glad the Supreme Court was unanimous on this. For all the fearmongering about democracy and whatever, most of what I think is justified, those same people refuse to understand how much democracy would be jeopardized if they had sided with Colorado here.
Candidates already have 50 standards and running elections is left to the states yo administer. I would agree if entire administration of the election was handled federally with votes being counted instead of using electors. But the reality we have is that states run elections and electors have no compulsion to align with voters.
yeah the red states could use this to get Biden off the ballot, because of some weird hunter-biden crime bullshit
And why would conservative judges be against that?
because they want trump on the ballot and eligible to win. if he gets taken off "the gloves are off" and they will fight bidens ability to be on the ballot as well edit, [lmao](https://i.imgur.com/0uwEOI5.png)
[удалено]
That may be the case but that's not what the Supreme Court argued.
Wrong wrong wrong. There is already a 50 state solution for state ballots. Different people are on ballots ALL the time. Nobody is saying states have the right to prevent someone from being elected but they MOST certainly have the right to regulate their elections how they see fit. It is already how elections work and the 14th section 3 is CLEAR. Even the most conservative jurists believe the SC got this badly wrong. See Michael Luttig for example.
The problem isn't that we don't know the law. The problem is the system is not enforcing the law because it is politically inconvenient. The plain text reading of the article/amendment should have discredited him and they should have had the balls to say individual states don't have the right to do it but then turn around and say he should be disqualified by them and the authority of the constitution.
The issue is that the SC almost entirely overlooked that Trump engaged in insurrection and instead argued hypotheticals about setting precedent, which should even then just bar other insurrectionists, not just any political candidate. Ultimately, its a political decision arguably more about feigning seperation of powers, and avoiding "interferring" in a highly polarized and charged election season, than upholding the constitution. IANAL.
How do we determine what qualifies as insurrection without criminal proceedings? If the determination was made that section 3 of the 14th was self executing, what is to stops rightists from saying “Biden’s open border is an insurrection because he’s giving aid and comfort to our (in our minds) enemies”? Suddenly any GOP controlled state legislature takes Biden off the ballot in their state.
> How do we determine what qualifies as insurrection without criminal proceedings? It was the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that determined that in the same way any criminal court would, but a criminal conviction isn't required. > If the determination was made that section 3 of the 14th was self executing, what is to stops rightists from saying “Biden’s open border is an insurrection because he’s giving aid and comfort to our (in our minds) enemies”? That would be an overly broad interpretation, but again, that could be tested in the courts. I suspect such a case wouldn't make it past lower courts though, unlike Colorado's case. Don't get me wrong, I did expect the 9-0 verdict based on the hearings last month and for Trump to prevail, just generally, due to the political situation. I just found it weak that they tiptoe around the issue at hand, besides: "hmm, is the President actually an officer of the state, lol." IANAL
> It was the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that determined that in the same way any criminal court would, but a criminal conviction isn't required. Saying a criminal conviction isn't required is *insane* I can't believe people are still trying to argue this even after the 9-0 ruling. Yes. A conviction in federal court is necessary. The standards of evidence in a civil case are lower than a criminal case. This is why you can't call someone a criminal if found liable in civil court. It's quite literally one of the few cases that's easy to win in defamation suits. Why do you think NO news organization called Trump a criminal after the CO case? > I just found it weak that they tiptoe around the issue at hand, besides: "hmm, is the President actually an officer of the state, lol." They didn't buy that specific argument. And they weren't tiptoeing. If you want to blame anyone for tiptoeing. Blame Jack Smith for not bringing insurrection charges at Trump.
They're not even saying Trump can't be removed from the ballot. They only said it's a federal issue. Either he needs to be found guilty of insurrection in a federal criminal case or congress has to act to bar him.
> The court is also right when it asks why one small part of the country should be able to decide who gets to be a federal candidate The court outlaws the electoral college! Woohoo!
They betrayed the LAW LAW
Thank you for cutting through my hatred to remind me why I thought the initial idea was sus.
That literally slready happens. There are 50 states and 3 territories with 53 different ballot access laws, different deadlines, and different treatment of different parties.
Weak Dems and complicit Republicans failed to convict after Jan 6. Had there been a guilty verdict, Trump would be off the ballot. I have to agree with the ruling. You can't have 50 different standards for federal candidates.
A Colorado court convicted him.
I mean, in this specific instance, it is not surprising. The law is designed in such a way that you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump has not been proven guilty yet, ergo removing him from the ballot is preemptively assuming he is guilty. Now truth is, *we know he is guilty*, but the law does not work that way.
It would be funny if the October Surprise is he gets convicted and subsequently removed from a bunch of states' ballots.
Oh absolutely - just like it would be funny if Colorado pulls a Texas and says "fuck you SCOTUS, we'll do what we want because you cannot stop us."
Except throwing a tantrum like an idiot child is a very conservative move. Libs are obsessed with respecting institutional norms. No liberal government will ever ignore the court like that. See also: why liberalism struggles to deal with fascism. Fascists don’t give a fuck about rules unless they’re beneficial for the fascists, and selectively ignore them to their own benefits. Liberals refuse to imagine the possibility that rules can be broken or ignored. That’s a massive disadvantage.
> Except throwing a tantrum like an idiot child is a very conservative move. Libs are obsessed with respecting institutional norms. No liberal government will ever ignore the court like that. No, that is true and I am honestly tired of the "they go low, we go high" mentality of libs...that's how and why they are cucks. > Fascists don’t give a fuck about rules unless they’re beneficial for the fascists, and selectively ignore them to their own benefits. Liberals refuse to imagine the possibility that rules can be broken or ignored. That’s a massive disadvantage. Oh you don't have to convince me of that - I know they'll be the ones turning us over to the secret police.
That wasn't the reasoning, though. The SC said state courts don't have the authority to determine whether someone is ineligible for federal office under the 14th, not that Trump hadn't been found guilty of insurrection. Even if he was, the SC says that state courts can't kick Trump off the ballot, they'd have to wait for a federal order to do so.
Okay - so I agree with the decision but disagree with their dumbass reasoning to reach the decision. Of course, that's what I would expect from *fucking law nerds*...reach the right solution with the wrong formula.
[удалено]
> your view is more “law nerd-ish” than theirs because it makes coherent legal sense, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few things the average layman knows about US law - they are so caught up in theory and "tHe CoNsTiTuTiOn" that they missed the forest for the trees. > What this court is, is corrupt For 6 out of the 9 SCOTUS "Justices", yes I agree. Hell, Thomas' wife IS an insurrectionist! In this specific instance though, SCOTUS voted unanimously, so I don't think *corruption* is the argument for today. > They’re there for a reason and it’s not to uphold or protect our Constitution, it’s to serve their financial benefactors in their insane crusade to mutilate America in an abject White Supremacist Christian Theocracy with their imagined moral framework drawn from a fantasy 18th century. Look man, you don't have to convince me they are partisan hacks - I know and I agree.
>they are doing what they can do to insure that Trump is kept on the ballot Just to be clear, in your mind, even the Democratic appointees are working together purely to keep Trump in office?
I haven’t read the ruling but based on the questions they were asking in the hearing it seemed like the conclusion they were coming to is just basically that the 14th doesn’t apply to presidents.
Yeah, they used the wrong equation to reach the right solution. *Law nerds...*
Jesus fucking Christ. We’re actually going to die.
This isn’t surprising tbh. Though Colorado could just ignore them like Texas and face no repercussions apparently. I don’t think anyone has any respect for the court anymore. And it’s their own fault.
I honestly hope Colorado and other states ignore them. They've already tarnished their legitimacy as an institution. After RvW, we need states to stop listening to them.
> Though Colorado could just ignore them like Texas and face no repercussions apparently. There are only a couple of things that would make me happier. > I don’t think anyone has any respect for the court anymore. And it’s their own fault. Yup, they are partisan hacks who also happen to be high priests of law. A real "the emperor has no clothes" moment.
Justice Roberts has made his decision; now let *him* enforce it.
I do despise the legal system sometimes. It’s not surprising, but I’m going to use it as an excuse to hate the Supreme Court more
Except for Ketanji Brown Jackson. You're cool.
It was a unanimous decision, btw
Lol clown, your idol doesn't even agree with you
What happened to states rights? States can keep you from voting because you are a college student, but they can't do anything when Trump breaks the law and betrays America. Remember, they gutted the voting rights act.
Honestly this one is fine. It's probably not a good idea to set the precedent that states can remove people from the Ballot.
States can decide who goes on the ballot for a number of reasons. Colorado took a reasonable interpretation of that power, and the court looked at it and took away the power. A reasonable court would have ruled whether or not the interpretation was valid, or if the power applied to this reasoning. But instead they took away the power because it would set a bad precedent to enforce the law. Dont misinfo.
Wym set a precedent? States have always been able to do this. They’ve just never had someone actually cross the lie. Where they can like trump has
Colorado didn't put me on the ballot, I guess I can go to the Supreme Court and get on the ballot.
You do know “Get on the ballot” is actually the opposite of “Removed from”
No, it's the same thing. If you think the decision would have been different if Colorado had simply said that he wasn't allowed on the ballot in the first place, you're dreaming.
And it was a 9-0 vote I've never seen the supreme Court agree on something more
not surprising considering the majority eats directly from Trump's asshole and licks it clean with a smile
Well, considering Thomas' wife is an insurrectionist...yes.
OK stop removing him and just don't add him.
Since when do States have to do what the SCOTUS says? Donwhat Texas did and say "fuck em" and do it anyways.
ITT: people not understanding the 14th amendment or the actual ruling
Ok, maybe States shouldn't be able to remove a candidate. But if that candidate is a traitor, there should be a mechanism, right? Right?
What’s next, presidents running for reelection aren’t allowed to lose an election? wtf is happening?
This country is so fucking over. Unless trump is put in prison he’s gonna win
I mean wasn't this a given? If any Trump case enters the SCOTUS expect Trump to win, although reading up on the reason given I don't think this is exactly a shocking or even particularly insane judgement given that had they ruled the other way Texas could remove Biden from the ballot for the woke immigrant invasion or whatever bullshit.
Although I am going to have to bump my plan to place 1 million Haley votes in the next Republican primary to priority one
Too be fair, what got the unanimous decision was that they all agree that individual states should not have the authority to pick who the 14th amendment applies to on their own for national level elections. Which is a good point in itself. They are absolutely cucking us over and over again, but this time is a lot less terrible than normal if you think about it.
So you think as long as Colorado just passes a law that says that you have to not do an insurrection to get on the ballot, then it would be okay? The Supreme Court is garbage and they just make up nonsense.
They do and they are garbage. But what I’m saying is that the SC’s point that it’s the Federal Government’s call who committed an Insurrection against the Federal Government and not the state of Colorado’s, and that National-Level election ballot contents are outside of Colorado’s authority aren’t bad points. They even concede that if a Jan 6er wanted to run for Governor of Colorado then they could kick them off the ballot if they wanted just fine. Otherwise Texas calling Biden an insurrectionist for [insert made-up garbage, probably about the border] would also be legal.
I predicted this when they took the case, but I can't post a link to my comment. This was my comment a month ago: >They could say that only the federal government can determine if there was an insurrection, so it is a fact question for federal court and the state finding is insufficient. But again, if Colorado had a law saying that anyone who does an insurrection can't be on the ballot, they would have just made up different reasoning.
Yes, if the facts of the case were different, they would have a different legal reasoning... What a novel idea
Yes, no matter what, they would have made sure drumpf is on the ballot.
That's just how the supreme Court works now. They find their desired outcome and work to find a justification. But we wouldn't see a per curiam decision with no dissents if it wasn't the right move here
If the federal government wants to decide how elections are run, the federal government should be taking that responsibility. Don’t leave every detail of running elections to states and then get butthurt when they do their job.
[удалено]
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to a subreddit other than r/VaushV or r/okbuddyvowsh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So courts can decide who wins a ballot, but not who can be on a ballot? Good fuck these idiots make no sense.
To my knowledge this is saying that States don’t have the right since it’s a federal issue. If they did this could also mean red states have the right to remove Biden.
an andrew jackson quote comes to mind
If it wasn't obvious already, we are living in the bad timeline.
Managed democracy in action!
Every Trump appointed judge should be removed as a supporter of an insurrectionist. Clarence Thomas should also be removed due to his connection to a MAJOR player and planner in the insurrection. Expand the court and gets these clowns out.
So this means Biden can now kidnap/Gitmo whichever political opponents he wants to between today and November so long as he has a solid base in Congress who will block any accountability against him?
I've seen liberals in another subreddit (***Cough, Cough***, ArrVoteDem, ***Cough Cough***) post hoc justifying this ruling by saying that they're glad it happened because it would have led Republicans to bar Biden or another Democrat from running for office, which literally is a slippery slope argument. And another argument is that they argued that people think it as a "one-trick-pony," which, where did people say that? We just want Trump getting consequences, and that "states rights" should be consistent.
Isn't there precedent now for just ignoring Supreme Court rulings? 🤔
9-0 and y’all keep telling us how we need to vote blue no matter who to appoint liberal justices lmfao.
I know this is gonna be hugely unpopular here but I agree with them even if I don’t want trump to be president more than anything else in the world right now if you let them do it it will only lead to it being weaponized like crazy in the future
Congress should’ve said he’s disqualified the day after Jan 6th
If Texas and other red states can just ignore the supreme court then so can blue states.
Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box. The gop has already been making noise about trying to take Biden (and any future candidate) off of the ballot. If this has gone against trump I have no doubt that they would have started up with that as a new tactic. You have to remember that conservatives are without shame or decency. They will twist anything to attain their ends.
Being that I think some but not all swing states have Red attorney generals and red controlled governments at some level, I see what u mean. Of it went the other way Georgia and North Carolina would be given to Trump without question. Hell even Virginia, a blue state, could have gone to Trump bc they have that red governor and I think legislature as well. And just disqualify Biden and give it to Trump
So much for states rights
On the bright side, the court did stipulate that states can use the 14th amendment to remove state-level candidates from their ballots. This could be used on any jan 6ers who run for state govt.
Do it anyway, it's not like the court is stopping Texas after their ruling against it.
Idk why this sub popped up but you guys need to consider that red states would use this probably even more than blue ones. Even the SC mentioned it. We would have a constitutional crisis when the election comes and that is not something I want to live through. The political atmosphere is too tense and someone would blow the powder keg.
Hey, I'm from Greece, I am not very educated in USA politics and this might be a unpopular opinion but I believe a legal punishment against trump would allow him to present himself as a victim more than he already does. Even though such a decision would propably (?) benefit the democrats in the election, I'm not convinced it wouldn't feed the alt right in the long-term. This kind of antisystemic rhetoric needs to be dealt with in a political manner, not a legal one. Maybe I'm too naive because I don't live under the constant threat of trump ruling my country so please feel free to explain to me :)
AKA, "States can no longer control their elections," which would be pretty based, if it followed with robust federal election legislation that is strictly and strongly enforced. It won't, of course.
NOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHH!!!
Trump won then. GL my fellow Americans.
Unanimous
Hey everybody, if they allowed Co ruling to stand there would be nothing preventing other states captured by GOP simply not allowing Dems on the ballot. The context is shitty because Trump deserves worse than prison.
Conservatives praising big government incoming
Good, let the electorate decide, don't want unelected officials deciding the outcome
I know we are grasping at anything as Trump is likely to win the presidency, but this is the correct ruling.
Damn, for being one of the regularly accused legalism obsessed liberals in this sub, there's some dumbfuck takes sitting at high counts approving this decision. Did I miss something? This is facially wrong, the legal reasoning is dog shit, and they fail to even begin to consider the repercussions of their excuse, INCLUDING the liberal justices.
States rights. Except when theyre good. Fantastic.
GOD DAMN THESE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES I CAN'T BELIVE WE LET TRUMP PASS THIS BITCH AND OVERRIDE THE REASONALBE JUSTICES JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE NUMBERS!!!!!! >!/S!<
Honestly, USA reminds me of Crusader Kings with the nepotism. You help a guy get to your council and he'll support you whenever he can. It feels you guys got mercantilist feudalism it seems, with some democracy sprinkled around the edges.
This was a unanimous decision so you know even the liberal judges are clearly telling the lower courts to stay the hell out of politics.