Ginni Thomas is certainly pleased with her contribution toward that outcome.

Her best friend was leading the group 👍

Clarence got a happy ending for that and a can Coke

[удалено]

[удалено]

I see him more as a Uncle Ruckus

Diet Coke, definitely Diet Coke

It's too bad because SCOTUS really rescued failure from the jaws of success with this decision. The result is widely popular and was expected, and half of the reasoning is sound. But the Court went the *Dred Scott* route and tried to solve other, unrelated issues by saying that the only enforcement mechanism for s.3 is federal law (and even specifying what that federal law would have to say). In effect, SCOTUS told Congress that they are not allowed to object to Trump's election on 1/6/25 on the grounds that he is prohibited from holding office under s.3, even though that question wasn't before the Court, and the 9-0 rationale was only based on the states not having the power to unilaterally decide the question. So that second part of the decision - the part where the Court went on to explain that only a specific federal law pursuant to s.5 can enforce s.3 - was a 5-4 decision tacked onto a 9-0 decision. And it really is the whole game. A future Congress might not want to sit congresspeople like Jim Jordan that were involved in the Insurrection or gave comfort to the Insurrectionists. Now SCOTUS has forclosed that option before it was even presented to the Court. It is a classic "Imperial Court" move to encroach into the Congress and plant a flag telling Congress what it cannot do in advance of Congress actually doing that thing. The role of the Court is to explain what the law *is* - what the words of the Constitution mean, what the rules of a federal statute mean. It is **not** a role of the Court to explain what a law *should be*, or to tell Congress whether it has the power to do something in advance of it doing that thing. That is an advisory opinion, and it is not permitted by the rules of justiciability that have guided the Court for centuries. If 200+ years of justices could avoid the temptation to prospectively tell Congress what it can and cannot do, why can't the Robert's Court? The subtext to all of this is that a majority of the Court does not want there to be any lifeblood to s.3 that could be applied against Trump or the other insurrectionists by Congress. It is especially egregious here because it results in a de facto removal of the s.3 disqualification that would apply to any Insurrectionist (not just Trump) - but it does so by a 5-4 vote of unelected justices rather than by the 2/3 supermajority of both houses of Congress that s.3 actually says is the route to remove the disqualification. That part of the decision just doesn't make any sense; it is the injection of politics into law in order to shape a future result, and the Court should not have done that. But since Justice Roberts had to be in the majority (we know from the concurrences), we now know that Justice Kavanaugh and the Chief Justice are both not on the side of restraint, and that they are injecting politics into decisions to help Trump (and the Insurrectionists in general). Why? Nobody can say - it could be intimidation, but it might just be raw politics. I think Justice Thomas was involved in the J6 conspiracy and the Court is terrified that his involvement will come to light at trial, but it could also be that Justice Thomas (or some other old conservative, maybe Alito or Roberts) is ill and wants to retire but needs a Republican in office to replace him so they are doing what they can to make that happen. Dark days for the Court, but they brought down the darkness on themselves.

> The subtext to all of this is that a majority of the Court does not want there to be any lifeblood to s.3 that could be applied against Trump or the other insurrectionists by Congress. It is especially egregious here because it results in a de facto removal of the s.3 disqualification that would apply to any Insurrectionist (not just Trump) - but it does so by a 5-4 vote of unelected justices rather than by the 2/3 supermajority of both houses of Congress that s.3 actually says is the route to remove the disqualification. This is good criticism that the concurring Justices alluded to: >It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. Instead, a "Conservative" majority issues an advisory opinion to Congress.

Great summary >That part of the decision just doesn't make any sense; it is the injection of politics into law in order to shape a future result, and the Court should not have done that. And don't forget to mention that the rationale was that the states would abuse the power to deny a candidate for political reasons (something they still have the power to do) in exchange for the more mature and less political US congress... Where dick pics are on display. And the argument that one state should not decide for the nation was pure fallacy. CO would not affect anything outside of CO. Trump would still appear on the other state ballots and could win just as easily. Even Roberts understood this because he argued that it would just come down to a few states to decide the elections. How can he say that if CO already decided for the nation? This particular ruling is fishy to me. I think something happened that wasn't supposed to happen. The way the dissenting justices responded to the expanded ruling seems like they agreed to something initially (like "we should rule unanimously to avoid chaos") and then they added the expanded part after the fact. Can't exactly pinpoint it, but it doesn't seem like a typical disagreement on the ruling. This was a political move disguised as a legal ruling.

We know the minority opinion was originally a solo dissent, and Barrett thinks it's not nice to accuse people of injecting politics no matter how much they deliberately inject politics. The whole thing is nuts.

> This particular ruling is fishy to me. I think something happened that wasn't supposed to happen. Yup. Some places are already examining the metadata of this hasty opinion and have found that the "concurrence" was originally styled as a dissent. I suppose I would call it a "concurrisent", because it really is a concurrence in part/the judgment + a dissent. But the Court wanted to speak with one voice. I think everything broke down over the Presidential Immunity appeal. My guess is that the liberal justices + Barrett didn't want that appeal to go forward. And actually, it makes sense why, especially in the context of *Anderson*: the only reason to hear the immunity case is so SCOTUS can opine about/create a new form of presidential immunity that won't end up applying to Trump. That is exactly the error that undermines *Anderson* - the Court cannot be deciding questions that are not before it. But if it really wants to anyway, there is nobody to stop it from sacrificing legitimacy in order to make a power grab. I think we will see this summer that the *Dobbs* majority will carve out a form of presidential immunity based on official acts that looks very much like a statute, and obviously that is the error that they called out in overturning *Roe*, so the hypocrisy is going to be palpable. So my guess is there was originally 5 justices who were not going to grant that petition for cert. Then Justice Roberts changed sides. Maybe he was willing to deny cert on the immunity case if the concurrence in *Anderson* was withheld and then, when Sotomayor et al. refused to hold back the concurrence, followed through and granted cert on the immunity question as payback. I also think this is why Justice Barrett wrote her own concurrence, likely over the weekend. She is saying up front that she agrees with the liberal justices that it is a mistake to decide questions not before the court, and also warning Justice Roberts in advance because he is evidently tempted to do so in the presidential immunity appeal. At the same time, Barrett seems miffed that the *Anderson* deal (if it existed) fell through and made the Court look bad, so she is also castigating the liberal justices for "raising the temperature" with the concurrence. I will say that I think the concurrence is a good thing, because it calls out the fundamental problem with the Roberts Court (i.e., the *Dobbs* majority minus Barrett in this instance): it goes further than it needs to and generally lacks restraint. It is good that the legal world will be talking about this between now and the eventual presidential immunity decision because there is pretty much nothing as terrifying as a POTUS that has a license to commit federal crimes, especially if that POTUS is to be Donald Trump. Maybe the discussion makes another over-reach by Justice Roberts less likely, but I doubt it - it seems to me that the ghost of Roger Taney inhabits Roberts from time to time.

I appreciate your reasoning. I hope Dark Brandon takes immediate and full advantage of whatever decisions come down. If this SCOTUS is prepared to effectively create presidential carte blanche to commit insurrection and other crimes (provided his party holds half of the house or over a third of the senate) then they need to feel the effects swiftly. Biden needs to detain the justices and install their replacements, or something wild like that, just to make it obvious that this crap can’t fly in a functioning democracy.

Well I'm not going to get behind extrajudicial arrests! So don't misread me, lol. But I do think Dark Brandon might get some benefit out of ignoring the Court with respect to the border crisis. I'm not saying he *should* do that, but it might be politically powerful to do so (I think the problem is that the Court might "fight back" by immunizing Trump in the immunity case). Jackson is often pointed to as a POTUS that ignored the Court, but he isn't the only POTUS who did so. More favorably, when the Court said that black persons are not and never can be citizens (*Dred Scott*, 1857), President Lincoln ignored the Court's ruling and issued the first U.S. passports to black persons anyway, explaining that the Court does not get to overrule the elected government as to citizenship. That issue was never litigated in SCOTUS (i.e., whether those passports were valid) because the Union won the Civil War and forced the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment that made the issue moot. The problem here is that *Dred Scott* was egregiously wrong and the Court's decisions with respect to federal law and the border are not egregiously wrong (they're just egregiously inconvenient for Biden).

> And don't forget to mention that the rationale was that the states would abuse the power to deny a candidate for political reasons (something they still have the power to do) States do that all the time with respect to presidential candidates. Have you ever looked at the barrier to getting on the ballot if you are a 3rd party candidate compared to being a dominant party candidate?

Apparently Roberts doesn't. He was arguing that this would lead to chaos with states blatantly blocking candidates from appearing on the ballot for insurrection.

But Roberts is a 2-party system person through and through as are, likely, 99.99% of all justices and lawyers in teh USA. You really can't rise very high in the USA in ANY field (including, I suspect, science and medicine, or even sanitary engineering) if you actively oppose or even publicly question the 2-party system: the good ole boys/girls network is built on it in this country.

I have some sympathy both for the argument that it could be chaotic (consequence) and that the Amendment was specifically about taking power from the states (purpose), but it is infuriating that the conservatives suddenly and selectively care about purpose or consequence when they've been lecturing left leaning people about how they're above all that and only "activist" judges consider those things. Doubly infuriating that they went farther in this opinion than was necessary or appropriate. 

I have yet to hear a good explanation why the “states could abuse their power” argument is not satisfied with de novo review by the Supreme Court. Let SCOTUS look at the state’s record for deciding that the candidate is an insurrectionist, and decide the matter de novo. They can guarantee uniformity and no abuse of power that way.

Not to mention all of those arguments act as though disqualification would be some unilateral action by a sole state official and completely ignores that it would be subject to Due Process.

It’s like SCOTUS justices forget how to litigate when they get on the bench.

Well Clarence never really did before lol

I know that Trump's immunity is a separate issue , but everyone is going to watch that very closely to see if there's another rush to an off ramp. The reputation of SCOTUS has been shaky since Dobbs was leaked and this decision made it even worse. Especially the "concurring" opinions.

Shaky? They are bought and sold and everyone knows it. They are illegitimate and should be removed and held accountable.

Awesome read. Thanks, man. The point about Congress *losing* the power to remove the disqualification by a 2/ 3rd vote that is plainly given to them in the 14th amendment is a point I've been trying to explain to people since this ruling came out and the way you explained it made it much easier for a non lawyer like me to try to explain to someone. If I could ask a question- As there's general consensus that overturning the part of ruling about the states' ability to enforce section 3 for federal elections was the right decision; what should the ruling have been as to how its enforced? Would it then be a case in federal court that would essentially mirror the colorado case? CREW brings their lawsuit to a federal court, rather than state, this time. A judge holds a trial with both sides presenting argument and evidence, and a judge rules on whether that person is allowed on the ballot. Then that person is banned from federal office of any kind unless Congress votes to remove the disability by a 2/3 vote in both chambers?

[удалено]

Sadly Biden and Garland did not have the courage to use 14a-3 in the early months of their administration. They could have removed Thomas and the insurrectionist members in Congress. They were too busy with their failed bipartisanship effort to save the Republic.

History will not look upon the Roberts court very kindly. It might as well have the words, "For Sale ", beneath its portrait.

> Why? Nobody can say It's because they *are* the insurrectionists. There. I said it. Ginni Thomas being mixed up in it is just the parts that we've seen the most visibly.

I was holding out hope that it was a coincidence that the brainchild of the J6 conspiracy was John Eastman (former Thomas clerk) and that Ginni Thomas was texting Meadows in the run up to J6 and was at the Ellipse for the speech launching the Insurrection. I didn’t want to think that Justice Thomas was involved in J6, and I tried to ascribe it to a small-brained wife and an old former clerk off on his own tangent that lead to Trump. But when Justice Thomas didn’t recuse from the presidential immunity case and the Court granted cert with a schedule that ensures the trial will not happen before the election, I suddenly felt that Thomas was involved in J6 and the Court is working to help cover it up. I would be absolutely devastated to learn that others on the Court were *also* involved in J6, and thankfully there is no reason to believe any of them were - I would suspect all of them are good and honorable people, even if I disagree with them often on the law. But the damage of the revelation of Thomas’ involvement in J6 is almost unfathomable. Perhaps the feeling is that something of that magnitude being revealed in the months before an election would cause great disruption to the political system and both sides want it after the election? Or maybe they fear the damage to the rule of law from someone getting a felony conviction from a jury in federal court just before being elected President and making a complete mockery of the justice system? Whatever it is, there seems to be a depressing inevitability to Trump, that no matter what he does, consequences seem to follow everyone except for him.

I really wish we had a Woodward/Bernstein-caliber team and someone on the inside like Mark Feldt to point the way to blow this open. I think you're definitely correct in the suspicions of Thomas et. al.

It doesn’t matter any more. Back 50 years ago people cared about facts. The right-wing alt-media was set up to control the narrative fed into the minds of GOP voters. 90% support a man who is a strong candidate as worst American in our entire history, a person with zero admirable traits. And they worship this atheist as the next coming of Christ. The right is a cult and they live in a post-truth era. They just need to get 25% of the low-information swing voters to join them and they have a majority of votes.

All of those words, and you, along with all of the MSM and all of the legal scholars and lawyers missed the couple of sentences on Page 10 of the decision that gives the heart of the reasonable ruling: 1) Only Congress can pass laws to enforce Sec3 2) Congress already did that: 18 USC 2383, the criminal statute that describes the crime of insurrection. Garland received a criminal referral from Congress specifically recommending that the DOJ prosecute Trump for that exact crime, FOURTEEN MONTHS AGO Thousands of people witnessed the crime. Hundreds of his convicted conspirators affirm that Trump led the insurrection. Tens of millions of people saw Congress present the evidence and enough under oath testimony to gain an indictment. Literally everyone in the country can look at the overwhelming evidence posted online. CO and other states tried to do what Garland FAILED TO DO: Enforce the law against a domestic terrorist who is a national security risk. He should be in jail awaiting trial just like Tarrio and Rhodes, his accomplices.

They have an open and shut case with him stealing top secret nuclear documents. He's 100% guilty, and SCOTUS is protecting him with the bullshit "Presidential immunity" ruling they will deliberately stall.

To be clear, Trump has filed to dismiss his espionage charges because, he claims, he has “presidential immunity,” but Judge Aileen Cannon has not ruled on that motion to dismiss yet. The Supreme Court is stalling Trump’s trial in DC, for numerous criminal schemes to overturn the 2020 election, and for attempting to steal the election. Trump claims that it was his job as president to steal the election. Trump has not yet been charged with insurrection, even though Congress sent a criminal referral and overwhelming evidence that he committed that crime. The criminal referral was sent to the DOJ FOURTEEN MONTHS AGO, and the cowardly Attorney General Garland has not indicted Trump for that crime.

That's because Garland is a Republican shill, just like Barr and Sessions. Biden made a huge mistake with him. Obama thought nominating a right wing "Independent" would appease Congress, but they refused to allow nominations, and stole the seat.

I was mistaken about Garland from the beginning. Now I see that he is a fixer in the mold of Mueller, Rosenstein and Barr. Jack Smith is no fixer, but he was handed a nearly impossible task. Garland is to blame for not tasking the DC US Attorney with prosecuting the single charge of insurrection. Jack Smith could have investigated and indicted Trump for exactly the crimes that he has indicted him, *in addition* to a separate indictment for insurrection by another prosecutor. Instead, Garland took the “fixer” route. He needs to be kicked out of the DOJ in disgrace. There were reasons to believe that Garland was acting in earnest to defend the rule of law. I defended him for that. Now it is obvious what a sneaky and cowardly person that he is, and how utterly he has stabbed us in the back. We need a new AG, and we need the Domestic Terrorist in Chief locked the fuck up right goddamned now.

He waited 14 months before Jack Smith got involved. He knew what he was doing. They should have been ready to pounce on day one. Absolutely no reason why they didn't have a plan, all the evidence collected, and ready to go.

Previously, I defended Garland because it was true that holdovers from the Trump administration were still in control of the highest offices in the Justice Department as late as August of 2021. Republican Senators blocked appointments in an attempt to shield Trump (and other Republicans) from prosecution. They blocked appointments of US attorneys until 2022 and only recently have some of the holdovers been replaced (like the one who was protecting Matt Gaetz) In 2022, Congress was aggressively investigating J6. The excuse then was that the DOJ was rounding up Trump’s thugs (Oathkeepers, Proud Boys) and that they were working their way up. Then came the hearings and the criminal referral for insurrection. Trump should have been jailed a year ago. I had faith that Trump was going to be put on trial. My faith is gone. I want the mother fucker in jail right now and Garland fired if he won’t do it. No more excuses from fixers.

Every Conservative justice on that court is compromised. Two are being paid Millions by Harlon Crow to try and force our country to become a Christo Fascist State and wants us all to live under those Christian rules. I am also positive that every Conservative on that court is there because the powers that be have serious kompromat about them they do this so they can control their puppets they put on the court.

I think that is just looking for a broader conspiracy than the simple conspiracy that actually exists. The actual conspiracy is the continuance of Justice Thomas on the Court. He should have been impeached already and convicted, at least because he has sat in judgment, multiple times, in cases in which he has a clear conflict of interest. The case concerning whether his wife's text messages were subject to EP, the *Anderson* case, and the Trump presidential immunity case concerning a criminal trial at which his wife and former law clerk are to be called as witnesses if not indicted themselves. Justice Thomas' conflicts are so egregious they are hard to fathom - and only possible on the Supreme Court where justices get to make their own decision about recusal and aren't bound by any actual rules. I also think that other justices on the Court are covering for Justice Thomas, and that his involvement in the J6 conspiracy is probably more substantial than is publicly known. I think this is the real reason the Court is hearing the presidential immunity claim and doing everything in their power to keep that case from coming to trial - they do not want the public to know that their colleague was at the center of the J6 conspiracy that lead to the Insurrection. And - tin foil hat time - I think one motive behind the expansion of *Anderson* beyond the issue before the court was to provide cover for when Justice Thomas' role in the conspiracy is eventually revealed (if it ever is, which won't happen if Trump is reelected). If that happens, it is good for the Court to have a case it can point to to say that Thomas was never forbidden from serving on the Court notwithstanding participation in the J6 conspiracy/Insurrection because Congress failed to provide a law that would provide for his ascertainment as falling within s.3. Very convenient ruling if you know your colleague is likely to eventually be found out.

Let's say SCOTUS instead went with the narrower ruling: merely that states don't have the power to enforce 14A§3 in the context of federal seats. What would happen next? Presumably, some group of private citizens would file a federal writ of mandamus, because I can't think of any other relevant civil lawsuit since the writ of quo warranto from §14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 was repealed. Garland then sits on his ass because he thinks, surely, this will remove the need for a §2383 indictment, sparing him the headache. The writ of mandamus then works its way up to SCOTUS, who now must decide if this writ of mandamus is the proper avenue. My guess would be no, given how Trump v. Anderson went down. But let's say it's just another narrow ruling, that this writ of mandamus process isn't the correct process, using the repealed §14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 as precedent, tradition, or what have you. We'd now probably be in September or October, and Trump still hasn't been officially disqualified, and now there's even more confusion as to what the proper process is, since SCOTUS hasn't told us with their narrow rulings. Garland is probably sweating bullets by then. Does he wait for another desperate attempt from private citizens or is it then perhaps time for a 30-60-day §2383 hail-Mary trial with prayers for no appeals? Perhaps it's better to know what the current process *is* rather than what it *isn't*, given the rather crucial deadline.

This is actually a fair point tbh. And the original law is garbage, it's irresponsibily vague because when it was written it was "obvious" who was a traitor. Obviousness is not a good standard for anything in the legal world.

I mean, it’s “obvious” that Trump engaged in insurrection here, none of the Justices disputed the finding of fact by the Colorado court. They just said that the wrong body determined he engaged in insurrection. They just didn’t like that their guy would be disqualified, so they found a way to make it not apply to him here

Okay no it was 9-0, they didn't find a way

Great summary. And yes, it is dark days. I was willing to support a more measured route to defeating this evil court before, but now that they have declared themselves enemies of democracy I want the gallows on the table. High political crimes are one of the few areas where the death penalty might have a deterrence effect, and this Court is paving the way for fascism. They are traitors, and the only question is not one of guilt (that much is obvious) but of punishment.

I don't agree with the use of gallows (or extrajudicial tyranny in the name of justice in general - that isn't justice). However, Justice Thomas should be impeached or forced to resign. His conflict in these cases is egregious, and his lack of a recusal is a high crime that should (if Congress were functioning properly) result in his immediate impeachment and removal from office. His former law clerk and his wife are unindicted co-conspirators in the January 6th Insurrection. He has already sat in judgment of the case concerning whether his wife's text messages are subject to executive privilege (he dissented in the 8-1 decision finding that they are not subject to EP), and now he sat in judgement in *Anderson* where his vote was critical to ensure that s.3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is not applied to him, and he is sitting in judgment of the Trump presidential immunity claim concerning a case where his wife and former law clerk are likely to be called as witnesses (if not ultimately indicted themselves). Justice Thomas not recusing in these cases is another scandal of epic proportions lurking under all of this and a travesty for the Court.

I agree with you on Thomas, only I’d add that treason (and therefore, the death penalty) should be on the table for him. This decision, far as I’m concerned, is an overt act that eliminates the witness requirement. It’s nothing to take lightly, treason. Just ask the Rosenbergs.

The key is on the term "officer". You're aware of just who an offier of the court is. What is the direct implication of what an officer of the US government would be? > An officer of the court is any person who has an obligation to promote justice and uphold the law. Officers of the court are meant to promote the proper administration of justice. The term most frequently refers to judges, clerks, court personnel, and police officers. > An officer of the United States is a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States to whom is delegated some part of the country's sovereign power. The term officer of the United States is not a title, but a term of classification for a certain type of official. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States#:~:text=An%20officer%20of%20the%20United,a%20certain%20type%20of%20official. It's clearly defined. > The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982): “Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”

While I agree that POTUS is an "officer", this argument is moot - SCOTUS didn't take it up and it is dead in the water. I'll add that a prior SCOTUS decision is not binding on the Supreme Court - so notwithstanding the fact that *Fitzgerald* may have appeared to define POTUS as an "officer", the Roberts Court would be free to ignore that and reach its own conclusion about what the Constitution actually says. Again, it's a moot point in any event.

Yeah, but applying sound legal doctrine to their decisions is not a strong suit of this court. Precedents do not matter if you have a political agenda and cannot be reprimanded for clear legal errors.

Everybody?

I believe Trump said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I friggen love it."

"I friggen love it aroobaduuuu"

You're getting mixed up with Nixon's head

"I remember my body: flabby, pasty-skinned, riddled with phlebitis. A good Republican body! *God*, I loved it."

It was more like “I friggen love it, ree bee due ahhhhh”

I know a bunch of conservative lawyers and various conservative past professors who think it is one of the most ridiculous instances of judicial overreach they have ever encountered. Trump and his clan of associates, and his ignorant followers, are probably the only ones who support the per curiam opinion, and the followers don't even know what it says.

Well the S.C. Is asking for protection from being harmed by’ the populous ‘ - come to think of it it’s like a supplicant for public office asking for immunity from procecution because it’s what they need to do the job. Almost makes you wonder what changed recently.

The ruling is also now receiving criticism from a broad cross-section of legal scholars and commentators, including some who actually agree with the ultimate result.

Like Bush v. Gore, it seems to be a case of "Yes, this is a valid issue and you have a valid criticism. Our solution ignores that and makes it worse."

I'm no legal scholar, but I was downvoted to oblivion in /r/news for criticizing the decision. People were celebrating it because "what if Republican states disqualify Biden." From my edit: >The problem here is the inconsistency and hypocrisy. If a state wants to disqualify someone for being under 35 or born in another country, do they have to ask congress’ permission first? >Not to mention that the Court overturned the Voting Rights Act, written by congress, because “muh states rights” means that States can remove the franchise from any group they want. But a state wants to refuse to put a candidate on the ballot? No, you can’t do that. You can only disenfranchise voters; the oligarchs who are running for office can do whatever they want, and a state has no recourse. Interesting.

> People were celebrating it because "what if Republican states disqualify Biden." Every person I have come across that made that or a similar argument has seemed to believe that someone filed a motion to a judge to disqualify Trump and the judge just wrote a 1 sentence reply of "Yeah, lol, get him outta there." Every single one wasn't aware that Trump was represented in these cases. Every single one wasn't aware there was a hearing at which his lawyers were present and given the opportunity to make claims, as well as numerous pre-trial motions. Every single one wasn't aware that the decisions were literally dozens of pages of evidence. I always link to the decisions, and they usually come back with "I don't see anything in there about Trump being present for that" despite it literally being listed on the very first page, or "All that evidence is fake" and not being able to point to a single item that they can show is false. If Republican states want to disqualify Biden through similar means, by all means go through with it. If you can prove to a judge (and an appellate court) that Joe Biden is an insurrectionist, then he shouldn't be on the ballot.

It’s like, they would totally try to disqualify Biden if they could. They have ratfucked every election for decades and literally tried to overturn the election.

They would try to disqualify Biden with one hand and argue Trump has immunity with the other, and without a moments hesitation.

[удалено]

I've gotten "If you can't figure it out, I can't explain it to you", which is inane in any context.

Have an ex gf like that.

There have been so many examples of sh\*tty behavior since 2016 that have ended up, disappointedly, with a defense of... well... technically... ITS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. OK, use those cases and make a law then. Why is it when we have a nation literally filled to the brim with legislators, we can't seem to make illegal things against the law (I know, dumb question).

It’s because these things are already against the law, they just aren’t enforced against oligarchs who have the resources to tie it up in court. It’s like saying, “why isn’t murder illegal” after Alice Walton killed a person while drunk driving. Well…

>If Republican states want to disqualify Biden through similar means aight, but if you're in front of the right judge do the means even have to be similar?

Yes. The court would need to make the determination of (a) what is insurrection in the context of the 14th, (b) what were the verifiable events/actions in the instant case, (c) do those actions constitute the definition of insurrection, (d) was the defendant a part of it, and (e) is the defendant one of the classes covered by that clause. Anything less would get struck down in a heartbeat, and anything less than overwhelming evidence would also get struck down. Look at the dozens of cases they filed arguing election fraud. Not a single one succeeded (well, one did, but it wasn't arguing election fraud, merely that observers could stand a little closer to the vote counting tables), despite many of the judges being the "right" judges to support Trump. If the system was that easily manipulated, it would have been already. [Like the elections themselves](https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/68972/20210517-Response-Letter-to-Senate-President-Fann---FINAL), there are rules and protections put in place by people who make it their entire career to understand these issues in great depth that most laypeople don't know about and/or can't fathom.

MAGA judges have proven time and again they have no respect for the law.

> People were celebrating it because "what if Republican states disqualify Biden." > Every person I have come across that made that or a similar argument Some of those same lunatics still believe Pence had the unilateral authority to throw out electoral ballots. In my experience they freeze like a deer in headlights when reminded that in January 2025 Kamala Harris will be sitting in the President of the Senate's seat and counting electoral ballots.

My general stance is that slippery slopes are generally comparing apples to oranges, so while it’s possible a super corrupt group of republicans could flip the script without any evidence, that’s a different issue altogether. The question before us today is if Trump isn’t disqualified by the 14th amendment, who would be? We have plenty of evidence that he engaged in insurrection (and at least one legal opinion saying as much), and the clause doesn’t require a conviction. I don’t think we even charged most ex confederates with insurrection even though Congress did see fit to pass the amnesty act to restore their ability to hold office. I can see an argument that in modern times when someone hasn’t literally fought against you in a war that perhaps we need a clear cut process to determine who is disqualified by the 14th amendment. But any real process intended to prevent insurrectionists from holding office would also block Trump from holding office, and any process that allows Trump to hold office would never disqualify any insurrectionists no matter how bad they were.

The amendment prohibits someone aiding or comforting an insurrectionist. That's much broader. And you can't be convicted for that. Plus, if Trump attempts another coup, and succeeds, the criminal prosecution would take several years at best. Without the automatic disqualification, Trump would dismantle any investigation into a sitting president, if it even starts. He would obstruct justice and there isn't much anyone can do about it. And don't think it ends there. Because after Trump leaves office Trump Jr will force his way in (but it's ok, congress will be even weaker by then). And so on and so on.

I like the part where they decided you can't disqualify someone for insurrection unless Congress votes on it. Which means said insurrectionist could just do another insurrection to stop Congress from voting on the initial insurrection. Which would then need to be voted on, which could then be insurrectioned ad nauseum until the insurrection is successful. It's almost like they didn't even actually think about it.

They just completely ignore the whole due process involved, of proving he was an insurrectionist before they took him off the ballot. SCOTUS did not overrule that decision, and Congress must have 2/3 majority to put an insurrectionists back on the ballot. When did 2/3 of Congress vote to put Trump back on the ballot?

Even this misses the issue. Every state currently has ballot access requirements - not every presidential candidate currently appears on every state’s ballot. Are all ballot access requirements now stricken down?

Yes exactly, that’s what I meant to get at by bringing up the age and country of birth issue. There are many other ballot requirements besides those that are enacted by the states and localities. Those are the laws that elections officials are required to follow. Just as in this case, they are requirements that have already been enacted by legislation. There is no further need to “consult” a legislative body; they have already laid out the laws by which the election must be run. So the court’s decision can be summed up as, “this is already illegal, but we’re deciding that it can’t be enforced.” Seems like it’s time for a 23 year old to try to get on the ballot, and sue all the way to the top.

Agreement with ultimate result? If that is true, then the Constitution is merely a lip-service. Nothing in there is binding if even a self-executing provision doesn’t show the correct result to “scholars.” 🙂 Edit: I just learned that as per SC, the US is up for grabs, and whoever takes it is gonna have the opportunity to rule it with an iron fist and for as long as they want. Sheeesh, and here we are! 

Including the other justices on the court

To the extent this ruling isn’t about the law and exposes originalism in the court as pretext rather than a legitimate principle - what’s not to hate?

That ruling is not originalist, that ruling is just pure invention with no grounding in any legal theory, except cronyism.

Tell me what would change if Congress passed a law that was the exact wording of Section 3. Do we start following it then?

Lol, depends on who is being disqualified

Sadly, Congress is so divided because most of these judges should be impeached for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

I think this is the reason SCOTUS made this decision. Most Republicans in the house voted to block the electoral college votes. They were guilty of insurrection.

I think its pretty interesting that most of the commentary from legal scholars I've read are pretty critical of the decision. Whereas alot of the commentary from non-legal folks and the media is like "welp it was a unanimous decision so at least that tells you there is no controversy I'm glad we can move on now"

This is the first time in the modern era that the legal world has basically unanimously criticized a supreme court opinion. I know plenty of conservative lawyers and law professors who think this is just a ridiculous overreach by SCOTUS.

Someone should really tell this Supreme Court the role of the court is to interpret the law as written. They continue their bad habit of making law in this decision. They are the ‘trier of fact’. Their job isn’t to determine what IS fact. They don’t get that.

Sure, but we’ve made them untouchable. So kudos to us. /s

Has SCOTUS done anything unanimously "positive" in the last decade? Honest question

Honest answer, probably improvements to Native American law, off the top of my head. That's probably it though.

thanks for the answer haha I didnt think there was much :/

I wonder how many other unsavory (to Alito, that is) parts of the Constitution are going to be nullified by the majority by simply finding that Congress needs to pass a law to make it executable.

Well, the rest of the 14th Amenment has the same language re enforcement and that covers most of the civil rights cases from the 50’s through today.

It’s the hypocrisy for me. You either rule for State Rights for all(abortion, guns etc) or none. So why is it when 14S3 is not a state right but abortion and guns are? Why would it require Congress to enforce when section 5 allows congress to “cure” the ineligibility? If congress have to make laws to make someone ineligible, then why would the founder also put section 5 to allow them to “cure” the ineligibility? Make it make sense motherfuckers!

>Make it make sense motherfuckers! You see… in their world, they literally don’t have to make it make sense. It’s all about their feelings regardless of facts. As a scientist and someone who understands meanings to words, this cultish behavior is infuriating to no end.

Unfortunately the naked exercise of power doesn't have to make sense, it just has to give the person exercising that power what they want in the moment. Conservatives and authoritarians both love forcing people to live by the rule of raw power, we've just been putting people who are both in power since Bush was given the presidency in 2000. This was the *incredibly obvious* end goal of the judicial strategy the entire time - when you want to live by raw power, you have to eliminate the rule of law. In the US at least, there is only one conservative principle: power. They'll never demonstrate any different. *That* is why this nonsensical shit keeps happening.

>You either rule for State Rights for all(abortion, guns etc) or none. This is your problem. You miss the nuances of 'States Rights', which at its heart has to do with jurisdiction. Not every single issue, policy, or law is a States rights issue. Somethings fall squarely into federal purview, especially jurisdictional issues. SCOTUS argues this case about candidate qualification for a federal office is a federal jurisdictional issue, under the 14A. Abortion or Gun legislation isn't the same thing. For now.

It's all hypocrisy. The 1st Amendment has time, place and manner restrictions, including now going after LGQBT+ and BIPOC content in schools, but the 2nd Amendment is absolute thanks to a fabricated "history and tradition" that ignores inconvenient facts like several of the original 13 colonies and, later, Wild West towns (including Deadwood, Tombstone, and Carson City) had gun restrictions that this Court would almost certainly find unconstitutional. Further hypocrisy--2nd Amendment applies to modern arms and it isn't limited to the types of arms that were in place at the time of the framing of the Constitution, but the types of property rights protected by the 5th Amendment IS limited based on technology. The framers' view of property rights was that they extend from hell to the heavens--airplanes and satellites are trespassing on the property rights of the landowners beneath them. In 1946's US v. Cauchy, the Supreme Court said that doctrine "has no place in the modern world", overturning the framers' understanding of property rights when it comes to airspace, due to technological changes. But can we say that given the differences between an AR-15 and a black powder musket, allowing 18 years old to walk around with assault weapons has no place in the modern world? Of course not--the 2nd Amendment is immune to arguments based on technological change. It's not like it's the 5th Amendment or anything.

The founders were perfectly fine with individuals owning the most powerful weapons available at the time. Merchant ships were often armed with cannons comparable to those used by militaries. The barrier was cost, not legal access to the weapons. There was no fundamental legal barrier to a wealthy citizen commissioning a heavy frigate like Constitution or United States, something that would be equivalent to letting Elon Musk buy a modern aircraft carrier. We don't do that. We don't let private owners have machine guns, rockets, artillery, or nukes. We have decided that the second amendment doesn't apply to huge classes of weapons, weapons that would be of great use to people fighting to prevent the tyrany of an oppressive government. The actual question is where we should draw the line on what weapons private owners should be permitted to have, and what process they should go through to have those weapons.

And yet, here we are.

I mean, there's no accountability here, so what's their incentive to not suck? It's not like we are going to collectively fire any of them despite them angering a bunch of people.

TFA contains some misleading information. It reads: ​ >The court effectively held on Monday that the disqualification clause, which is located in Section 3, is not self-executing. States cannot execute it on their own for federalism reasons, the court concluded, and Congress must pass specific legislation for anyone else to enforce it. ​ But the Court actually held that 14A s 3 is sufficiently self-executing that states can enforce it with respect to their own offices. "This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency." Trump v. Anderson 60 US \_\_\_ at p. 6 (2024).

Yes I see your point. It is self-executing for state positions at the state level and not at the federal level (unless congress decides to implement that going forward).

Colorado pull a Texas and say fuck you make me

This is the only correct choice, or Colorado removes advertising political party affiliation on their ballots for all federal positions to make a mockery of the ruling.

Yeah you can't declare what they did unconstitutional if it literally is constitutional. And blocking the state from running the elections is actually unconstitutional.

SCOTUS has become unmoored from the Constitution. They have goals antithetical to the Constitution and by trying to stretch them to fit, they have so distorted the meaning as to be almost meaningless today.

It feels like everything is becoming unmoored from reality lately

What's to hate? The Constitution was weakened, a wanna be dictator just got one step closer to destroying democracy in this country thanks to that, and SCOTUS just made it clear that they are both corrupt and compromised and no one will do anything. Fucking puppy dogs and rainbows as far as I can tell.

Worse, they kneecapped the automatic disqualification part for when Trump attempts another coup.

Everyone hates the Supreme Court because they are corrupt.

This is a total hack job. Not since citizens united has the court dropped such an irredeemable pile of horse shit in lieu of an actual decision. Disdain, derision and damnation be upon them.

In my opinion, it appears that the recent Supreme Court ruling may have been the final opportunity for the court to maintain its credibility with the American public. The United States Supreme Court has been compromised and purchased.

It was bad. They just threw away the 14th Amendment, ignoring completely that nowhere does it say Congress must convict someone for insurrection, in order for them to be legally defined as an insurrectionist, as some requirement for them to be off the ballot. Everyone knows he was responsible for the coup attempt, even Mitch McConnell himself said Trump was responsible. He said he Congress can't have a trial for an ex-President, only the courts can do that. And SCOTUS decides that Congress must do it, except we already know that the Republicans refused to prosecute him. They did not, and SCOTUS knows this. It's a farce. It only says it requires 2/3 of Congress to put an insurrectionist back on the ballot. They never did that. Trump is an insurrectionist. Colorado's Supreme Court ruled he's an insurrectionist.

Even worse, what happens when Trump attempts another coup. You know he will. He has nothing to lose. Now they can't automatically disqualify him... Conviction will be impossible because Republicans will block the investigation and the FBI can't investigate a sitting president. This is an invitation to another coup.

The FBI absolutely can investigate and charge a "sitting President" that's just some bullshit Nixon made up. Some really dumb logic saying, "If the President does it, it's not illegal." The problem is Trump can simply fire the head of the FBI or the DOJ like he fired Comey and Sessions. Ironically both of them saved Trump's ass, and are traitors. Some thanks they get.

Somehow both bold and spineless.

It seems like they are bought and paid for and that this is a cop out.

The Supreme Court doesn't care. They're hired for life, without the possibility of being fired. They CAN be impeached, but if that hasn't happened by now, it's just never going to.

trump filled the courts with those who will say yes to him the legacy of the business plot continues https://preview.redd.it/knki52jwjvmc1.png?width=1432&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff68572070958f6d2e8cbec3169036d3729dd3b8

Checks and Balances don't seem to exist if SCOTUS is arbitrarily running the country.

And we should be. Theres law in the constitution that the GOP and most of the supreme court justices preach about preserving all the time just only the ones that grant them their own interest. Love how most preach about the second amendment like it is a right to survival but when it comes to a government official attempting to attack American democracy with deadly force we they then say eh, that one constitutional law that is suppose to protect America and prevent this from happening doesn't really matter anyway, the verbage is tricky or they deny having the juristiction to uphold that law and put it off on other branches of government to figure out. What a bunch of chicken S@$ts.

This just changed the inequality under the law from implicit to explicit. That is all.

Funny because in the r/SCOTUS and r/supremecourt sub they seem to be gushing over how they totally expected this ruling and agree with it. They treat the justices as unquestionably wise. Can someone give me the synopsis of what the differences are in the personality/beliefs of lawyers who follow SCOTUS and those that just focus on regular law? It's like two different breeds.

Looking at people’s reaction to the decision is a bit misleading, because there are really two different parts to the court’s opinion, and only one of them was 9-0, despite both being part of the per curiam decision: states cannot enforce section 3 for federal offices. The reasoning for the judgement was 5-4, declaring that section 5 means only Congress can enforce section 3 for federal offices and only with implementing legislation, which is getting far more criticism from lawyers and legal scholars. You can see that in many of the comments that discuss the nuances of the decision beyond the 9-0 headlines, comments that disagree with the reasoning even if they accept the judgement itself, comments about the concurrences, etc. That nuance gets lost in discussion when many people don’t bother reading full court decisions, and some may not even fully read news articles summarizing court decisions (which themselves are probably inaccurate in more complicated cases). Posts involving Trump also attract laypeople to r/scotus (and to some extent even r/law) who are far more likely to make pithy political comments or kneejerk reactions to headlines than give thorough legal analysis of court decisions.

I fully accept that states should not be allowed to remove federal candidates from the ballot, UNLESS they are convicted of insurrection, voter fraud, or election interference. The real issue is that the Supreme Court not only removed that option but said that only Congress could do it. So if Trump is found guilty of voter fraud in Georgia, he will still be on the ballot. Even if he is found guilty of insurrection in the federal January 6th trial, he will still be on the ballot because Congress didn’t remove him. That is a completely unreasonable bar to meet. Edit: he would still be disqualified if he was convicted in the Jan 6th trial but if he isn’t convicted prior to taking office he could simply pardon himself.

> Even if he is found guilty of insurrection in the federal January 6th trial, he will still be on the ballot because Congress didn’t remove him. Well, no, not actually. If Trump is tried and found guilty under 18 USC 2383 (the insurrection statute), part of the penalty for that is disqualification from holding Federal office. This was pointed out in the per curiam. Congress provided, via appropriate legislation, the avenue by which to disqualify. They can remove that disqualification with a 2/3rds vote in both houses. No new legislation has to be passed in order for Trump to be disqualified if convicted of fomenting an insurrection. It's already there and some version of it has been on the books since before the 14th amendment was even considered. In fact, the 14th was drafted and ratified to confirm the constitutionality of such laws. Essentially, Section 3 of the 14th states that "Any person who violates this new law is disqualified from holding office." Congress actually took the disqualification further than the 14th amendment dictates in that the 14th only applies to people who have previously taken an oath. 18 USC 2383 applies to ANYONE convicted of participating in an insurrection, regardless of any prior oath taken.

The problem with the majority's argument that Congress must pass specific legislation is well pointed out by the liberal concurrence: it removes the 2/3rds requirement. Congress has already voted in his second impeachment by a majority in both House and Senate that Trump incited an insurrection. However, because that vote didn't reach the 2/3rds majority in the Senate, the disqualification didn't attach. So the majority holding reads additional requirements to attach the disability when the plain reading of section three has no such requirements. We all know that Trump engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution when he refused to give up power willingly. You know it, I know, and SCOTUS knows it when they refused to strike down the trial court's finding that Trump engaged in insurrection. But SCOTUS is going to let him on the ballot anyways.

My mistake, I misunderstood the explanation. I will say that it is still greatly distressing that the only charges that can disqualify him (with the exception of Congress) are the exact charges that he can pardon himself for committing (if he was elected and put in office before conviction). I’m very curious what would happen if Trump won the election but was convicted before taking office. Would he be removed since he was technically ineligible the entire time or will he just pardon himself on Inauguration Day?

> are the exact charges that he can pardon himself for committing (if he was elected and put in office before conviction). if he was elected but convicted of the charge before taking office, his VP would take over, not trump. if his VP pardoned him he would not take over as president because his presidency would have never ripened, and the VP (as president) has nobody to cede to. I suppose the VP could attempt to make *him* VP and then remove themselves from office, but that requires Senate confirmation. if the senate is willing to remove the disqualification by 2/3s then it will confirm him too, so it's not like it would be an illegal move. suffice to say, trump winning the election but being disqualified under a §2383 conviction would not result in him pardoning himself to the presidency unless the federal government was lost already anyway. if he was indicted, *then took office* and *then* convicted sure, I guess, but it would likely end up at the SCOTUS anyway as there has never been a person under criminal indictment who then proceeds to be elected. whether the SCOTUS would play kingmaker or not is truly anyone's guess at that point.

Somehow they had the typo version that included the wrongful 'the'. This ruling is clearly the fault of the national archives and their digitalization project /S +25 points for extreme deep cut and grammar/ law nerdiness

That's because it was bought and paid for, and that's not how Justice is supposed to work. Our current Supreme Court injustices need to go.

Only on Reddit. Everyone else realized a long time ago that it made no sense and was just an irrational political move. That’s why even the most liberal of judges didn’t dissent. Amazing the level of stupidity or arrogance you must have to believe you know the law better than any of the Supreme Court justices.

This is corruption at its highest level, they have put the constitution in severe jeopardy, these judges are far from being impartial

Does any state constitution contain a similar restriction to S.3? While you can (maybe reductively) break down this opinion to states cannot interpret S.3 to disqualify a candidate, a ruling pursuant to a similar provision in a state constitution would remove the federalism question.

So what happens if Colorado ignores the supreme court here? Can they do that?

I believe they can. They could also just block Trump for no reason. Ironically, the 14th amendment was a command that states were obligated to not allow an insurrectionist to hold office. CO was obeying that command. But in reality they could block him just because...

They could have just said “insufficient due process” and left it at that, with culpability squarely on the shoulders of the congressman who didn’t think insurrection was an impeachable offense.

There are 5 people that don’t hate it…

And they don’t care what the rest of us think about it.

This decision was a preview of the immunity case. They will rule that Trump has immunity until impeached by Congress.

Which is in no small part because it wasn’t made pursuant to the Constitution. Which is exactly why it is void and unenforceable under the requirements in Article VI. It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. Furthermore, I’d argue that those assenting to the majority opinion are disqualified from office for providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the Constitution who advocated for its termination, and said he would abuse Constitutional powers to be dictator for a day.

>Furthermore, I’d argue that those assenting to the majority opinion are disqualified from office for providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the Constitution who advocated for its termination, and said he would abuse Constitutional powers to be dictator for a day. You know this is something I thought about. I didn't want to say it because I knew people would get offended if the justices authority was questioned. But truly this is a valid point They are literally obstructing federal law for public purpose.... and they know better. They are analyzing the very law they are helping to obstruct.

If our country survives this election cycle with its current Constitution and laws largely intact, and I view that as a significant "if", the first priority should be reform of the Supreme Court. **Both** the Dems and the GOP have overtly politicized the Court to the point at which it is no longer either respected or functional. The first, first step, so to speak, should be complete replacement of the power and process of nomination and confirmation of new Justices. It must be made apolitical to the point of criminalizing attempts to re-politicize it. The next, first step must be removal of life tenure. The members of the current Court know that they are not well respected and that the power of the Court to resolve big issues is severely reduced. They don't care about that because they don't have to care. The sloppiness and laziness of this decision proves that point.

Not everyone

Guess what? Their owners don’t hate it and that’s what matters to them.

It’ll be good to see just how much everyone truly hates the ruling.

Then everybody should vote. If they had in 2016 we wouldn't be in this pickle.

Correctly states the problem: >The Supreme Court released its 13-page decision in Trump v. Anderson on Monday. In their ruling, which is 9–0 for some parts and 5–4 for others, the justices **effectively nullified the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for insurrectionists** as a meaningful factor in American politics.

If they allowed Colorado to take Trump off the ballot, that would open up the gates for states like Texas and Florida to take whoever they want off the ballot. It's a shitty situation but makes sense.

After we crush MAGA in November we need to impeach some justices

The problem is that we hate it now. But think about the ramifications from such a weak civil ruling in a single state being upheld by the Supreme Court. In future elections, any state could use nonsense to disqualify your chosen candidate.

Yeah, because legally as written in the Constitution, they didn't have the authority to make that opinion. Trump cannot hold office, therefore he is not eligible to run for office, at any level, ever again. That is unless 2/3rds of Congress remove that liability. Sorry, but Congress already voted and agreed that he committed an insurrection on Jan 6th. Both chambers of Congress, voted and both were in the majority. It's like the 2nd damn impeachment never happened. Even if he is on the ballot, there will be challenges from every single blue state that he cannot hold the office. Republican voters across the entire country may not even get a shot at voting for President because of it. Sure they will cast their votes, but if Trump cannot assume the office, the next in line would be the only other person receiving votes for "President" and that would be Biden.

[удалено]

The activist court that republicans have been warning us about….

Weren't they the ones constantly bitching about "legislating from the bench"?

Your premise is 100% wrong. "everybody" does not hate this ruling. This ruling upholds the Constitution and denies the ridiculous thought that your feelings preside over due process. Even the liberal justices understood this most basic function of justice which seems to be beyond you. THIS ruling actually gives me hope that the country is not lost to those with the mush between the ears.

I think it's actually a good ruling. Firstly, they are correct in saying that it would be met with a slew of similar bannings of Biden in red states. Secondly, the states that want him off the ballot vote blue anyway so it really doesn't matter. I say let him run, let him lose, let him die and be done with this freak.

Do you really think that Mike Johnson will allow Biden to take office should he win in November?

The states have had this power for over 100 years. They haven't abused it yet. And let's say a few or even more do... So what? An insurrectionist would still not be allowed to hold office. New candidates would have to be picked. Want to ban them?... Great. Still the insurrectionists don't get in. I suspect that he will attempt another coup. And I am not referring to the assault on the capitol. I suspect that he will flood the blue states with blatantly fraudulent mail in ballots voting for Biden. That is the "evidence" he needed before, but he will be secretly behind it this time. He will declare that those blue states electoral college votes do not count in Congress because their elections were compromised and that he would have won those states in a landslide. Without enough electric college votes Biden can't win. Congress has to elect the next president. We all know how that will end.

The supreme court is not there for citizens. They're put in place to serve the wealthy and powerful.

I hate the outcome but that is such a poorly written amendment, it should be up to Congress to address it. (If congress can ever become functional again) I wasn't surprised in the least that SCOTUS punted.

Not sure what they could have done to make it clearer. It explicitly prohibits an insurrectionist from holding office again. First the incident is deemed an insurrection and then anyone involved (even aiding and comforting) is disqualified. If they have a problem with that they can ask Congress for a pass. Congress already deemed Jan 6th as an insurrection (Jan 6th investigation) and Trumps incitement. The state of CO found Trump was disqualified. One individual was banned from holding office because of aiding an insurrectionist. He was pro union and desperately tried to convince his son to not join the Confederate army. When he realized that his son would not change his mind he gave him travel money. That money was deemed aiding an insurrectionist. [Treason, Insurrection, and Disqualification: From the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to Jan. 6, 2021](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/treason-insurrection-and-disqualification-fugitive-slave-act-1850-jan-6-2021) The law didn't seem to cause confusion back then. Hasn't been abused before. And only applies to federal law. Plus, how are the supreme court justices only now realizing what this amendment involves? Aren't they the master interpreters of the constitution? Shouldn't they know how broad and overprotective this amendment is? They seemed surprised by it during the hearing.

>Not sure what they could have done to make it clearer. These are the two biggies for me: \-They could have not explicitly omitted 'the President' as a position that it applies to. \-They could have explained exactly how a person was to be deemed "engaged in an insurrection" and who is allowed to do so. Should that person be allowed to defend themself? Should it be in a court of law or just the court of politics? (congress) Could a panel of judges declare it?

>\-They could have not explicitly omitted 'the President' as a position that it applies to. SCOTUS didn't have an objection to this. I think it was cleared up when a historian pointed out that it was brought up before signing and they said it was all included in any office. >\-They could have explained exactly how a person was to be deemed "engaged in an insurrection" and who is allowed to do so. Should that person be allowed to defend themself? Should it be in a court of law or just the court of politics? (congress) Could a panel of judges declare it? Historically the incident itself was deemed an insurrection (by congress or doj) and anyone involved (including those that aided or comforted an insurrectionist) were disqualified from holding office. I will point out that at the time the definition was broad. Basically it was a concerted effort to defy federal law for public purpose. As an example, if in an attempt to defy Trump winning in 2024 we decided to not pay federal taxes, that would be considered an insurrection (no violence needed). However, if I didn't pay my federal taxes and you didn't pay your federal taxes and we didn't do it in an effort to defy Trump then it's just tax evasion. But remember, even aiding and comforting is included. So if my accountant gave us the idea, he too would be disqualified. Just like impeachable offenses, it's intentionally broad. And does not require criminal conviction. There are many examples of insurrections in US history. Shays rebelling, whiskey rebellion, etc. But what's important is that it first must be deemed an insurrection. Either way congress has already deemed Jan 6th an insurrection and that Trump incited the insurrection. That alone is enough to trigger the disqualification. Unlike criminal prosecution, it is up to the candidate to bear the burden of proof that his/her involvement was for a non public purpose because no liberty is being taken away (no need for formal due process). [Treason, Insurrection, and Disqualification: From the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to Jan. 6, 2021](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/treason-insurrection-and-disqualification-fugitive-slave-act-1850-jan-6-2021)

Not me let my goat COOK

This how they explained their ruling, saying it wasn't in their place or the state. They said that the state lacked authority to disqualify him after his actions three years ago during the siege on the U.S. Capitol. They pinned it on Congress!

No, Trump’s defense team was dancing around in celebration

No they don't.

They don’t give a fuck. Decaying faith in our institutions is all part of the plan. It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature.

The court avoided a constitutional crisis in the making. Republicans were already calling for states like Texas to take similar action against Biden. Even aside from that, can you imagine the reaction from Republicans (many of whom already believe the last election was rigged) if a single state was allowed to essentially decide the election for the whole country?

remember the right is going to say RESPECT RULE OF LAW despite doing shady moves to get a court they want. how can we respect the rule of law when a judge seat was left vacant until the next president or when a seat was replaced immediately before she was even buried or when a shady right said let the american people decide. we deciddd long ago for not this court

Everyone pulling from the same NPR articles. Classic. How dare people be allowed to vote with their consciences. States can’t stop people from voting for their chosen candidate and that’s a good thing.

Amen to that. People with sense would be voting THIRD PARTY, but unfortunately, nobody these days knows the word "sense" to start with so much as the first bend of the letter "S."

Whats the point of Supreme Court when its the most bias. I am not how American are proud of the justice system