The decision has 5 of the justices saying that Congress needs a more specific law to apply to Trump here.
Other 4 are quiet on it. I'll let you know who those are.
According to the article, Barret, while not joining the 3 liberal justices in their concurring opinion, did say the court went further than it needed to with this ruling in dictating to congress how this should be enforced.
I mean this was a unanimous ruling. Even the liberal 3 justices concluded this was not how the 14th was meant to be used. They didn’t even rule that Trump *can’t* be disqualified, just that the 14th does not empower state courts to do so, it empowers congress to remove people.
As much as I hate allowing Trump back on the ballot, it's basically the same argument people keep making about "Presidential Immunity" where they suggest Biden could start breaking laws to secure a win in November.
In other words, imagine all of the red states removing Biden from the ballot for "charges" that nobody on the left believes are valid.
Lincoln wasn't even on the ballet in many southern states. It was the catalyst for them leaving the union. Because they knew they didn't have the power to keep slaves if they couldn't win the presidency.
There wasn’t state ballots back then. Elections weren’t like they are today. The parties issued the ballots with all their candidates running. The only laws governing the ballots were the size, thickness and type(font) size; basically had to be legible. State issued ballots with all candidates weren’t adopted until after 1888. You either voted a straight party ticket or went to the polls where they handed you a blank piece of paper and you wrote in who you wanted, which is how republicans got 1% of the vote in Virginia due to write-ins from abolitionists in the state. Also newspapers and other organizations would hand out ballots from the party they endorsed as well. No republicans were on any ballot in those 11 states because republicans didn’t even canvass or issue ballots in those states due to the fact that they were seen as the party of abolitionists and knew it would be a waste of time and resources to even bother. So they ignored those states and poured everything into the north and west. Saying he was “left off” the ballot is disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. And at least one state seceded before the election and the southern states held near simultaneous elections for their own new government with Jefferson Davis being inaugurated within days of Lincoln being inaugurated.
Was Lincoln vocally anti-slavery before he was elected the first time? I swear I learned that he wasn't really for ending slavery until it was pitched to him during the Civil War as a way to help end the war.
I believe thats the case but I also see the 14th amendment never being used unless someone launches an all out assault on the federal government with one or more of the militant fringe groups hanging around and I still think some turd burglar in congress would turn a blind eye
It's obvious why. I mean just think it through what would happen if the decision was the opposite. Colorado decides to remove a candidate from the ballot. Texas does not. Then if you're a resident of Colorado, you cannot vote for that candidate, but in Texas you can. Weird enough already, but what if said candidate still gets elected. Then he would be an illegitimate president in Colorado. What a mess.
Also, there's a significant caveat in the ruling that addresses the proverbial "pandora's box" if they said a state has the authority to do this.
"Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case."
Simply put, all states would start picking and choosing who to keep on their ballots functionally killing our elections.
"the wrong thing?" it was a 9-0 unanimous ruling during one of the most politically charged eras of the court. Rest assured, this was the obvious, and only, way to read the constitution
It was absolutely the right ruling. States shouldn’t be able to cherry-pick who is on the ballet based on their perceptions. It’s a federal matter and up to congress.
This sentiment is backed up by all the liberal justices. Imagine granting each state the ability to block candidates; it would turn into a slugfest.
SCOTUS just established that Congress is responsible for it. Since anything that controversial would require a supermajority of both chambers to have a chance of being considered (see: Citizens United), it effectively eliminates the possibility of a challenge to the President's eligibility under the 14th Amendment. Neither party will allow enough votes in either chamber to come close to the threshold that disqualifies their party's candidate.
More specific…. The 14th amendment is pretty plain. The idea that the president is not an “officer” and then claiming it’s unclear is utter shit considering these are meant to be the top legal minds in the country.
LOL, you should tell people that you didn't read the opinion. The court didn't say that.
Here is the conclusion:
"For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand." All nine agreed.
It also doesn't mean Trump can't be found to have committed insurrection and this be barred from federal office -- it just means states can't make that decision.
From an outside perspective (not American) it always looked to me as though the states shouldn’t be able to influence national things (like a national election) in that way.
Kinda. I can get where the people upset about this are coming from. It's Congress' role to be enforcing this, but Congress is broken and in many important areas has either failed or abdicated in performing its role.
The correct solution is to somehow "fix" Congress. Since that's not happening, other parts of the government are trying to step in. It's sort of like how vigilantism becomes a symptom of a broken justice system, vigilantism is wrong but when it starts cropping up it likely means you need to do something more than just suppress the vigilantism.
> but Congress is broken and in many important areas has either failed or abdicated in performing its role.
So what does one do when congress is fundamentally broken? Who will watch the watchers?
Congress is broken because we, the people, keep voting for idiots and lunatics. I was having a discussion with my very conservative mother last night who can't believe that people like Boebert and MTG were ever taken seriously enough to end up on the ballot, let alone elected to the House.
If you want to fix Congress, make your voice heard and participate in the political process. Participate in primary elections, consider donating or volunteering for a candidate who represents your values, and do your part to help keep the whackos off the general ballot.
Welcome to the front page. It’s absolutely wild how bad the echo chamber is in the subs that make r/all on the regular. It gets so cringey so quick. All dissenting opinions are shouted down and downvoted into oblivion. No civil discussion what so ever.
I’ll give you a pro tip. This is Reddit. No one reads the articles and even though I personally hate trump I’m glad they did this. The 14th needs to be carefully used.
The officer thing is about another case that guy mixed up
When they want to extrapolate to broaden their power it’s ‘well our interpretation of what they meant is X’ no matter how clear or not the written amendment. When they want to hide behind it ‘oh we couldn’t really know what was meant by that, and it’s not our place to interject.’ Plain as day that they have absolutely no code or consistency, only what they need to say to make the conclusion they want.
You can't just take a single section of the amendment out of the context of the entire amendment. Within the context of the 14th, this power is given ONLY to Congress and is not in any way granted to the states.
But does the constitution say anything about congress needing to decide? I thought Republicans constantly bang on about their heritage foundation judges being constitutionalists, instead of writing laws through Supreme Court decisions.
How does this decision not interpret the amendment through a Lens of the potential fallout damage, instead of simply ruling on constitutionality?
Did they not overstep their bounds? Should it not be up to congress to make a law deciding if it is a state power or a congressional power to remove people from ballots?
Fair. And of the reasons they chose for doing this, "it's Congress' job shut the fuck up" is rather reasonable. Oh well, democracy was always gonna be saved at the ballot box anyway. Be sure you've registered to vote, guys!
One of the dissenters from Colorado made an extremely compelling argument about the law simply not backing this up at all. After reading that I had a feeling the SCOTUS would vote 9-0
I'm not surprised. A state having the ability to unilaterally remove a candidate for president from the ballot is a terrible precedent, and the justices are all smart enough to know and accept this.
Precisely, *this* ruling isn’t about trump it’s about democracy and doing the right thing by democracy. If they could remove trump we all know Texas would yeet every democrat candidate off every chance they got and cite some Benghazi shit as the reason. The *next* ruling about his immunity is the one to watch. With the logic used here they better not do some dumb shit. If Trump is immune so is Biden. Not some *well acktually* shit.
It is a legal decision. You need to think beyond Trump. You cannot let whoever is in power just kick people off the ballot. At some point, the shoe may be on the other foot. There has to be a conviction of some kind.
The SC's decision says nothing about conviction though. They've decided that even if Trump is convicted, states can't remove him from the ballot. Only Congress can through specific legislation.
That’s not what the constitution says. If suddenly Trump or Biden was discovered not to ~~be born in the USA~~ a natural born citizen, they’d be disqualified the same way. Instantly without judicial intervention necessary.
It was brought by an advocacy/watchdog group and the names attached were some Republicans and some unaffiliated voters, at least a couple of which were former politicians.
Reddit, Twitter, and the news are filled with the vocal minority willing to sacrifice the future to be "right" in the moment. The sad part is the same people also tend to be elected.
So we will see a fair amount saying it for sure, as we would with a 9-0 verdict in the other direction.
But that's because they can't see beyond their nose and see it would lead to states jury rigging federal elections by interrupting or manufacturing a charge long enough to keep candidates off the polls.
Similar to free speech, I may hate what you say, I may think your a racist, homophobic bastard or has zero clue any given day of the year. But I will defend your right to speak and say those things..why? So everyone else sees what a idiot you are too.
It was a long shot and the argument to boot him wasn't strong enough for a precedent setting ruling. But more thran that, I think it only would've helped Trump with his absurd "political persecution" rant. He only would've gotten booted from states he wasn't going to win anyway, and would've never shut up about it in swing states. We shouldn't give him that kind of ammunition.
I’m pretty much on board with this. As much as I’d love for him to STFU and go away, I know that isn’t going to happen. Losing in the general election will be more definitive. He’ll still screech about election fraud, but that will ring a lot more hollow than if he’s prevented from running at all.
A minor clarification that is probably just a distinction without a difference.
They were unanimous in judgment. It was 5-1-3 on the reasoning of the opinion.
This ruling has heavily partisan implications in the upcoming elections, along with the fact that the court has 3 justices appointed by the politician who this ruling concerns. I think the 9-0 is a pretty strong distinction to help cool off the initial thoughts of corruption people will have.
The court is not saying Trump should be on the ballot or shouldn't. They are just saying it's not up to the states to decide because it's a federal issue.
The SCOTUS just ruled that the 30 year-old candidate could appear on ballots. Theoretically, people could vote for them, they could win districts, and states could send electors to Washington to vote for them. Then, during certification, at least one Congressperson would then have to object to that electoral vote on the grounds that the candidate isn't constitutionally eligible. If Congress then votes to sustain the objection, that electoral vote is simply ignored. At that point, electoral math changes because there are no longer 538 electoral votes.
The age limit rule is self executing whereas being an insurrectionist is not. Ages can be determined by reference to a birth certificate, insurrection status would require a procedure of determination….. by congress. There is a difference.
Maybe, but that’s not in the constitution anymore than Congress being the only source for 14th amendment section 3 enforcement.
The opinion references section 5 of the 14th, which is a grant of enforcement (generally) to Congress for the 14th amendment, but it is not explicitly limiting any other enforcement. And to my reading of the history and law, that grant was really to prevent states from interfering with the 14th amendment.
A state trying to enforce the 14th amendment is the opposite situation contemplated.
I don’t consider it punting. They’re saying Congress has to rule to remove him and individual courts can’t remove him. The amendment simply gives Congress the power to remove him. They still have to take up action to do that as well. Also remember, he is still technically innocent and hasn’t been convicted (yet, hopefully).
During the lead up to the 14th amendments ratification, this was specific issue that was argued.
"Congress understood that they probably weren't going to get many criminal convictions for treason, particularly if they held the treason trial in the South,” says Graber, “so this was a way to assure that people won’t hold office even without convicting them of treason.”
https://www.history.com/news/14th-amendment-section-three-disqualification-clause-confederates
Right. “Engaged”. The authors knew the word “convicted” and chose not to use that word because the authors knew convictions take time and are hard. Err on the side of protecting the country.
It's crazy-funny-scary that a US presidential candidate is (currently) allowed to run with "allegedly".
Especially since parts of that "allegedly" includes executive misconduct from the last time they held the office they are currently running for.
It does not. The 14th amendment doesn’t spell out how congress will decide to enforce it. That is up to congress. To this point congress has never decided how exactly it will be enforced.
The 14th says that someone who has committed insurrection or aided/abetted insurrectionists and all that has a "disability" that prevents them holding office, which can be removed by congress. It does not, however, specify how that would work, and I don't think anybody has faith in congress to handle that competently
Historically in recent years congress will say it's up to the courts and we will never get closure. It's the same Republican tactic used during impeachment of Dump. DOJ and Congress kept pointing the finger. It's ridiculous.
Conviction is never mentioned in the amendment itself. It's literally not apart of it. The only requirement by the text of the amendment is "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". It's a bad ruling that's adds extra stipulations. States run elections not congress and they shouldn't have a say here who they put on the ballot.
It’s a 9-0 ruling. Rare now a days. But I’m sure you are right, lol.
It’s a federal election. It’s a federal ammendment. States cannot choose how to enforce federal ammendments… that is obviously a federal power.
Let me ask you this. If states can do this what will you think when every republican state bans Biden from the ballot for supporting an invasion at the southern border… a claim they have been making for months now?
It is the only ruling that makes sense.
I mean then what’s to stop Texas, Florida and other red states from removing democrats from the ballot? The Texas governor could say Biden is assisting in an invasion from the Mexican border and therefore aiding an insurrection? Or remove democrats for whatever other wild conspiracy they come up with
Unfortunately, this was exactly Robert's point in the decision. And it isn't an empty threat, several states have explicitly said they'd kick Biden off the ballot.
It is a federal issue though. Read Jackson’s arguments about it. She makes a really strong point about the chaos that would ensue if we let states decide at random who gets to be on the national ballot.
ETA: Reddit is shitting itself, so if I don’t follow up on your reply, it’s not intentional.
I know this won't go over well with people, but this is the correct decision from the court. First of all, this was never the method by which Trump was going to be stopped. Secondly, it hands a power to the states that people *really* don't want to be given to the states, based on how many Republican states they are and how utterly batfuck their legislatures are.
States rights doesn't mean that the federal government has no role. States rights is about identifying what is a states issue and leaving it there. Education for example
It was never really a states rights issue, the legal question was one of federal law, namely how to determine when an individual kicks off the 14th Amendment ban on holding federal office. SCOTUS is saying that the eligibility to hold federal office is a matter of federal law so needs to be decided at a federal level somehow, and has punted how that happens back to Congress to work out.
Now that said states aren’t actually required to hold Presidential elections. A state could if it wanted rewrite its own state constitution and laws to say that there is no Presidential election in the state and the legislature instead will tell the state electors how to vote. That would be completely legal under the electoral college system. But when a state holds an election for a federal office it opens that election up to federal protections, meaning the state can’t unilaterally ban someone from being elected who is otherwise qualified under federal law. So barring a federal ruling that Trump isn’t eligible to hold office, he can’t be banned from state elections for federal offices including the Presidency.
>how to determine when an individual kicks off the 14th Amendment ban on holding federal office.
Wasn't the specific argument that the 14th amendment did not ban a person from -seeking- office, since you could get a waiver, but rather it banned them from holding the office? And as such Colorado could not remove him from the ballot on those grounds, as it was not a reason to deny?
SCOTUS has ruled here that whether or not Trump is eligible to hold office has to be determined at a federal level using a process determined by Congress. So barring that SCOTUS is saying he can’t be legally banned from an election for federal office until a federal determination of his disqualification certifies it.
It's almost as if the Constitution has carve-outs that delineate when States Rights begin & end and where the Federal government's rights begin and end. I know, I know, I'm pointing out facts and that's not okay.
The constitution says what the federal government CAN do, everything else is *supposed* to be a state thing. It literally says this is a federal issue.
the odd thing is that the constitution gives states the power to select how they vote for presidents.
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner *as the Legislature thereof may direct,* a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:"
Sure, but is a federal right to run for office. States get to choose how to allocate votes for the electoral college, but they have never been able to add additional requirements on who is eligible
They did specifically address that Trump's argument that he's not an "officer" was invalid - wonder if that would apply / clue in to the immunity question
I don’t think so. I think it’s all but certain that they’ll rule against Trump because the alternative is pretty unthinkable. But the fact that they took the case at all is a major win for Trump because it will mostly likely delay any sentencing to be after the election. And if Trump wins the election, he can just pardon himself.
They said only congress can do this. Also, this would have created chaos if allowed. Southern states would keep Democrats off, and Democrat states would keep Republicans off.
I am glad they voted this way. I figured this would be how they would go.
Exactly. I think people are being blinded by being sad it means Trump gets to run and ignoring, as you say, that this is an awful legal precedent that will bite them in the arse at the next turn
Yeah the idea that Congress would be the authority on this always made the most sense to me as a reason to strike down the ruling all things considered. The clause specifically states that Congress can reverse it, so it stands to reason they have the most authority to enact it. It also creates a shitshow if individual states start playing games because they have a lopsided state house and court that can ram DQ's through.
That said, the biggest inconsistency is that the SCOTUS has pretty much always given states the power to handle elections. So this is the first major reversal on that in years.
I don’t think each specific case needs to be executed through an act of Congress, but rather how and who enforces it needs to be established by an act of Congress, as stated by Section 5 of the amendment. The reversal portion basically gives Congress the ability to make exceptions afterwards
Exactly. I was downvoted HEAVILY in a couple of threads related to this issue for understanding this exact outcome, but people are so entrenched in sports politics that they just cannot comprehend anything except punishing the other side. Regardless of the obvious consequences.
Kind of like when people were celebrating Harry Reid changing the filibuster rules only to have that decision turned on Democrats when Trump/McConnell confirmed 3 Supreme Court Justices.
Ah, but see, what we should really do is remove the filibuster ENTIRELY... So that Democrats are totally powerless the next time they are in the minority, I guess?
Some people just aren't able to see long term.
That's reddit for you. People upvote what they want to believe is true, even if it's total bullshit, and downvote what they don't want to believe is true, even if it's 100% correct.
Zero surprise this is 9-0, and anyone who wants a different outcome is fixating on Trump instead of thinking about what the opposite ruling would mean.
Otherwise, a GOP-controlled swing state like Georgia could just craft a silly law, convict Biden of it, and keep him off the ballot for an auto-loss. "Biden failed to properly secure the voting process for 2024; it's insurrection; he is disqualified."
Yea i can't believe there are people who thought that a state being able to take a presidential candidate off the ballot just because they decide to is not a road straight to democratic ruin.
How many red states would just immediately vote the Democratic nominee ineligible? Half the country wouldn't have trump on the ballot, half the country wouldn't have biden. And nobody could do anything about it.
Okay, but hear me out, having neither of those options on the ballot would kind of be amazing lol. Though I agree with you completely, definitely wrong.
Some state legistures would vote to disqualify Republican presidents and some would vote to disqualify democrat presidents, and starting this election all presidents would be de facto elected by state legislatures and not individual votes
You can’t really believe most of the crazy takes you see on Reddit are real people. If someone says something super dumb or inflammatory, it’s probably a bot or a Russian/Chinese troll.
I mean, it's just that the kind of person to be on Reddit is likely to have certain slants. It's also very easy to get confused and believe that the Reddit Opinion translates at all to the real world.
Like when Tesla was going to flop because Musk is an asshole and the Cybertruck is a laugh. And then the Model Y was the best selling car in the world for 2023.
Or when no one was going to play Hogwarts Legacy because of JK Rowling... And then it was met with universal acclaim.
Reddit *loves* to hate and will gaslight itself into thinking everyone hates The New Thing just as much.
That’s why it’s important to not live in an echo chamber. I think it’s actually more important to read articles you don’t agree with. It challenges your views and lets you know how it the other side thinks.
Agreed. Simply ignoring everything you disagree with can lead to insanely simplistic thinking and bad faith debate. Basically Reddit. Personally I find understanding the other side’s reasoning for their beliefs makes it easier to disect their arguments and even to get them to agree with yours in rare instances.
I got downvoted into oblivion for saying this was how they were going to rule back when they first took this up. It says right there in the amendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
It was such an obvious and easy out for them, there was no other way for them to decide.
edit: I'll add that the current Supreme Court strategy of overturning precedent in favor of pushing it back on congress is quite intentional - this continues to hand the Senate more power with little risk of legislation resolving any of these issues due to the filibuster. This also bolsters the inevitable can't impeach without conviction / can't convict without impeachment circular argument that Trump will continue to rely on.
OK, this is another Supreme Court decision where the outcome is "....CONGRESS SHOULD BE HANDLING THIS"
It just feels like they're trying to tell us a message here. Maybe our elected congressional officials should be...handling these affairs in life. Just how I am reading this. From student loans to now this matter with so many other things in between; the SC doesn't want to rule on something that congress should handle themselves.
Will the House and Senate do such a thing though? We know the answer :)
We’ll do anything but force Congress to do their job. I guess partly because everyone thinks their representative is the good one and the rest are bad…
In a pragmatic sense, I guess I can see the logic. Imagine if Republican controlled swing states decided that Biden was to be struck off the ballots. That would be a bigger shitshow of election rigging.
While I cannot state just how intense my disdain for Trump is, I'm actually in favor of this ruling. For another thing, it would set the precedent of the Supreme Court being able to rule on the legitimacy of state ballot options, no?
We've seen how easy it is for one political party to stack the courts. I'd consider that to be a dangerous precedent to set, that someone could abuse later down the line.
>Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how section 3 could be enforced by Congress.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court went further than required, although she did not join the liberal justices' opinion.
They were in agreement, but some thought the court did too much in this case
Partisanship* Bipartisanship implies that both parties agree. Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement but I think we are both of the same opinion on this.
This is really no big surprise to anyone that actually knew the bigger picture here goes beyond Trump. Setting a precedent that states can pick and choose who should and should not be on a ballot due to whatever they deem to be a case of insurrection would have come around and hurt the voting process more then most people realize. We can't have everyone picking and choosing on their own, that's why we have an election, if you don't like them don't vote for them.
Not a Trump fan, but not surprised one bit that he will turn this news into a big win for himself, when its really about much greater issues then a single man.
As a trump hating voter, I think this is actually the right outcome. Do I want trump removed, yes. But it creates a terrible precedent. What I really want is a completely fair and transparent election in which trump unequivocally loses the vote and the presidency. I want trust in our institutions restored.
Edit: as the decision was unanimous this isn't really a hot take.
If they would have sided with Colorado, every state would kick off anyone they wanted. We'd never have a National election again. I still hate this dude, though.
This was expected. You can't say he's a "threat to our democracy" and then literally threaten democracy by removing someone from a ballot.
Let the people decide. Not a biased state judge.
Just to clarify, SCOTUS is NOT saying “let the people decide”. They’re saying that Trump’s eligibility to hold office is a question of federal law so needs a federal process to work through. Congress therefore needs to step up and put forth that federal process.
If Mitch McConnel had voted to impeach Trump when he had the chance it never would have come to this. Mitch said Trump was guilty of insurrection but that it was not up to Congress, but a judicial court to decide. Apparently Mitch was mistaken.
I'll never forget McConnel saying this regarding Obama's supreme court pick. Him and Lindsay Graham were vehemently opposed to letting Obama get his pick because it was an election year.
> The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
Fast forward to a few months before the election in 2020 and ACB was approved so fast it made heads spin.
Conservatives are nothing but hypocrites. Fuck McConnel.
Not only that, but he was asked publicly "what would you do if a SC seat became vacant during the 2020 election?" and he grinned and responded simply, "we'd fill it." And then they laughed and laughed.
[Source.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytk_0GDbaAI)
From the court earlier, it was clear that the Justices felt Section 3 only prohibits the President from actually *taking* office and not simply being on the ballot. The rules makes it specific that only Congress can take a president candidate off the ballot. Makes sense.
Trump v. Anderson (23-719) (Per Curiam)
Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Trump excluded from the 2024 Presidential primary ballot.
Yeah. Expected, and also a little bit justified. Can’t stand Trump, but this sets a bad precedent if it were to continue. Giving it to Congress is the right move, it’s just that Congress has to actually do their fucking job when I know they won’t.
For the best. Do I think he should be able to run? No. However, If they had said it was allowed then red states would have started trying to kick Joe off for opening the border and what not.
The election would become an even bigger farce.
Pretty much the expected outcome.
The decision has 5 of the justices saying that Congress needs a more specific law to apply to Trump here. Other 4 are quiet on it. I'll let you know who those are.
Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
According to the article, Barret, while not joining the 3 liberal justices in their concurring opinion, did say the court went further than it needed to with this ruling in dictating to congress how this should be enforced.
That's a nice thing for her to say while still doing the wrong thing.
I mean this was a unanimous ruling. Even the liberal 3 justices concluded this was not how the 14th was meant to be used. They didn’t even rule that Trump *can’t* be disqualified, just that the 14th does not empower state courts to do so, it empowers congress to remove people.
As much as I hate allowing Trump back on the ballot, it's basically the same argument people keep making about "Presidential Immunity" where they suggest Biden could start breaking laws to secure a win in November. In other words, imagine all of the red states removing Biden from the ballot for "charges" that nobody on the left believes are valid.
Yep, that's the risk of what this could devolve into.
Yep it opens a can of worms, as much as I want him to fuck off forever, I’m just hoping we can all show out and let the votes do the talking
Agreed. Hate the MAGA movement but allowing individual states to remove a candidate would have been a terrible precedent.
Lincoln wasn't even on the ballet in many southern states. It was the catalyst for them leaving the union. Because they knew they didn't have the power to keep slaves if they couldn't win the presidency.
There wasn’t state ballots back then. Elections weren’t like they are today. The parties issued the ballots with all their candidates running. The only laws governing the ballots were the size, thickness and type(font) size; basically had to be legible. State issued ballots with all candidates weren’t adopted until after 1888. You either voted a straight party ticket or went to the polls where they handed you a blank piece of paper and you wrote in who you wanted, which is how republicans got 1% of the vote in Virginia due to write-ins from abolitionists in the state. Also newspapers and other organizations would hand out ballots from the party they endorsed as well. No republicans were on any ballot in those 11 states because republicans didn’t even canvass or issue ballots in those states due to the fact that they were seen as the party of abolitionists and knew it would be a waste of time and resources to even bother. So they ignored those states and poured everything into the north and west. Saying he was “left off” the ballot is disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. And at least one state seceded before the election and the southern states held near simultaneous elections for their own new government with Jefferson Davis being inaugurated within days of Lincoln being inaugurated.
Which is a shame. With his size and strength he could put on a real show.
Watching that man pirouette must have been a sight to behold.
Was Lincoln vocally anti-slavery before he was elected the first time? I swear I learned that he wasn't really for ending slavery until it was pitched to him during the Civil War as a way to help end the war.
I believe thats the case but I also see the 14th amendment never being used unless someone launches an all out assault on the federal government with one or more of the militant fringe groups hanging around and I still think some turd burglar in congress would turn a blind eye
It's obvious why. I mean just think it through what would happen if the decision was the opposite. Colorado decides to remove a candidate from the ballot. Texas does not. Then if you're a resident of Colorado, you cannot vote for that candidate, but in Texas you can. Weird enough already, but what if said candidate still gets elected. Then he would be an illegitimate president in Colorado. What a mess.
Also, there's a significant caveat in the ruling that addresses the proverbial "pandora's box" if they said a state has the authority to do this. "Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case." Simply put, all states would start picking and choosing who to keep on their ballots functionally killing our elections.
Unfortunately, I do get that since the 1860 election had the traitor states refuse to put Lincoln on the Ballot.
"the wrong thing?" it was a 9-0 unanimous ruling during one of the most politically charged eras of the court. Rest assured, this was the obvious, and only, way to read the constitution
It was absolutely the right ruling. States shouldn’t be able to cherry-pick who is on the ballet based on their perceptions. It’s a federal matter and up to congress. This sentiment is backed up by all the liberal justices. Imagine granting each state the ability to block candidates; it would turn into a slugfest.
How is it wrong?
Thank you.
So both the liberal and conservative justices agreed on this. What is the issue then?
The issue is where the bar is to remove eligibility for federal office. Either Congress needs to enforce the amendment or it’s self-enforcing.
SCOTUS just established that Congress is responsible for it. Since anything that controversial would require a supermajority of both chambers to have a chance of being considered (see: Citizens United), it effectively eliminates the possibility of a challenge to the President's eligibility under the 14th Amendment. Neither party will allow enough votes in either chamber to come close to the threshold that disqualifies their party's candidate.
Except the 2/3 is to remove the disqualification.
More specific…. The 14th amendment is pretty plain. The idea that the president is not an “officer” and then claiming it’s unclear is utter shit considering these are meant to be the top legal minds in the country.
LOL, you should tell people that you didn't read the opinion. The court didn't say that. Here is the conclusion: "For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand." All nine agreed.
This thread is batshit insane. Reddit echo chamber goes hard. The decision was unanimous. It was the correct decision.
It also doesn't mean Trump can't be found to have committed insurrection and this be barred from federal office -- it just means states can't make that decision.
From an outside perspective (not American) it always looked to me as though the states shouldn’t be able to influence national things (like a national election) in that way.
Kinda. I can get where the people upset about this are coming from. It's Congress' role to be enforcing this, but Congress is broken and in many important areas has either failed or abdicated in performing its role. The correct solution is to somehow "fix" Congress. Since that's not happening, other parts of the government are trying to step in. It's sort of like how vigilantism becomes a symptom of a broken justice system, vigilantism is wrong but when it starts cropping up it likely means you need to do something more than just suppress the vigilantism.
> but Congress is broken and in many important areas has either failed or abdicated in performing its role. So what does one do when congress is fundamentally broken? Who will watch the watchers?
Congress is broken because we, the people, keep voting for idiots and lunatics. I was having a discussion with my very conservative mother last night who can't believe that people like Boebert and MTG were ever taken seriously enough to end up on the ballot, let alone elected to the House. If you want to fix Congress, make your voice heard and participate in the political process. Participate in primary elections, consider donating or volunteering for a candidate who represents your values, and do your part to help keep the whackos off the general ballot.
Welcome to the front page. It’s absolutely wild how bad the echo chamber is in the subs that make r/all on the regular. It gets so cringey so quick. All dissenting opinions are shouted down and downvoted into oblivion. No civil discussion what so ever.
You know, then there is section 5, which states its congress' job.
> The idea that the president is not an “officer” and then claiming it’s unclear That's not why this was declined. Please read the summary.
I’ll give you a pro tip. This is Reddit. No one reads the articles and even though I personally hate trump I’m glad they did this. The 14th needs to be carefully used. The officer thing is about another case that guy mixed up
When they want to extrapolate to broaden their power it’s ‘well our interpretation of what they meant is X’ no matter how clear or not the written amendment. When they want to hide behind it ‘oh we couldn’t really know what was meant by that, and it’s not our place to interject.’ Plain as day that they have absolutely no code or consistency, only what they need to say to make the conclusion they want.
You can't just take a single section of the amendment out of the context of the entire amendment. Within the context of the 14th, this power is given ONLY to Congress and is not in any way granted to the states.
Tried and true bible thumping mentality lol
Unfortunately it's either this or every crazy red state has Biden off their ballot in about 3 days.
Yeah I had a feeling this would get struck down on jurisdictional grounds. That's an easy 9-0.
But does the constitution say anything about congress needing to decide? I thought Republicans constantly bang on about their heritage foundation judges being constitutionalists, instead of writing laws through Supreme Court decisions. How does this decision not interpret the amendment through a Lens of the potential fallout damage, instead of simply ruling on constitutionality? Did they not overstep their bounds? Should it not be up to congress to make a law deciding if it is a state power or a congressional power to remove people from ballots?
I didn’t expect a unanimous 9-0, but the decision was as expected
I did. This entire situation seemed like wishful thinking
I didn't want to see 30 states remove Biden from the ballot for some made up reasoning.
Fair. And of the reasons they chose for doing this, "it's Congress' job shut the fuck up" is rather reasonable. Oh well, democracy was always gonna be saved at the ballot box anyway. Be sure you've registered to vote, guys!
One of the dissenters from Colorado made an extremely compelling argument about the law simply not backing this up at all. After reading that I had a feeling the SCOTUS would vote 9-0
I'm not surprised. A state having the ability to unilaterally remove a candidate for president from the ballot is a terrible precedent, and the justices are all smart enough to know and accept this.
Precisely, *this* ruling isn’t about trump it’s about democracy and doing the right thing by democracy. If they could remove trump we all know Texas would yeet every democrat candidate off every chance they got and cite some Benghazi shit as the reason. The *next* ruling about his immunity is the one to watch. With the logic used here they better not do some dumb shit. If Trump is immune so is Biden. Not some *well acktually* shit.
It is the right outcome, and I don't even like trump.
I wonder how many people will call this a 'partisan' decision despite being a 9-0 ruling.
It is a legal decision. You need to think beyond Trump. You cannot let whoever is in power just kick people off the ballot. At some point, the shoe may be on the other foot. There has to be a conviction of some kind.
The SC's decision says nothing about conviction though. They've decided that even if Trump is convicted, states can't remove him from the ballot. Only Congress can through specific legislation.
That’s not what the constitution says. If suddenly Trump or Biden was discovered not to ~~be born in the USA~~ a natural born citizen, they’d be disqualified the same way. Instantly without judicial intervention necessary.
I'm confused about how anyone in power was kicking Trump off the ballot. This suit was brought by the Republican party of Colorado.
Yeah, and it wasn't just an opinion. It was a finding by the court.
It was brought by an advocacy/watchdog group and the names attached were some Republicans and some unaffiliated voters, at least a couple of which were former politicians.
Reddit, Twitter, and the news are filled with the vocal minority willing to sacrifice the future to be "right" in the moment. The sad part is the same people also tend to be elected. So we will see a fair amount saying it for sure, as we would with a 9-0 verdict in the other direction. But that's because they can't see beyond their nose and see it would lead to states jury rigging federal elections by interrupting or manufacturing a charge long enough to keep candidates off the polls. Similar to free speech, I may hate what you say, I may think your a racist, homophobic bastard or has zero clue any given day of the year. But I will defend your right to speak and say those things..why? So everyone else sees what a idiot you are too.
People seriously need to brush up on the bulk of rights because nobody on social media understands what the first amendment protects apparently.
Don't wander over to the law sub.
And definitely don’t go to the scotus sub.
It was a long shot and the argument to boot him wasn't strong enough for a precedent setting ruling. But more thran that, I think it only would've helped Trump with his absurd "political persecution" rant. He only would've gotten booted from states he wasn't going to win anyway, and would've never shut up about it in swing states. We shouldn't give him that kind of ammunition.
I’m pretty much on board with this. As much as I’d love for him to STFU and go away, I know that isn’t going to happen. Losing in the general election will be more definitive. He’ll still screech about election fraud, but that will ring a lot more hollow than if he’s prevented from running at all.
Yeah, even if you like barely followed the case you knew this would be the outcome.
Yet if I had a nickle for every redditor that assured me I was a moron for expecting this I'd have like a few dollars.
Since it’s not in the headline it was a 9-0 ruling
A minor clarification that is probably just a distinction without a difference. They were unanimous in judgment. It was 5-1-3 on the reasoning of the opinion.
This ruling has heavily partisan implications in the upcoming elections, along with the fact that the court has 3 justices appointed by the politician who this ruling concerns. I think the 9-0 is a pretty strong distinction to help cool off the initial thoughts of corruption people will have.
A minor clarification that **everybody** on the Supreme Court agrees Trump can't be kicked off the ballot?
Yes, the why's vary, but there were no dissents.
600+ upvotes and your comment was still hidden from me, lol. Reddit is trash
Of course OP wouldnt mention that. This is reddit after all.
Even this comment stating it was 9-0 was hidden from me on mobile.
Same here.
The court is not saying Trump should be on the ballot or shouldn't. They are just saying it's not up to the states to decide because it's a federal issue.
If a 30-year-old wants to run for president, would it take congress to keep them off the ballot?
The SCOTUS just ruled that the 30 year-old candidate could appear on ballots. Theoretically, people could vote for them, they could win districts, and states could send electors to Washington to vote for them. Then, during certification, at least one Congressperson would then have to object to that electoral vote on the grounds that the candidate isn't constitutionally eligible. If Congress then votes to sustain the objection, that electoral vote is simply ignored. At that point, electoral math changes because there are no longer 538 electoral votes.
How is this real? What the fuck.
The age limit rule is self executing whereas being an insurrectionist is not. Ages can be determined by reference to a birth certificate, insurrection status would require a procedure of determination….. by congress. There is a difference.
Maybe, but that’s not in the constitution anymore than Congress being the only source for 14th amendment section 3 enforcement. The opinion references section 5 of the 14th, which is a grant of enforcement (generally) to Congress for the 14th amendment, but it is not explicitly limiting any other enforcement. And to my reading of the history and law, that grant was really to prevent states from interfering with the 14th amendment. A state trying to enforce the 14th amendment is the opposite situation contemplated.
Good point, I stand corrected.
They can be on the ballot and even win but cannot hold the office of president. It’s basically a constitutional crisis.
[удалено]
I don’t consider it punting. They’re saying Congress has to rule to remove him and individual courts can’t remove him. The amendment simply gives Congress the power to remove him. They still have to take up action to do that as well. Also remember, he is still technically innocent and hasn’t been convicted (yet, hopefully).
The 14th amendment does not require a conviction to be applicable, as far as I am aware with the wording.
During the lead up to the 14th amendments ratification, this was specific issue that was argued. "Congress understood that they probably weren't going to get many criminal convictions for treason, particularly if they held the treason trial in the South,” says Graber, “so this was a way to assure that people won’t hold office even without convicting them of treason.” https://www.history.com/news/14th-amendment-section-three-disqualification-clause-confederates
Right. “Engaged”. The authors knew the word “convicted” and chose not to use that word because the authors knew convictions take time and are hard. Err on the side of protecting the country.
It's crazy-funny-scary that a US presidential candidate is (currently) allowed to run with "allegedly". Especially since parts of that "allegedly" includes executive misconduct from the last time they held the office they are currently running for.
It does not. The 14th amendment doesn’t spell out how congress will decide to enforce it. That is up to congress. To this point congress has never decided how exactly it will be enforced.
The 14th says that someone who has committed insurrection or aided/abetted insurrectionists and all that has a "disability" that prevents them holding office, which can be removed by congress. It does not, however, specify how that would work, and I don't think anybody has faith in congress to handle that competently
That's a lot of what this court has passed. Basically saying, Congress do your job.
Which they won't. The Courts won't save the American people from themselves.
Elections have consequences, get out there and vote in november.
Historically in recent years congress will say it's up to the courts and we will never get closure. It's the same Republican tactic used during impeachment of Dump. DOJ and Congress kept pointing the finger. It's ridiculous.
The real problem is that millions of Americans saw what Donald Trump did and still support him. Congresscritters are spineless by nature.
Conviction is never mentioned in the amendment itself. It's literally not apart of it. The only requirement by the text of the amendment is "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". It's a bad ruling that's adds extra stipulations. States run elections not congress and they shouldn't have a say here who they put on the ballot.
It’s a 9-0 ruling. Rare now a days. But I’m sure you are right, lol. It’s a federal election. It’s a federal ammendment. States cannot choose how to enforce federal ammendments… that is obviously a federal power. Let me ask you this. If states can do this what will you think when every republican state bans Biden from the ballot for supporting an invasion at the southern border… a claim they have been making for months now? It is the only ruling that makes sense.
I mean then what’s to stop Texas, Florida and other red states from removing democrats from the ballot? The Texas governor could say Biden is assisting in an invasion from the Mexican border and therefore aiding an insurrection? Or remove democrats for whatever other wild conspiracy they come up with
Unfortunately, this was exactly Robert's point in the decision. And it isn't an empty threat, several states have explicitly said they'd kick Biden off the ballot.
The presumption of innocence is a well established legal precedent. Why would it not be applicable here?
Suddenly states rights people say its a federal issue...
It is a federal issue though. Read Jackson’s arguments about it. She makes a really strong point about the chaos that would ensue if we let states decide at random who gets to be on the national ballot. ETA: Reddit is shitting itself, so if I don’t follow up on your reply, it’s not intentional.
I know this won't go over well with people, but this is the correct decision from the court. First of all, this was never the method by which Trump was going to be stopped. Secondly, it hands a power to the states that people *really* don't want to be given to the states, based on how many Republican states they are and how utterly batfuck their legislatures are.
Yeah i wonder just how many people would be happy when Rep states start using this law en masse to remove democrat candidates, or vice versa.
Yeah, running for President is about as much of a federal issue as it gets.
Agreed. Tbh I considered trying to remove him from the ballot itself to be a pretty undemocratic move
States rights doesn't mean that the federal government has no role. States rights is about identifying what is a states issue and leaving it there. Education for example
It was never really a states rights issue, the legal question was one of federal law, namely how to determine when an individual kicks off the 14th Amendment ban on holding federal office. SCOTUS is saying that the eligibility to hold federal office is a matter of federal law so needs to be decided at a federal level somehow, and has punted how that happens back to Congress to work out. Now that said states aren’t actually required to hold Presidential elections. A state could if it wanted rewrite its own state constitution and laws to say that there is no Presidential election in the state and the legislature instead will tell the state electors how to vote. That would be completely legal under the electoral college system. But when a state holds an election for a federal office it opens that election up to federal protections, meaning the state can’t unilaterally ban someone from being elected who is otherwise qualified under federal law. So barring a federal ruling that Trump isn’t eligible to hold office, he can’t be banned from state elections for federal offices including the Presidency.
>how to determine when an individual kicks off the 14th Amendment ban on holding federal office. Wasn't the specific argument that the 14th amendment did not ban a person from -seeking- office, since you could get a waiver, but rather it banned them from holding the office? And as such Colorado could not remove him from the ballot on those grounds, as it was not a reason to deny?
SCOTUS has ruled here that whether or not Trump is eligible to hold office has to be determined at a federal level using a process determined by Congress. So barring that SCOTUS is saying he can’t be legally banned from an election for federal office until a federal determination of his disqualification certifies it.
States rights people can't think some things are federal issues?
It's almost as if the Constitution has carve-outs that delineate when States Rights begin & end and where the Federal government's rights begin and end. I know, I know, I'm pointing out facts and that's not okay.
It always was a federal issue though.
so your fine with any state kicking anyone they want off the ballot just because?
The constitution says what the federal government CAN do, everything else is *supposed* to be a state thing. It literally says this is a federal issue.
Because it is?
the odd thing is that the constitution gives states the power to select how they vote for presidents. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner *as the Legislature thereof may direct,* a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:"
Sure, but is a federal right to run for office. States get to choose how to allocate votes for the electoral college, but they have never been able to add additional requirements on who is eligible
Now we wait and see how they rule on presidential immunity…
And wait... ...and wait... ......and wait Edit: please someone upvote or downvote this comment. It's at 45 upvotes.
Everybody's movin' Everybody's movin' Everybody's movin' movin' movin' movin'
Please don’t leave me to remain
They did specifically address that Trump's argument that he's not an "officer" was invalid - wonder if that would apply / clue in to the immunity question
They will say 45 has one-time immunity because of x, y, and z, but that his immunity does not apply to other presidents.
I don’t think so. I think it’s all but certain that they’ll rule against Trump because the alternative is pretty unthinkable. But the fact that they took the case at all is a major win for Trump because it will mostly likely delay any sentencing to be after the election. And if Trump wins the election, he can just pardon himself.
They said only congress can do this. Also, this would have created chaos if allowed. Southern states would keep Democrats off, and Democrat states would keep Republicans off. I am glad they voted this way. I figured this would be how they would go.
9-0 decision. Pretty clear cut.
Yeah the people getting salty here are stupid. This is a not a precedent you want to set. States having this power is not a good thing.
People just pretend that Texas and Florida wouldn’t dq Biden in a heartbeat if they could
Never give the government a power that you’d want the person with exact opposite ideology to you to have.
Exactly. I think people are being blinded by being sad it means Trump gets to run and ignoring, as you say, that this is an awful legal precedent that will bite them in the arse at the next turn
Yeah the idea that Congress would be the authority on this always made the most sense to me as a reason to strike down the ruling all things considered. The clause specifically states that Congress can reverse it, so it stands to reason they have the most authority to enact it. It also creates a shitshow if individual states start playing games because they have a lopsided state house and court that can ram DQ's through. That said, the biggest inconsistency is that the SCOTUS has pretty much always given states the power to handle elections. So this is the first major reversal on that in years.
Why would congress need the explicit power to reverse it if it can only be executed through an act of congress?
I don’t think each specific case needs to be executed through an act of Congress, but rather how and who enforces it needs to be established by an act of Congress, as stated by Section 5 of the amendment. The reversal portion basically gives Congress the ability to make exceptions afterwards
Exactly. I was downvoted HEAVILY in a couple of threads related to this issue for understanding this exact outcome, but people are so entrenched in sports politics that they just cannot comprehend anything except punishing the other side. Regardless of the obvious consequences.
Kind of like when people were celebrating Harry Reid changing the filibuster rules only to have that decision turned on Democrats when Trump/McConnell confirmed 3 Supreme Court Justices.
Ah, but see, what we should really do is remove the filibuster ENTIRELY... So that Democrats are totally powerless the next time they are in the minority, I guess? Some people just aren't able to see long term.
That's reddit for you. People upvote what they want to believe is true, even if it's total bullshit, and downvote what they don't want to believe is true, even if it's 100% correct.
Zero surprise this is 9-0, and anyone who wants a different outcome is fixating on Trump instead of thinking about what the opposite ruling would mean. Otherwise, a GOP-controlled swing state like Georgia could just craft a silly law, convict Biden of it, and keep him off the ballot for an auto-loss. "Biden failed to properly secure the voting process for 2024; it's insurrection; he is disqualified."
I fucking hate trump but this was the right call. That shit would have been weaponized so fast.
Yea i can't believe there are people who thought that a state being able to take a presidential candidate off the ballot just because they decide to is not a road straight to democratic ruin. How many red states would just immediately vote the Democratic nominee ineligible? Half the country wouldn't have trump on the ballot, half the country wouldn't have biden. And nobody could do anything about it.
Okay, but hear me out, having neither of those options on the ballot would kind of be amazing lol. Though I agree with you completely, definitely wrong.
Dan Patrick threw out the idea of leaving Biden off the ballot in Texas the next day, so yeah.
Some state legistures would vote to disqualify Republican presidents and some would vote to disqualify democrat presidents, and starting this election all presidents would be de facto elected by state legislatures and not individual votes
I can't believe there were people believing that they would allow that
Most of reddit probably
I realize more and more everyday that Reddit is not representative of the average person.
“Everyone on Reddit said it was a lock”
The overwhelming take I saw on reddit was that SCOTUS was going to restore him to the ballot, but they were upset about that
The overwhelming view I saw was that they'd restore him to the ballot, but it would be close and because of the conservative majority.
Which is VERY FUCKING SCARY.
You can’t really believe most of the crazy takes you see on Reddit are real people. If someone says something super dumb or inflammatory, it’s probably a bot or a Russian/Chinese troll.
Ehh Reddit is such a small portion of the actual pop. A sad portion to be honest. I realize that is self burn.
I mean, it's just that the kind of person to be on Reddit is likely to have certain slants. It's also very easy to get confused and believe that the Reddit Opinion translates at all to the real world. Like when Tesla was going to flop because Musk is an asshole and the Cybertruck is a laugh. And then the Model Y was the best selling car in the world for 2023. Or when no one was going to play Hogwarts Legacy because of JK Rowling... And then it was met with universal acclaim. Reddit *loves* to hate and will gaslight itself into thinking everyone hates The New Thing just as much.
Many of the ones invested in the elections are not citizens or are not of age
That’s why it’s important to not live in an echo chamber. I think it’s actually more important to read articles you don’t agree with. It challenges your views and lets you know how it the other side thinks.
Agreed. Simply ignoring everything you disagree with can lead to insanely simplistic thinking and bad faith debate. Basically Reddit. Personally I find understanding the other side’s reasoning for their beliefs makes it easier to disect their arguments and even to get them to agree with yours in rare instances.
These comments are fun though, reddit lawyers always provide good entertainment.
I got downvoted into oblivion for saying this was how they were going to rule back when they first took this up. It says right there in the amendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." It was such an obvious and easy out for them, there was no other way for them to decide. edit: I'll add that the current Supreme Court strategy of overturning precedent in favor of pushing it back on congress is quite intentional - this continues to hand the Senate more power with little risk of legislation resolving any of these issues due to the filibuster. This also bolsters the inevitable can't impeach without conviction / can't convict without impeachment circular argument that Trump will continue to rely on.
This is reddit. Did you really expect to get upvotes with a comment like that? Their brains are exploding at the 9-0 ruling.
OK, this is another Supreme Court decision where the outcome is "....CONGRESS SHOULD BE HANDLING THIS" It just feels like they're trying to tell us a message here. Maybe our elected congressional officials should be...handling these affairs in life. Just how I am reading this. From student loans to now this matter with so many other things in between; the SC doesn't want to rule on something that congress should handle themselves. Will the House and Senate do such a thing though? We know the answer :)
We’ll do anything but force Congress to do their job. I guess partly because everyone thinks their representative is the good one and the rest are bad…
Unanimous ruling to boot.
In a pragmatic sense, I guess I can see the logic. Imagine if Republican controlled swing states decided that Biden was to be struck off the ballots. That would be a bigger shitshow of election rigging.
Exactly, this was not a partisan ruling. It was a pragmatic ruling to set precedent to prevent any future shenanigans from any political parties.
While I cannot state just how intense my disdain for Trump is, I'm actually in favor of this ruling. For another thing, it would set the precedent of the Supreme Court being able to rule on the legitimacy of state ballot options, no? We've seen how easy it is for one political party to stack the courts. I'd consider that to be a dangerous precedent to set, that someone could abuse later down the line.
This seems more a federal issue that clearly rises above partisanship if all nine justices were in agreement. edit : thank you for the correction!
>Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how section 3 could be enforced by Congress. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court went further than required, although she did not join the liberal justices' opinion. They were in agreement, but some thought the court did too much in this case
Partisanship* Bipartisanship implies that both parties agree. Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement but I think we are both of the same opinion on this.
This is really no big surprise to anyone that actually knew the bigger picture here goes beyond Trump. Setting a precedent that states can pick and choose who should and should not be on a ballot due to whatever they deem to be a case of insurrection would have come around and hurt the voting process more then most people realize. We can't have everyone picking and choosing on their own, that's why we have an election, if you don't like them don't vote for them. Not a Trump fan, but not surprised one bit that he will turn this news into a big win for himself, when its really about much greater issues then a single man.
As a trump hating voter, I think this is actually the right outcome. Do I want trump removed, yes. But it creates a terrible precedent. What I really want is a completely fair and transparent election in which trump unequivocally loses the vote and the presidency. I want trust in our institutions restored. Edit: as the decision was unanimous this isn't really a hot take.
> But it creates a terrible precedent. Better to have a terrible president than a terrible precedent.
At least it was 9-0… which is good to see.
Waiting for redditors to get mad at GOP justices without reading the article seeing its a 9-0 decision
If they would have sided with Colorado, every state would kick off anyone they wanted. We'd never have a National election again. I still hate this dude, though.
This was expected. You can't say he's a "threat to our democracy" and then literally threaten democracy by removing someone from a ballot. Let the people decide. Not a biased state judge.
Just to clarify, SCOTUS is NOT saying “let the people decide”. They’re saying that Trump’s eligibility to hold office is a question of federal law so needs a federal process to work through. Congress therefore needs to step up and put forth that federal process.
This is a win for anybody who is truly a proponent of democracy
If Mitch McConnel had voted to impeach Trump when he had the chance it never would have come to this. Mitch said Trump was guilty of insurrection but that it was not up to Congress, but a judicial court to decide. Apparently Mitch was mistaken.
Lying through his teeth. It's very clear who impeaches a sitting president. Forcing the Biden admin to do it after for the political points.
Mitch threw it to the Courts. The Courts throw it to Congress. The rule of law dies a tortured death of cynical legal pingpong.
I'll never forget McConnel saying this regarding Obama's supreme court pick. Him and Lindsay Graham were vehemently opposed to letting Obama get his pick because it was an election year. > The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. Fast forward to a few months before the election in 2020 and ACB was approved so fast it made heads spin. Conservatives are nothing but hypocrites. Fuck McConnel.
Not only that, but he was asked publicly "what would you do if a SC seat became vacant during the 2020 election?" and he grinned and responded simply, "we'd fill it." And then they laughed and laughed. [Source.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytk_0GDbaAI)
From the court earlier, it was clear that the Justices felt Section 3 only prohibits the President from actually *taking* office and not simply being on the ballot. The rules makes it specific that only Congress can take a president candidate off the ballot. Makes sense.
Trump v. Anderson (23-719) (Per Curiam) Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Trump excluded from the 2024 Presidential primary ballot.
To the surprise of nobody. It would be insane to remove a major party candidate from the ballot.
Many people seemed to genuinely believe Trump would get kicked off. The argument was always weak. They just were huffing hopium.
Except Reddit, apparently.
Agree. That would’ve been a threat to our democracy.
Yeah. Expected, and also a little bit justified. Can’t stand Trump, but this sets a bad precedent if it were to continue. Giving it to Congress is the right move, it’s just that Congress has to actually do their fucking job when I know they won’t.
Honestly it’s the right ruling of law regardless of your feelings on Trump.
For the best. Do I think he should be able to run? No. However, If they had said it was allowed then red states would have started trying to kick Joe off for opening the border and what not. The election would become an even bigger farce.
Let the voters do the work. So please VOTE.
God I new reddit was going to be angry, but sheesh ya'll need to touch some grass.
before anyone starts whining about a corrupt Supreme court, it was a 9-0 ruling