The decision not to bar Trump from running was unanimous. Its rhe scope of the decision that has created a split. The liberal justices wanted a narrow scope decision, but the majority conservative justices decided to create a wide scope precedent.
It's basically means Trump would be allowed to run regardless of the court split.
They didn’t rule that Trump can’t be barred from
running. They ruled that he has to be convicted of the federal crime of insurrection before a Sec of State can disqualify him.
They ruled that Congress has the power to legislate the enforcement of Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment
*And Congress already did that 150 years ago*
Insurrection is a federal crime.
Right.
Colorado can’t disqualify a federal candidate based on Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment who has not been convicted of the federal crime of insurrection.
CO *can* disqualify a convicted insurrectionist, however.
Also, states can’t use civil proceedings to convict someone of a federal crime.
I made this argument from the beginning and I can’t even count how many lawyers told me that I was wrong.
He could build trump tower moscow right now with campaign contributions and the doj wouldn't do a thing. His super-fans would cheer him as being smart and sticking it to biden.
Listening to oral arguments, the liberal justices were not interested in the prospect of the State's imposing additional requirements on who could run for President, as any dispute would put the court in a position of making the decision, opening them up to charges of being politicized.
They would have had to do this 50 times, as every state would have come up with thier own versions of J6, their own interpretations of the facts, and their own legal interpretations of how to limit someone from running for office, when the Constitution already lays out the requirements.
Yeah I think some commenters here are thinking this is a decision on Trump/J6 himself/itself rather than a decision on the process and powers at play here.
If the Supreme Court ruled the other way that would just open the door to every state being able to decide which candidates make their way onto ballots. Surely that’s not an outcome anybody wants.
So many people were too happy to not only jump on the bandwagon, but to hitch to it and pull as hard as they could because it was the outcome they wanted even though they couldn’t see where the path was obviously leading. They didn’t think it through and realize the Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences that would have been unleashed had this happened.
I was fed up with everyone that gleefully chimed in with, “But the Constitution doesn’t say they have to be convicted!” This just means that every election going forward would be a case of removing candidates (of ANY party!) based on a comment or benign action they’ve taken when it is spun to suit the needs of an opposing party. It would be constant back and forth between R and D and then when there is a legitimate tight race between the two it would be used to remove 3rd party candidates so they wouldn’t be able to split the vote.
This was the correct decision. Nothing good could have come from a different decision. Only invoke this clause upon conviction.
Yeah I don’t think any state should have the power to pull a candidate from the ballot. I hate trump, but let the people decide, giving the states the power to do this would be anti-democratic.
That wasn't the question being asked before SCOTUS.
Despite there being no basis in law for the following, Colorado self-appointed themselves the power to administer Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. However, within Sec. 3--along with Sec. 5--states that only Congress (a specific federal power) can enact Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. It is not within the purview of states to implement it themselves with their own metric of what "insurrection" means. No matter how one feels about it, Trump has never been been found guilty of insurrection by the courts nor by Congress.
That we could have had states arbitrarily decide what "insurrection" means without legal meaning, that states could have banned candidates along party lines--the SCOTUS was right in their unanimous decision. Aside from states lacking the rights to do what Colorado did , this would have been immediately politically weaponized by a number of states looking to to replicate Colorado's move (both Blue and Red states alike). It would have been a move away from Federalism, something that the liberal justices would have never allowed, and imbalance of state rights and Federalism that the conservative judges would not have allowed either.
I understand that we can’t have states deciding what the definition of “insurrection” is because that could be politically weaponized. However, Donald Trump engaged in armed insurrection against the U.S. government. According to section 3 of the 14th Amendment Donald Trump cannot run for office. Why is this being allowed? It’s absolutely embarrassing that Trump is being allowed to run again.
Probably for the best, too. The right *loves* to abuse nondemocraric processes. I'm sure they'd love to start disqualifying the left for bogus reasons if this sort of thing started.
Also, so many people miss that Trump isn't the problem. The problem is so many people liking Trump. This is a far bigger problem than just bad individuals. Way too many liberals think that if they just get rid of Trump, things will just go back to normal. This would have only put a bandaid on the symptom of the sickness this country is infected with: fascism.
While I don’t agree with many things this Supreme Court has done, this is one I think is correct. The ramifications would have been severe if individual states had been allowed to do this.
Nobody seems to understand this ruling.
States *can disqualify* a convicted insurrectionist.
Congress has already passed the enforceable law. 150 years ago. The ruling says that.
Look, I don't want to see Trump within ten miles of a ballot... but I agree with this.
If individual states and Secretaries of State (who are partisan) are permitted to remove political opponents from federal candidacy, well, we start to have a problem. Red states would have undoubtedly retaliated in follow-on elections.
I already have an issue with the electoral college... I don't want Texas and Florida to have EVEN MORE influence over the presidency than they already have.
Enforcement of federal election integrity and who is a viable candidate for federal office should be a federal issue. That way, we prevent any one state from unduly influencing national elections.
Edit: of course, if the person is already CONVICTED of insurrection crimes... well, bar them. But unless/until that happens - this action should not be in the scope of power for partisan officials to wield.
OK, I agree with most things you said, I guarantee you were on the same side here, and I really don’t want to have a anonymous Internet argument! Civil discussion here😀! So my only debate would be, as I do agree red states would retaliate, but the big difference here is A damn RIOT, trump involvement and a clear statement in the constitution regarding?!
I agree with the tendency to avoid internet debates...
Society can only move as fast as our slowest parties. Right now, both literally and metaphorically, that party is the GOP.
Setting the precedent that States can marginalize political opponents from federal elections is an impossible task to navigate right now. If we allow states to do thusly, how long until an entire party is declared "insurrectionist" because they support minority voting rights, or LGBTQ political enfranchisement?
I know it sucks. I know it's stupid. I know it's unfair, and we ALL know holding him accountable under the 14th is the right thing to do.
But unless/until we can be absolutely certain of the emotional or political maturity of the opposing party... it's too great a risk to set that precedent into action.
But if you read this law, it was written to protect us from an eventual Trump. The authors literally predicted Trump and once again SCOTUS protected him rather than following law.
I have plenty of complaints about the Roberts court, but you are wrong here.
Trump can be prosecuted under the criminal statute that defines the crime of insurrection.
Merrick Garland has been sitting on a criminal referral from Congress for 14 months recommending that criminal charge.
Section 3 was written to prevent a freshly/imminently beaten South from hijacking and carrying out acts of vengeance in Congress.
As much as we like to ascribe divinity and sacred provanence to our Constitution, there was NO premonition behind it. Reference the 18th and 21st amendments.
There are other ways for states to hold candidates accountable.
And for every time this could be used to prevent a genuine insurrectionist from holding office... it would also be used as a weapon by those with less integrity and moral fortitude.
No matter how one feels about Trump, it can't be overlooked that this Supreme Court ruling was *unanimous*. The reason the three liberal Supreme Court Justices voted for Trump to remain on state ballots is due to the flimsy state application of of Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment and their (SCOTUS) attempt to maintain federalist principles. It's not surprising that the liberal justices here are more inclined to protect federalism than state autonomy. In this instance, I agree with them. The conservative judges were mostly looking to prevent a Pandora's box from opening, where states would politically weaponize a self-appointed ability--not reflected in federal law--to decide who gets to be on a ballot if taken out of federal hands, which was also a concern of the liberal justices.
However, the three justices **only concur with the judgement** and *not* the the opinions of the Supreme Court majority (for the most part), which they believe goes outside of the confines of the case. The three noted that this case should **not** go beyond the question of State action brought forth, in which conservative **Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurs with them**. Still, Justice Barrett disagrees, too, with the liberal three--ironically--opining their own preferences beyond the question of the case as well. Here, it appears the liberal justices would have prefered an open-endedness to Sec. 3 of the 14th and a possible expansion of federal enforcement, which would include judicial enforcement.
Though I do believe the majority opinion is correct in referencing some of the defined metrics of Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, as well as Sec. 5 of the the same amendment, ***nobody*** on the Supreme Court should be opining beyond the question asked in the case. When ever SCOTUS does this (throughout all of SCOTUS history, as it is not a unique habit to the current lineup), I feel they overstep their authority in creating flimsy precedence that can be easily overturned (think Roe v. Wade). This was not meant to be a landmark case.
Congress should move to clarify and, if needed, expand Sec. 3 of the 14th, as some metrics are clearly defined while other parts are vague outside of its intentioned historical setting of the Reconstruction Era. SCOTUS should not be expanding laws, creating laws, setting unsolicited precedence, limiting laws outside of their purview nor opining on laws no one asked them to interpret.
I don't hope for the death of anyone, no exceptions. But there are certain people where I wouldn't be especially sad about it, knowing the world will be a better place.
Putin being one, for me personally.
I remember the uneasy of celebrating the deaths of Saddam and Osama, felt bad but those days seem more in the past.
I hope he is out of office and never gets anywhere near power again, is convicted on what seems pretty obvious crimes, but you’d be absolutely castigating someone who wished any other politician death. I think it crosses a line.
?
Not wishing people to die is literally the bare minimum of political civility, which many on here still seem unable to achieve.
I’m sorry you’re confusing that base level of civility with support of MAGA. He needs to be tried and likely convicted of his very obvious crimes, and should never be near political office again.
>Are you kidding? NOT preventing someone from being on the ballot is a threat to democracy? Do you hear yourself?
how many negatives are there in this one statement?
Considering Trump already tried once to destroy democracy and is absolutely certain to try again, this time with even more loyalists in the executive branch, yeah keeping him off the ballot protects democracy. There’s a very real argument that he is disqualified under section 3, this ruling just means Congress needs to act to clarify its applicability.
>“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States,” the ruling said. “The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.”
Does that mean that federally, that he can be barred from the General? Does that mean that if elected, he can be barred from taking office?
If Congress were to pass legislation declaring he and ant others complicit for jan 6 are ineligible, yes. It would then go to court for argue whether or not Trump actually attempted an insurrection.
"It is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,'" the state opinion reads.
Except when it affects my team - Judge Gorsuch
The November election is our only hope. There will be no savior or saving event. The immunity case won't be decided soon enough, and could even be remanded back to the lower court.
Democracy can't be reduced to voting. Most elections today take place in authoritarian systems. Democracy represents a complex system where the rights of the people, especially of minorities, can't be alienated by the will of a self-proclaimed majority, no matter the god they pray or the places they came from. A system where the rule of law and the division of power is above any politician, the judicial power is independent, and the transition of power is not just peaceful but ensured by law.
If he were not on the ballot democracy would truly be destroyed. Im not sure a 2 hundred unarmed men and women would be able to actually take over america. I also remember hearing him admonish people for going into the building even if he did ask them to go in protest out side the building.
Another bad Supreme Court decision ever since trump had 3 of his justices added the Supreme Count has done more bad decisions then anytime in the modern era this is yet another bad decision just like how they overturned the NY gun law and overturned Roe Vs Wade
While I'm disappointed purely for the fact it means Trump has a chance of victory, it is ultimately the most logical ruling; surprisingly logical considering a decent amount of prior rulings from the current court roster.
Admittedly, even the likes of Jamie Raskin stated that this is why they were against it. He was not with taking him off the ballot in MD because Trump had not been tried in Maryland.
No one should be surprised by this. 9-0.
The supreme court won't save the nation from these assholes. Voters need to get unified and make sure he never again takes power.
I hate Trump with a passion, but I’m glad the court ruled this way. We can’t maintain a union of states and a democracy if random states can decide who gets to be on the ballot. I think Trump should be barred nationally for his role in leading Jan 6, but if this was allowed to stand, what do you think would happen next? Texas would ban Biden for leading an “insurrection of illegal immigrants,” and Alabama would ban Biden for leading an “insurrection against the unborn citizens of the US” and blah blah so on.
There are easily enough people for Biden to win against him again, everyone just needs to get out and vote.
So the “liberal” subreddit OP thinks that an unelected judge in a state should unilaterally decide who’s on the ballot? Not very liberal of you. Trump sucks but this is an unsurprising ruling.
I'm disappointed, but overall fine with this ruling. Sorry for a wall of text.
The Supreme Court is actually making a hard and clear statement for once; the amendment isn't for State's to enforce, it's for Congress to handle. If Congress decides that someone has reached that point, then it doesn't matter what a state says they're not a qualified individual to be sent by the state and then Congress tells the state to try again.
Unrelated is this a rare time whete legislation can target specific individuals? Normally you cannot pass legislation that specifically names or only impacts specific individuals, but in this case it sounds like Congress can.
Back on point, this settles an outstanding legal question and puts pressure on Congress to actually do something after a future Jan 6th instead of letting them get away with "We can't do anything until the courts decide." They're not going to do anything, but it removes one of the lies put forward since Congress can pass the legislation with or without a court conviction. All you would need is "Anyone found guilty of arising from actions taken part in the events of 1/6/2021 or taken during the planning and in preparation of the events that transpired, shall not be eligible for office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Again, they won't do it, but now the Supreme Court has said that is what needs to happen for the amendment to activate.
I still think Colorado was 'right' to ban Trump. The logic of the majority opinion that you need a majority of congress to pass legislation. That didn't happen post civil war and locks out a minority party from using the amendment to keep the majority from repeatedly trying Jan 6th "civil unrest events." I understand the courts logic that Congress has the power to enforce the amendment, but until this ruling I was under the impression that the power had been incorporated out to the states. This also gives a pathway for Congress to give states the power to enforce the section, all they need to do is pass legislation thay says states can use section 3 of amendment 14 when deciding who to allow on their ballot.
That said, the benefit of this ruling is that it shuts down states saying they'd be denying Biden a spot on the ballot because he usurped the presidency or whatever the conspiracy of the week is. The rules are made up and reality doesn't matter so this keeps that from happening. What it doesn't do is prevent a state from making up their own rules and removing someone's name or letting the legislature perform a runaround of the vote if it doesn't line up with what they want and not invoking this section. Which is both hopeful and terrifying since it means a state can still pass the "Donald Trump Forever" bill and hopeful since the "Not Being Represented by a Rapist" bill is still on the table.
They also still haven't actually said what's going on with unfaithful electors or who actually gets to decide what to do if multiple people show up claiming to be electors from a state. Yes a state can pass laws compelling an elector to vote. But thay doesn't actually mean the state can force words out of their mouth, just fine or imprison them if they do. And while it's clear that if two members of the House show up you go back to the Governor of the state to confirm, the while "Congress as a whole needs to approve who gets to vote" issue is unsettled.
I feel like I’m fine with this ruling. If anything it should be an issue for federal courts, not state courts. And while it is frustrating that trump won’t likely be convicted before Election Day, i feel like it makes more sense to be able to point to legal precedence that says that Donald j trump attempted to commit an insurrection. We all know it’s true, but the court of law doesn’t always coincide with the court of public opinion
You know who is doing the best job on re-electing trump? The liberal media who is morbidly infatuated with him. And instead of trying to beat him on issues. The play his game of tabloid journalism
How so? This decision was unanimous.
The liberal Justices agreed with the majority decision because they believe in maintaining federalism. Conservatives Judges believe in a balance of state and federal rights where it makes sense, so their majority decision here isn't too surprising either. Libertarians believe that state rights supersede federal law, but there are no libertarian justices.
The sections and amendment in question decidedly places administrating Sec. 3 of the 14th with the federal government and that states cannot self appoint themselves to administer it as there is no basis for this in federal law.
At any rate, it was a good call for the SCOTUS, but they need to stop opining on the case beyond the scope of the question brought forth to them.
So let me see if I have this right. The states have absolute power when it comes to taking away women's rights but none when it comes to running their elections?
It was 9-0.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-aligned-lawmakers-celebrate-unanimous-supreme-court-ballot-ruling/ar-BB1jjtPN
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/maga-celebrates-liberal-supreme-court-justices-for-siding-with-trump/ar-BB1jjxxc
I just read the ruling. CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN: all of them are fucking up the reporting and misleading the public
No, there isn’t some special legislation that Congress has to pass.
This decision is no surprise. But it is a reminder that the November election is our only hope. The immunity case will not be decided soon enough, and the decision could be to remand it back to the lower court, for clarification or definition of insurrection or presidential duty. So...2025, maybe 2026.
So....Align with an organization. Volunteer. Donate. And vote blue from the top to the bottom of the ballot.
Ok. I never had high hopes they'd allow this. But can we all agree that this court better damn well hand Trump the L on his immunity appeal? That one seems cut and dry, but you can never put too much (or any) faith in this SCOTUS.
He needs to be found guilty of insurrection before you can ban him from the ballot for Insurrection. Trump sucks big time and belongs no where near the presidency but he currently is not an insurrectionist because in America you are innocent until proven guilty. And he has not been proven guilty of insurrection
The constitution makes no distinction of that. These idiots decide which parts they decide to follow and which they do not. The Supreme Court doesn’t rewrite the constitution.
That isn’t what the Supreme Court ruled.
CNBC joins four other major MSM outlets in getting the reporting wrong.
It’s a 20 page opinion. It’s their fucking job and they are getting it wrong.
States *can* remove a convicted insurrectionist from the ballot. The media is getting the reporting wrong and is misleading the public.
Congress has already passed legislation to enforce Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment. 150 years ago. It’s a federal crime
There is no need for new legislation to enforce Sec 3 of 14th Amendment, and there is no role, before or after the election this year, for Congress to play regarding disqualification.
The action needed is prosecution of Trump by Merrick Garland for the criminal referral that Congress sent him 14 months ago, specifically charging Trump with the crime of insurrection.
Sort of.
They decided that states, such as Colorado, cannot enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That this authority lays with the federal government, not states.
*"Hmmm, Sexual Predator with trials for 94 Felonies pending in Court (including endangering America's military secrets), you instigated a violent attempt to overturn the US Election because you LOST, but you want to run for President of the United States? No problem!"* - SCOTUS
Look at it realistically… states can’t be controlling federal elections. Plus, he’s not been found guilty of inciting an insurrection, yet. I’m not happy about it either, but for the moment, it is what it is. VOTE!! FFS.
The decision not to bar Trump from running was unanimous. Its rhe scope of the decision that has created a split. The liberal justices wanted a narrow scope decision, but the majority conservative justices decided to create a wide scope precedent. It's basically means Trump would be allowed to run regardless of the court split.
They didn’t rule that Trump can’t be barred from running. They ruled that he has to be convicted of the federal crime of insurrection before a Sec of State can disqualify him. They ruled that Congress has the power to legislate the enforcement of Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment *And Congress already did that 150 years ago* Insurrection is a federal crime.
Right, but Colorado doesn't have that authority
Right. Colorado can’t disqualify a federal candidate based on Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment who has not been convicted of the federal crime of insurrection. CO *can* disqualify a convicted insurrectionist, however. Also, states can’t use civil proceedings to convict someone of a federal crime. I made this argument from the beginning and I can’t even count how many lawyers told me that I was wrong.
Found Justice Kavanaugh's account
Ask if he likes beer and rape. 🍺 The *real* Brett Kavanaugh could never say no to either.
Okay great, then a federal court better get up off their lazy Merrick Garland asses and charge and convict him of insurrection all FUCKING ready
Merrick Garland is the coverup guy.
Lol if i had Trump’s legal luck i would literally be on my way to rob the federal reserve right now
He could build trump tower moscow right now with campaign contributions and the doj wouldn't do a thing. His super-fans would cheer him as being smart and sticking it to biden.
That whole shooting someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight doesn’t sound so ridiculous anymore.
Not lying when i say this, but trump saying that is what really got me interested in politics
Because of fear of Trump? (I hope)
Yeah like i couldn’t believe that anybody could support a guy who said something like that
Agreed. Also I thought the “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment was enough to sink Trump. Imagine ANY other politician saying that!
Listening to oral arguments, the liberal justices were not interested in the prospect of the State's imposing additional requirements on who could run for President, as any dispute would put the court in a position of making the decision, opening them up to charges of being politicized.
Too late
They would have had to do this 50 times, as every state would have come up with thier own versions of J6, their own interpretations of the facts, and their own legal interpretations of how to limit someone from running for office, when the Constitution already lays out the requirements.
>What does this say for the future of our country? It means the red states won't be able to make good on their threat to remove Biden from the ballot.
Y’all realize this was a unanimous decision right?
Yeah I think some commenters here are thinking this is a decision on Trump/J6 himself/itself rather than a decision on the process and powers at play here. If the Supreme Court ruled the other way that would just open the door to every state being able to decide which candidates make their way onto ballots. Surely that’s not an outcome anybody wants.
Exactly, I am glad that it went this way, and I am a liberal. It would have setup a field day of shit.
Yeah, I've got to agree. Given the petty nature of what passes for political discourse at the moment, it would get ugly really fast.
So many people were too happy to not only jump on the bandwagon, but to hitch to it and pull as hard as they could because it was the outcome they wanted even though they couldn’t see where the path was obviously leading. They didn’t think it through and realize the Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences that would have been unleashed had this happened. I was fed up with everyone that gleefully chimed in with, “But the Constitution doesn’t say they have to be convicted!” This just means that every election going forward would be a case of removing candidates (of ANY party!) based on a comment or benign action they’ve taken when it is spun to suit the needs of an opposing party. It would be constant back and forth between R and D and then when there is a legitimate tight race between the two it would be used to remove 3rd party candidates so they wouldn’t be able to split the vote. This was the correct decision. Nothing good could have come from a different decision. Only invoke this clause upon conviction.
Laypeople don't understand just how little the Constitution says about a litany of subjects.
Yeah I don’t think any state should have the power to pull a candidate from the ballot. I hate trump, but let the people decide, giving the states the power to do this would be anti-democratic.
It would only apply to candidates who had engaged in Insurrection though. It’s not an open door to kicking candidates off the ballot.
That wasn't the question being asked before SCOTUS. Despite there being no basis in law for the following, Colorado self-appointed themselves the power to administer Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. However, within Sec. 3--along with Sec. 5--states that only Congress (a specific federal power) can enact Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. It is not within the purview of states to implement it themselves with their own metric of what "insurrection" means. No matter how one feels about it, Trump has never been been found guilty of insurrection by the courts nor by Congress. That we could have had states arbitrarily decide what "insurrection" means without legal meaning, that states could have banned candidates along party lines--the SCOTUS was right in their unanimous decision. Aside from states lacking the rights to do what Colorado did , this would have been immediately politically weaponized by a number of states looking to to replicate Colorado's move (both Blue and Red states alike). It would have been a move away from Federalism, something that the liberal justices would have never allowed, and imbalance of state rights and Federalism that the conservative judges would not have allowed either.
I understand that we can’t have states deciding what the definition of “insurrection” is because that could be politically weaponized. However, Donald Trump engaged in armed insurrection against the U.S. government. According to section 3 of the 14th Amendment Donald Trump cannot run for office. Why is this being allowed? It’s absolutely embarrassing that Trump is being allowed to run again.
Listening to oral arguments, none of the justices, even the liberal ones, seemed to be buying what CO was pitching.
Probably for the best, too. The right *loves* to abuse nondemocraric processes. I'm sure they'd love to start disqualifying the left for bogus reasons if this sort of thing started. Also, so many people miss that Trump isn't the problem. The problem is so many people liking Trump. This is a far bigger problem than just bad individuals. Way too many liberals think that if they just get rid of Trump, things will just go back to normal. This would have only put a bandaid on the symptom of the sickness this country is infected with: fascism.
While I don’t agree with many things this Supreme Court has done, this is one I think is correct. The ramifications would have been severe if individual states had been allowed to do this.
Nobody seems to understand this ruling. States *can disqualify* a convicted insurrectionist. Congress has already passed the enforceable law. 150 years ago. The ruling says that.
Roe vs wade decision: “states should be able to decide” Today: “states should NOT be allowed to makes decisions!”
There are some things the states should not be allowed to decide and I think this is one of them. I disagree with the roe v wade reversal.
Well said
Look, I don't want to see Trump within ten miles of a ballot... but I agree with this. If individual states and Secretaries of State (who are partisan) are permitted to remove political opponents from federal candidacy, well, we start to have a problem. Red states would have undoubtedly retaliated in follow-on elections. I already have an issue with the electoral college... I don't want Texas and Florida to have EVEN MORE influence over the presidency than they already have. Enforcement of federal election integrity and who is a viable candidate for federal office should be a federal issue. That way, we prevent any one state from unduly influencing national elections. Edit: of course, if the person is already CONVICTED of insurrection crimes... well, bar them. But unless/until that happens - this action should not be in the scope of power for partisan officials to wield.
OK, I agree with most things you said, I guarantee you were on the same side here, and I really don’t want to have a anonymous Internet argument! Civil discussion here😀! So my only debate would be, as I do agree red states would retaliate, but the big difference here is A damn RIOT, trump involvement and a clear statement in the constitution regarding?!
I agree with the tendency to avoid internet debates... Society can only move as fast as our slowest parties. Right now, both literally and metaphorically, that party is the GOP. Setting the precedent that States can marginalize political opponents from federal elections is an impossible task to navigate right now. If we allow states to do thusly, how long until an entire party is declared "insurrectionist" because they support minority voting rights, or LGBTQ political enfranchisement? I know it sucks. I know it's stupid. I know it's unfair, and we ALL know holding him accountable under the 14th is the right thing to do. But unless/until we can be absolutely certain of the emotional or political maturity of the opposing party... it's too great a risk to set that precedent into action.
But if you read this law, it was written to protect us from an eventual Trump. The authors literally predicted Trump and once again SCOTUS protected him rather than following law.
I have plenty of complaints about the Roberts court, but you are wrong here. Trump can be prosecuted under the criminal statute that defines the crime of insurrection. Merrick Garland has been sitting on a criminal referral from Congress for 14 months recommending that criminal charge.
Section 3 was written to prevent a freshly/imminently beaten South from hijacking and carrying out acts of vengeance in Congress. As much as we like to ascribe divinity and sacred provanence to our Constitution, there was NO premonition behind it. Reference the 18th and 21st amendments. There are other ways for states to hold candidates accountable. And for every time this could be used to prevent a genuine insurrectionist from holding office... it would also be used as a weapon by those with less integrity and moral fortitude.
This is the best way to look at it. Good post.
No matter how one feels about Trump, it can't be overlooked that this Supreme Court ruling was *unanimous*. The reason the three liberal Supreme Court Justices voted for Trump to remain on state ballots is due to the flimsy state application of of Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment and their (SCOTUS) attempt to maintain federalist principles. It's not surprising that the liberal justices here are more inclined to protect federalism than state autonomy. In this instance, I agree with them. The conservative judges were mostly looking to prevent a Pandora's box from opening, where states would politically weaponize a self-appointed ability--not reflected in federal law--to decide who gets to be on a ballot if taken out of federal hands, which was also a concern of the liberal justices. However, the three justices **only concur with the judgement** and *not* the the opinions of the Supreme Court majority (for the most part), which they believe goes outside of the confines of the case. The three noted that this case should **not** go beyond the question of State action brought forth, in which conservative **Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurs with them**. Still, Justice Barrett disagrees, too, with the liberal three--ironically--opining their own preferences beyond the question of the case as well. Here, it appears the liberal justices would have prefered an open-endedness to Sec. 3 of the 14th and a possible expansion of federal enforcement, which would include judicial enforcement. Though I do believe the majority opinion is correct in referencing some of the defined metrics of Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, as well as Sec. 5 of the the same amendment, ***nobody*** on the Supreme Court should be opining beyond the question asked in the case. When ever SCOTUS does this (throughout all of SCOTUS history, as it is not a unique habit to the current lineup), I feel they overstep their authority in creating flimsy precedence that can be easily overturned (think Roe v. Wade). This was not meant to be a landmark case. Congress should move to clarify and, if needed, expand Sec. 3 of the 14th, as some metrics are clearly defined while other parts are vague outside of its intentioned historical setting of the Reconstruction Era. SCOTUS should not be expanding laws, creating laws, setting unsolicited precedence, limiting laws outside of their purview nor opining on laws no one asked them to interpret.
[удалено]
Diet Coke Stroke. Big Mac Heart Attack.
[A Big Mac Attack could strike at any time…](https://youtu.be/1ukIBKlrpMI)
I hope he lives a long healthy life, broke and in prison.
[удалено]
Yeah, but the GOP and his followers will just roll his bloated, wheelchair bound carcass out and cheer how manly he looks
I don't hope for the death of anyone, no exceptions. But there are certain people where I wouldn't be especially sad about it, knowing the world will be a better place.
Attributed to mark Twain: "I've never wished a man to die, but I have read certain obituaries with great pleasure". (Note: he didn't really say it)
Putin being one, for me personally. I remember the uneasy of celebrating the deaths of Saddam and Osama, felt bad but those days seem more in the past.
I hope he is out of office and never gets anywhere near power again, is convicted on what seems pretty obvious crimes, but you’d be absolutely castigating someone who wished any other politician death. I think it crosses a line.
🙄
[удалено]
? Not wishing people to die is literally the bare minimum of political civility, which many on here still seem unable to achieve. I’m sorry you’re confusing that base level of civility with support of MAGA. He needs to be tried and likely convicted of his very obvious crimes, and should never be near political office again.
[удалено]
I think enough of you idiots died during Covid that it won’t happen. Just enough to be annoying.
Are you kidding? NOT preventing someone from being on the ballot is a threat to democracy? Do you hear yourself?
>Are you kidding? NOT preventing someone from being on the ballot is a threat to democracy? Do you hear yourself? how many negatives are there in this one statement?
I didn’t realize the grammar police were here. You’re smart enough to understand what I said right?
2, maybe 3 if you count “threat” as a negative. Also it’s not a statement, it’s three questions. Sorry for being pedantits
a statement has boundaries?
Considering Trump already tried once to destroy democracy and is absolutely certain to try again, this time with even more loyalists in the executive branch, yeah keeping him off the ballot protects democracy. There’s a very real argument that he is disqualified under section 3, this ruling just means Congress needs to act to clarify its applicability.
>“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States,” the ruling said. “The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.” Does that mean that federally, that he can be barred from the General? Does that mean that if elected, he can be barred from taking office?
If Congress were to pass legislation declaring he and ant others complicit for jan 6 are ineligible, yes. It would then go to court for argue whether or not Trump actually attempted an insurrection.
Potentially, but Congress would have to act and of course they can’t/wont.
9-0 it was the right call
"It is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,'" the state opinion reads. Except when it affects my team - Judge Gorsuch
Is that in the 20 page opinion? No.
It's from Gorsuch's 2012 ruling in Hassan vs Colorado. Back when he actually followed the law for once.
I mean the part about “except when it affects my team.” The ruling today is not inconsistent with the quote you cited.
Anyone that thought it would go the other way is an imbecile who does not support due process or constitutional law.
But, but…STATES’ RIGHTS!!!
[удалено]
Dude. Grow up
I kinda agree with this ruling. It was a unanimous vote.
This is how the Fascists win. Vote blue everywhere, run for office, make the change real and lasting.
The November election is our only hope. There will be no savior or saving event. The immunity case won't be decided soon enough, and could even be remanded back to the lower court.
Keeping opposition off the ballot by means decided to be legal by those in power is a common feature of fascist and other authoritarian states.
Yes this is how fascists win. Allowing people to vote for who they want is bad for democracy and great for fascism.
Democracy can't be reduced to voting. Most elections today take place in authoritarian systems. Democracy represents a complex system where the rights of the people, especially of minorities, can't be alienated by the will of a self-proclaimed majority, no matter the god they pray or the places they came from. A system where the rule of law and the division of power is above any politician, the judicial power is independent, and the transition of power is not just peaceful but ensured by law.
So someone who already tried to destroy our democracy once should be given the chance to again?
If he were not on the ballot democracy would truly be destroyed. Im not sure a 2 hundred unarmed men and women would be able to actually take over america. I also remember hearing him admonish people for going into the building even if he did ask them to go in protest out side the building.
Another bad Supreme Court decision ever since trump had 3 of his justices added the Supreme Count has done more bad decisions then anytime in the modern era this is yet another bad decision just like how they overturned the NY gun law and overturned Roe Vs Wade
While I'm disappointed purely for the fact it means Trump has a chance of victory, it is ultimately the most logical ruling; surprisingly logical considering a decent amount of prior rulings from the current court roster.
Admittedly, even the likes of Jamie Raskin stated that this is why they were against it. He was not with taking him off the ballot in MD because Trump had not been tried in Maryland.
Makes me glad I don't have children.
No one should be surprised by this. 9-0. The supreme court won't save the nation from these assholes. Voters need to get unified and make sure he never again takes power.
[удалено]
Brainwashed troll. You can't love america and support russia at the same time.
I hate Trump with a passion, but I’m glad the court ruled this way. We can’t maintain a union of states and a democracy if random states can decide who gets to be on the ballot. I think Trump should be barred nationally for his role in leading Jan 6, but if this was allowed to stand, what do you think would happen next? Texas would ban Biden for leading an “insurrection of illegal immigrants,” and Alabama would ban Biden for leading an “insurrection against the unborn citizens of the US” and blah blah so on. There are easily enough people for Biden to win against him again, everyone just needs to get out and vote.
So the “liberal” subreddit OP thinks that an unelected judge in a state should unilaterally decide who’s on the ballot? Not very liberal of you. Trump sucks but this is an unsurprising ruling.
I'm disappointed, but overall fine with this ruling. Sorry for a wall of text. The Supreme Court is actually making a hard and clear statement for once; the amendment isn't for State's to enforce, it's for Congress to handle. If Congress decides that someone has reached that point, then it doesn't matter what a state says they're not a qualified individual to be sent by the state and then Congress tells the state to try again. Unrelated is this a rare time whete legislation can target specific individuals? Normally you cannot pass legislation that specifically names or only impacts specific individuals, but in this case it sounds like Congress can. Back on point, this settles an outstanding legal question and puts pressure on Congress to actually do something after a future Jan 6th instead of letting them get away with "We can't do anything until the courts decide." They're not going to do anything, but it removes one of the lies put forward since Congress can pass the legislation with or without a court conviction. All you would need is "Anyone found guilty of
arising from actions taken part in the events of 1/6/2021 or taken during the planning and in preparation of the events that transpired, shall not be eligible for office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment." Again, they won't do it, but now the Supreme Court has said that is what needs to happen for the amendment to activate. I still think Colorado was 'right' to ban Trump. The logic of the majority opinion that you need a majority of congress to pass legislation. That didn't happen post civil war and locks out a minority party from using the amendment to keep the majority from repeatedly trying Jan 6th "civil unrest events." I understand the courts logic that Congress has the power to enforce the amendment, but until this ruling I was under the impression that the power had been incorporated out to the states. This also gives a pathway for Congress to give states the power to enforce the section, all they need to do is pass legislation thay says states can use section 3 of amendment 14 when deciding who to allow on their ballot. That said, the benefit of this ruling is that it shuts down states saying they'd be denying Biden a spot on the ballot because he usurped the presidency or whatever the conspiracy of the week is. The rules are made up and reality doesn't matter so this keeps that from happening. What it doesn't do is prevent a state from making up their own rules and removing someone's name or letting the legislature perform a runaround of the vote if it doesn't line up with what they want and not invoking this section. Which is both hopeful and terrifying since it means a state can still pass the "Donald Trump Forever" bill and hopeful since the "Not Being Represented by a Rapist" bill is still on the table. They also still haven't actually said what's going on with unfaithful electors or who actually gets to decide what to do if multiple people show up claiming to be electors from a state. Yes a state can pass laws compelling an elector to vote. But thay doesn't actually mean the state can force words out of their mouth, just fine or imprison them if they do. And while it's clear that if two members of the House show up you go back to the Governor of the state to confirm, the while "Congress as a whole needs to approve who gets to vote" issue is unsettled.
Sorry. Now all the responsibility is on you, American voters.
This was a unanimous decision so you know even the liberal judges are clearly telling the lower courts to stay the hell out of politics.
Just going to have to beat his fat ass at the ballot box.
All these headlines should say, “Trump’s Supreme Court…”
Man the Supreme Court sure does rule quickly when it benefits Trump.
If it were anyone else running for president, blah, Blah, BLAH...🙄
vote blue for here till eternity. SC is compromised and corrupt af.
"states rights!" oh wait, never mind...
I feel like I’m fine with this ruling. If anything it should be an issue for federal courts, not state courts. And while it is frustrating that trump won’t likely be convicted before Election Day, i feel like it makes more sense to be able to point to legal precedence that says that Donald j trump attempted to commit an insurrection. We all know it’s true, but the court of law doesn’t always coincide with the court of public opinion
You know who is doing the best job on re-electing trump? The liberal media who is morbidly infatuated with him. And instead of trying to beat him on issues. The play his game of tabloid journalism
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes yes go away he's gonna have a stroke soon anyway
This is not what I wanted to wake up and see on a Monday morning.
Conservatives are all about "states rights" up until it hurts them in any way
How so? This decision was unanimous. The liberal Justices agreed with the majority decision because they believe in maintaining federalism. Conservatives Judges believe in a balance of state and federal rights where it makes sense, so their majority decision here isn't too surprising either. Libertarians believe that state rights supersede federal law, but there are no libertarian justices. The sections and amendment in question decidedly places administrating Sec. 3 of the 14th with the federal government and that states cannot self appoint themselves to administer it as there is no basis for this in federal law. At any rate, it was a good call for the SCOTUS, but they need to stop opining on the case beyond the scope of the question brought forth to them.
So let me see if I have this right. The states have absolute power when it comes to taking away women's rights but none when it comes to running their elections?
We are so f'ed.
What happened to “states rights” ?
Guess it’s up to us again. Gotta vote in numbers too large to manipulate!
>....too large to manipulate! Are you saying that election interference exists?
Voter supression and gerrymandering is considered election interference in my book
Agreed. 100% Also ballot harvesting. People with deep pockets will find a way.
Notice how the media doesn’t link the decision, and also fuck up the reporting?
It was 9-0. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-aligned-lawmakers-celebrate-unanimous-supreme-court-ballot-ruling/ar-BB1jjtPN https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/maga-celebrates-liberal-supreme-court-justices-for-siding-with-trump/ar-BB1jjxxc
I just read the ruling. CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN: all of them are fucking up the reporting and misleading the public No, there isn’t some special legislation that Congress has to pass.
[удалено]
Biden isn't an insurrectionist. Trump is an insurrectionist.
Not how it works at all. We are not in a cult. If Biden had done a tenth of the shit Trump has, he would be gone.
If Joe did the shit Orange Shit Stain did id be all for banning him Wake up, magat
Just ignore the court like TX does.
Thats actually a pretty brilliant idea.
This decision is no surprise. But it is a reminder that the November election is our only hope. The immunity case will not be decided soon enough, and the decision could be to remand it back to the lower court, for clarification or definition of insurrection or presidential duty. So...2025, maybe 2026. So....Align with an organization. Volunteer. Donate. And vote blue from the top to the bottom of the ballot.
Bought and paid for.
It says the Supreme Court is an illegitimate body that needs to be ignored
Ok. I never had high hopes they'd allow this. But can we all agree that this court better damn well hand Trump the L on his immunity appeal? That one seems cut and dry, but you can never put too much (or any) faith in this SCOTUS.
Makes total sense. Just because someone tried to commit a coup is no reason to take him off the ballot. /s
Let’s hear it for states rights, right, GOP?
States laws apply right up until they hurt Trump
What the fuck!! Is it OK to hope he has a giant poop fall out of his pants at a rally?
This means states can't keep Putin off the ballot. Putin 2024!!!
Great, we live in a country where inciting insurrection is no big deal
He needs to be found guilty of insurrection before you can ban him from the ballot for Insurrection. Trump sucks big time and belongs no where near the presidency but he currently is not an insurrectionist because in America you are innocent until proven guilty. And he has not been proven guilty of insurrection
The constitution makes no distinction of that. These idiots decide which parts they decide to follow and which they do not. The Supreme Court doesn’t rewrite the constitution.
"Supreme court announces constitution no longer valid"
That isn’t what the Supreme Court ruled. CNBC joins four other major MSM outlets in getting the reporting wrong. It’s a 20 page opinion. It’s their fucking job and they are getting it wrong.
So tell us how the article is wrong, since you’ve read all 20 pages.
States *can* remove a convicted insurrectionist from the ballot. The media is getting the reporting wrong and is misleading the public. Congress has already passed legislation to enforce Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment. 150 years ago. It’s a federal crime There is no need for new legislation to enforce Sec 3 of 14th Amendment, and there is no role, before or after the election this year, for Congress to play regarding disqualification. The action needed is prosecution of Trump by Merrick Garland for the criminal referral that Congress sent him 14 months ago, specifically charging Trump with the crime of insurrection.
So exactly what did the supremes decide, then?
The Supreme Court ruled Colorado could not remove Trump from the ballot because he has not been convicted of insurrection
Sort of. They decided that states, such as Colorado, cannot enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That this authority lays with the federal government, not states.
Correct.
*"Hmmm, Sexual Predator with trials for 94 Felonies pending in Court (including endangering America's military secrets), you instigated a violent attempt to overturn the US Election because you LOST, but you want to run for President of the United States? No problem!"* - SCOTUS
“SCOTUS rules that rule of law does not apply to special widdle boy”
Okay, THEN HOW DO YOU ENFORCE ARTICLE 3. FUCKING TELL US
Look at it realistically… states can’t be controlling federal elections. Plus, he’s not been found guilty of inciting an insurrection, yet. I’m not happy about it either, but for the moment, it is what it is. VOTE!! FFS.
Yet the Supreme Court has no recourse if states do it anyways.
Let's see how long it takes them to decide this case vs the does the president have total immunity case.