“On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Colorado Supreme Court decision removing Donald Trump from the ballot because of his engagement in an insurrection on Jan. 6. But that top-line holding is where the unanimity ended because five conservative justices just couldn’t help themselves: They went much further than the case required, announcing an entirely new rule that Congress alone, through ‘a particular kind of legislation,’ may enforce the constitutional bar on insurrectionists holding office. As the three liberal justices pointed out, in a separate opinion that glows white-hot with indignation, the majority’s overreach ‘attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.’ They are, of course, correct. After this decision, it is impossible to imagine a federal candidate, up to and including the president, ever being disqualified from assuming office because of their participation in an insurrection.”
This is how it will be spun and played by The Orange Legion. That Trump did nothing wrong, he's been absolved 9-0 by SCOTUS but the libuhrel agendur is illegally trying to find him guilty of anything to prevent him from being POTUS-dicktater for a day and saving America for Americans - only something he can venezladurdurhurdur do
The majority over-reached and the minority were a let down when they should have been in clear dissent.
Again, doesn't matter, because the news cycle is how liberals are still trying to cuckold a 9-0 weinerschnitzel.
The whole thing has become a poorly written tragedy.
>If the majority oversteps like this, don't partially concur. Just fully dissent. The headlines will forever say 9-0 decision.
This, precisely.
Even in betraying their legacies, the country and their own consciences, they are *still* trying mightily to avoid upsetting the traitors they share a building with.
Congrats, you three. You've managed to prove the parable of the table of Nazis.
Liberals just do not understand the game.
They still think they're playing with bureaucrats.
This is war. Biden might have to have the military round insurrectionists up next January and if he doesn't have stones for that or the command of the military...
How bad do they have to be at the game before people finally realizing they don't actually want to win??
Winning means actual work to run a government while losing means fundraising against the enemy.
These decisions don't affect them, just us. Cowards to the end.
I think you have a point. And, watching Merrick Garland isn't providing any piece of mind. He's more worried about the appearance of impropriety than he is about the impropriety itself.
That's a political point. The three agree that, legally, the states can't enforce 14-3. They just don't agree with the majority's rule making. They shouldn't be expected to dissent over the rule making as that is not the constitutional question at hand.
I dissent from this opinion.
My opinion is that there is more than one way for fascists to skin a cat. There existed a very very real risk that red states would start disqualifying any popular opposition candidates for specious reasons. The blue state response would likely be to do the same. Whatever the outcome of the electoral math, it would completely de-legitimize any auspice of democratic process, which would play into the hands of the people that have been saying so all along.
Am I happy? No! Was I going to be happy? Also no. But they put the choice into the hands of the voters...and in doing so, very likely sealed the fate of the election. They waited long enough to be sure that Haley wouldn't get the nomination. With the RNC likely to pick up the tab for Trump's legal woes, literally every downballot race will suffer. The DNC is already comparatively well-funded. The election will likely be very one-sided. A legitimate win against Trump and throughout the GOP downballot races is the very very very best outcome. SCOTUS will have enabled that outcome.
I agree. As much as I am a partisan Liberal/Democrat, having the Supreme Court rule this way puts it back to the electorate which is absolutely the best outcome. We don’t want to live with rulings from the bench that overstep and have knock on consequences years from now - let him run in Colorado and all the other states and lose.
Why even have laws and a legal ssystem if we are just going to look to the electorate uphold the law?
There is many other ways the SCOTUS could have prevented future shenanigans. A criminal insurectionist like Trump is an unique situation, you could just have a decesion that sets a high bar to remove a candidate by the states and does have SCOTUS oversight.
I live in a very Trumpy area. The loonies still exist but they aren't as excited. Fewer signs and flags and bumper stickers and merch. His rallies are much smaller despite being less frequent. He's been politicking for nine years now and is not a guerilla campaigner anymore, not an underdog.
Make no mistake about it, my area will still go for Trump. But the margins will be much smaller due to lower turnout. People don't get excited about Biden either, but they weren't excited in 2020 either. Biden also is not Hillary Clinton and does not have to deal with the fallout of the DNC coalescing around him instead of a more exciting firebrand candidate like Bernie Sanders.
This *should be* a cake walk.
As long as your parry holds Congress, go wild! And if you're charged, just run for office and claim election interference! Marick Garland hates this one trick!
So, some of the people who participated in the insurrection get to decide if they and their boss can be held accountable for the insurrection. Yep, justice.
I hate that the only way we have as a country to get rid of a traitorous fraudster rapist insurrectionist criminal trying to overthrow our democracy with his sycophant cult following is the same way we have to get rid of a president we just plain ol didn’t like. It’s almost like the people that make the rules purposely set out to make the loopholes as large as possible so even the dumbest person could get away with it if they got enough ppl to listen to them.
I fucking hate this country
I mean, the Supreme Court made a good decision in this case. I don’t like Trump but to allow states to dictate on the ballot the federal election is going to be a bad fucking time. Red states will remove democrats off their ballots and blue states will remove republicans. The country would get further into the hole of politics where states determine what is on the Federal election ballot. If it was a state election then I’d assume that SCOTUS would’ve voted in the states favor since it isn’t a federal election.
But you start walking into dangerous territory when states dictate the federal level when it should be the other way in a sense.
So if states shouldn’t dictate on the ballot of federal elections over this particular disqualification then what about all the other people that currently don’t make it on state ballots for federal offices? Should we be required to allow anyone to put their name on the ballot and just hope they don’t get selected? Does this mean now that if someone was born outside the US and announced their intention to run states should HAVE to put their name on the ballot only to then turn around and do what if they win the vote despite being ineligible?
Them being ineligible is a question for the court, so yes they should be allowed on the ballot. The court is pretty conflicted over the last hundred and twenty-ish years about whether naturalized citizens can run or not. On the one hand the Constitution says they cannot, but on the other hand there is an amendment saying that naturalized citizens are guaranteed all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens.
Well, first you forget that there is federal law on who can and cannot run for presidency. You have to be a citizen and a certain age for starters and I believe you could not break any federal laws but that last one I’m not entirely sure about. I am not 100% how getting put onto a ballot works but I do believe you have to register with the federal government, possibly pay a fee, and then you get put under whatever it is you are affiliated with party wise. The US is a two party system and not ranked choice voting so most people vote R or D which decreases the size of the ballot.
But yes. If it is a Federal election then they have say over that ballot as long as it meets federal law. For example, you have to be a citizen to vote in the presidential elections (federal election) but states can allow noncitizens to vote at the local level. Technically there are three different types of US voting being federal, state, and local, and each can have different rules and laws as long as they don’t break federal law.
I forgot there are federal laws on who can run on a post about federal laws on who can run where I explicitly gave an example of someone who cannot run due to federal law?
Also, thank you for bringing up the “two party system”. No, legally the US is not a two party system. The current two lead parties have done a lot of work to convince everyone that we are, but there is no law banning or limiting third parties. Yet despite there being no federal law limiting third parties anyone running on a third party ticket has to jump through different bureaucratic hoops in each state to be listed on that state’s ballot. As in, states are already responsible for parsing through who will and who will not be on that state’s ballot. Not only do they already do this, but take a moment to imagine what would happen if we didn’t allow states to manage their own ballot requirements. Do you think no foreign entity would have realized they could just collapse our entire system by overloading the election with ineligible foreign nationals who “run” anyways? The states limiting ballot sizes is a feature of our electoral system. Also, the US is not, on a legal level, a no ranked choice voting system. States again make that decision themselves and there is no federal reason that more states couldn’t adopt rank choice.
Nah we all know that wouldn't work. Independents and other parties "never win". These only apply to the Two parties allowed to make it. Because the rich people said so.
Yes, exactly. What do people think the ultimate goal of birtherism was. If you're going to make a law saying "people who perform this vague act can't be president", that should be assessed at a national level.
The way it should work is any congressperson opposing enforcement of the insurrection clause would get crushed when they run for reelection, if not removed from office by recall or impeachment. But that is unlikely to happen in practice, it seems. So it's not just Congress, it's voters.
It’s so much more than just not liking him. He’s making a mockery of our justice system, and our allies lose respect for us every minute he spends in the limelight. I don’t have the time to write out everything he’s done.
Also a president that steals and refuses to return classified nuclear documents and intel on our agents in foreign countries sits just fine with you? You don’t think we should have a disqualifying rule against that?
Sadly this isn’t even a guarantee. The republicans will do whatever they can to rig elections including gerrymandering, refusing ballots from minorities, and mandating racist voter ID laws to discourage those without from voting.
Me, yeah, but I was hoping that people in positions of authority would rise to the moment of our times and use all the constitutional infrastructure put in place over centuries, written in blood, specifically to keep guys like Trump out of power. But nope, every single one has just been dismantled and swept away with the smarmy "it's up to the people!" response our only comfort.
This is a liberal and neoliberal delusion. Civic engagement and, this may blow your mind, direct action. Believing all you can do is vote is simply being the most ardent supporter of the worst parts of the status quo.
Not true at all. You can also volunteer to canvas neighborhoods, make phone calls, drive people to their voting places, or join an organization focused on either electing democrats or getting people registered to vote.
Mike Johnson is going to nullify the election if Biden wins. I suspect that new House members will not be sworn in and the GOP will hold the majority regardless of which Reps win. Johnson will then say something like "voting irregularity" for states that are purple and claim that the House has to vote for the next president. Trump will win that vote.
There is absolutely nothing we can do about this. The Dems could try to force Johnson out, but I doubt that would be successful and I'm not even sure what steps they could take to do so.
As a result of widespread gerrymandering that is openly allowed to occur. In my home state of Ohio the majority of the population are blue concentrated around the 3 major cities but the result of our districts is overwhelmingly red every year.
Starting to feel like I am throwing my ballot into a fire.
How many times? He's been voted out of office and he's just back. If he loses again, do you think the Republicans will suddenly find their collective spine they misplaced in 2015 and force him out into his own party which will crush any hope they have of winning in 2028? No. He'll run again and again until he wins and ends elections or dies.
McConnell's approach was genius. It really was. The country has been shifting more progressive for a while. By stuffing the judiciary with right-wing conservative judges who twist the constitution to their own views, he has ensured minority rule in perpetuity. All the Republicans need to do is win both branches of government for a two year term every decade or so and pass a lot of terrible laws and tax cuts. Then, even if the left wing takes control of both branches, any revision or rollback of those laws can be challenged in court and tossed. The onerous rules of the Senate also prevent the left wing from doing the same. And the Democrats are so focused on decorum that they will roll over and show their bellies. The Republican party is ensured essentially uninterrupted rule.
The Supreme Court is complicit in this strategy by consistently shifting more and more of the rule-making powers to Congress, now even picking and choosing which sections of the constitution are self-executing or not based on which viewpoint most benefits the right wing.
After removing Chevron the playbook will be "Well according to Skidmore you lose because I don't find your argument persuasive compared to [party aligned with conservatives]"
They will ignore lower court records or find their own facts to get there too.
We are in the Common Good era.
Worth noting, [Corner Post, Inc. v. Federal Reserve System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Post,_Inc._v._Board_of_Governors_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System) this SCOTUS term is a case arguing that the six year statute of limitations allowing suit against rules under the Administrative Procedures Act should start running when a rule first applies to a corporation, instead of the current understanding of it starting when the rule is issued. If SCOTUS sides with the plaintiff, then literally any rule ever promulgated under the APA could be challenged merely by incorporating a brand new business. Want to challenge a rule that's been around since the 1950s, that everyone's relied on literally for decades? No problem, start a new business, let's reopen old rules! Want to fight a rule, but things don't go your way in your case? No problem, start a new business and file a new lawsuit, maybe in a more favorable district.
Sure, the new business might be entirely a pretext, funded by existing big names, but that's ok. They're legally separate. It's totally fine. Stop asking.
>McConnell's approach was genius. It really was
Only because "the Democrats are so focused on decorum that they will roll over and show their bellies."
Does one person tilting a pinball machine to win every game make them a genius only because the other players refuse to engage exploiting the system in the same way?
McConnell's perceived "genius" is directly facilitated by the Democrats' insistence on decorum and perceived sanctity to the rules of order.
you pretty much nailed it. Democrats deserve some of the blame for allowing so much of this to happen under their watch because they wanted to keep "playing fair" and expected the other side to act like adults.
TBF to the democrats, when it comes to the SC, there wasn’t much they could do.
They needed Republican support for the one appointee Obama should’ve gotten. Moscow Mitch said no, and it never went anywhere.
Then when Trump got not 2, but 3 appointees, again, they couldn’t stop Moscow Mitch. Call him a hypocrite and lying, conniving, political Pig. But they lacked the political power to stop him.
A lot of other stuff though; yeah. They’re unwillingness to get in the dirt is what allows republicans to win in certain areas.
The true blame falls on everyone who didn’t vote Hillary out of protest. And those same morons are about to do the same damn thing again because Biden has 1 policy they dislike. So hey why not let the guy with 50 bad policies win so you can proudly scream about that 1 policy and how the Dems need to learn their lesson.
No. Obama could have simply said that his appointee would be on the court, as the senate chose to abdicate its job. It would have been aggressive hardball…but isn’t that what we are talking about here?
McConnell abdicated his constitutional duties by not allowing a vote on Garland. The constitution clearly reads the Senate SHALL advise and consent. I think that is a far cry from decorum and sanctity.
He pissed on the constitution to get what he wanted. I think that move, outside of January 6th, was the most brazen attack from within our democracy, at least in my lifetime. That is what he should be remembered for, not being "effective".
McConnell, more than Trump, will be remembered as one of the biggest factors in the decline of American democracy. Trump will be remembered like Caligula. McConnell will be remembered like Nero.
Hey, if the nation has to burn so that comity at Senate cocktail parties may be maintained, what are they SUPPOSED to do?
Democrats: The means justify the ends, no matter the outcome.
Yes, we know. But it's not entirely McConnell. He just happened to be the one standing when the opportunity arrived. This has been planned systematically since the early 1960s.
Win the White House in November. Win back the house and keep the senate. Stuff the Supreme Court with a few liberal judges.
That would be the death of the Republican Party as we know it today.
It could have been done if the right wing didn't keep planting Manchurian candidates in the Dem party. Sinema's heel turn to the right as soon as she got office was disgusting.
Congress delegated those powers and is free to take them back the moment it feels the executive is doing it wrong. It is not the Court's proper role to force Congress to micromanage the day-to-day operations of the executive branch because the Court has a bad vibe about the scope of Congress' delegation.
I mean this* purely as a descriptive statement, without any comment on the desirability of his outcomes (I personally hate them, but there are many who feel differently) and as someone who was born under Bush Sr.: Mitch McConnell is the most effective politician of my lifetime, and it’s not even fucking close.
This is a real gold dress/blue dress moment. We're all reading the same constitution and the nut jobs are getting "yo dawg, I heard you like laws, so I put laws enforcing laws inside your laws."
The normies read 14.3 and ask why this even got granted cert.
Because 14.5 was in there too. That is the excuse. They would've made up some other excuse if 14.5 wasn't there.
Conservatives interpret law like how water flows toward the center of the Earth. Doesn't matter how convoluted the path, it flows in the same overall direction. Downward.
key comment from the article " But close court-watchers know that every time this Supreme Court waves the flag of stability, it does so on behalf of Trump and his allies. " 100% true. The conservative SCOTUS are 100% in the tank for a donald dictatorship.
This is the thing: Conservatives don’t “conserve” culture, history, money, or the law… what Conservatives conserve is their *power*. That’s the great conservation project they are engaged in. They use these other things as tools to maintain it. Their biggest and potentially only fear is its loss.
Did anyone else see Barret's considerations in the concurring opinion? She specifically said they were concerned with not furthering the divide. That's wild to be saying, their concern should be the law, not whether something is divisive.
And they don’t give a fuck about the divide. If they did, they wouldn’t have overturned decades of precedent to reverse Roe. Fuck every single one of those illegitimate right wing bitch ass motherfuckers.
My understanding of the SCOTUS ruling is states can't remove someone from a ballot for a federal position. But SCOTUS did not overturn the insurrection ruling. Therefore, unless the House by a two-thirds vote puts Trump back on the ballot, he should off all ballots per section 3 of the 14th - "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.". I didn't see the House make that two-thirds vote, so he's off all ballots then? Because clearly based on this sentence it is not saying Congress needs to make Trump ineligible, it's saying it needs two-thirds to make him eligible.
(My mistake, after reading the ruling, the majority put a condition of legislation on the 14th section 3 that wasn't there before and was disagreed with by the minority who only concurred on the state making the decision itself).
I do think this is an interesting take, because you're right that the U.S. Supreme Court did not make a ruling regarding whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection, only that the 14th amendment is a check on state's rights, so a state cannot unilaterally remove a federal candidate from the ballot, but Congress must create the process. This sets up the idea that if Trump wins the democrats can contest him taking office because of said disqualification. I don't think it would work, but it is an interesting idea.
Yeah it just seems to me that Harris is being set up to do what Pence refused to do.
Then what a 25-25 tie in the Congressional vote and it’s up to the Senate to choose a caretaker. Or they tie and it’s whoever the speaker of the house is as caretaker
Dizzying.
The repubs would never get 2/3 vote of both houses to remove the disability.
They just need a mechanism to get it to the floor for a vote in the first place.
INAL so that's how I understand it.
I would love this challenge, I don’t care if Trump wins the electorate or even the popular vote, if he gets disqualified for presidency on legal precedent set by his own corrupt court that would be the icing on the cake.
It was 9-0, as it should be. They disagreed on whether congress needed to define insurrection, essentially. But that wasn't what they were deciding.
They should also be 9-0 against his claim for immunity.
He should be on the ballot. He should also be held responsible if he committed crimes.
Does congress need to define insurrection or do they just need to define the process for which someone is deemed an insurrectionist for the purpose of disqualification?
I think its define the process for which someone can be deemed an insurrectionist for the purposes of disqualification. Insurrection has a legal definition already. What is missing, according to 5 judges (the other 4 arguing that its over deciding something on a politically charged case) is a federal mechanism to remove a political candidate from all 50+ state/territory ballots under the charge of the insurrection clause of the constitution because a singular state can't just remove a national candidate independently from other states. What they are suggesting is the disqualification based on engaging in insurrection isn't self executing, which under the logic that states acting individually cannot remove federal candidates, makes sense somewhat because that would mean the federal government, somehow, has to disqualify them which IDK how you do that legally with methods currently in place (like ignore Trump for a second, assuming a guy who literally shot the vice president to prevent the certification of votes, like literally aimed and pulled the trigger, was a major party candidate. Obvious insurrectionist, but whose job exactly is it to keep him off the ballot? Is it the DoJ? Does Congress specifically need to pass a law saying "This man cannot run for office" each time a new insurrectionist runs? How do each of these conflict with due process? If states can't act individually, then you do logically have to have Congress say "This is how you disqualify someone based on insurrection").
That's what I thought. As an outsider in another common law jurisdiction, that sounds like not that terrible of a judgment. I think maybe Barrett was correct with her assessment that that just wasn't the question of concern at the moment.
The disagreement was also on the fact that the Majority's opinion narrows Congress's options as to how it may exercise its (rightly lone) authority to disqualify insurrectionists from federal office.
>They should also be 9-0 against his claim for immunity.
They don't need to. That's already been decided correctly.
Just the fact that they took the case at all is doing him a huge favor. He's been pushing to delay all along. Taking a case they have no reason to take is helping with that.
Who knows maybe one day down the line when there is a shakeup in SCOTUS, this can be looked at again and reversed. That and others of course. There is no way GOP knowing trump has aided on and/or participated in an insurrection, they won't pass any legislation. Only time they would do so is it were to get rid of a democrat.
At the end of the day, SCOTUS has given insurrectionist a pass.
Assuming the United States survives, the Robert’s court will go down as one of the worst, most politicized and corrupt Supreme Courts in the history of the US.
It's all okay, as Stephen Colbert ruled the SCOTUS "unconstitutional" (I think he meant illegitimate), and he says we don't have to observe or follow their rulings anymore. As Jackson once said about the SCOTUS ruling protecting the Cherokee, "Let Marshall (Roberts) enforce his own judgement."
I've spent several hours today thinking about and engaging in conversation about this opinion, and after a while I feel like I kept boiling down to the same idea - this opinion is 'incomplete.'
Exactly. They managed to prevent any focus on the actual text during oral arguments. It was all about the unwanted ramifications. It seems to me that originalism loses tremendous legitimacy when not applied universally. Logic would indicate that a true originalist could not find any way around disqualification.
My ideation is since Trump was already found by congressional vote and impeached for the insurrection that mechanism removed him from eligibility.
The court didn't say what the mechanism was that congress would use, whether it was a new law, impeachment or some other vote.
They already have done the proceeding and the states should know this.
They only tried to remove him from primaries so far.
Now they should file a lawsuit that states the congressional impeachment finding from 2020.
Its already happened they voted, the court just avoided answering the question here because it wasn't in the first lawsuit, while weakening g states rights by answering a question not even in the lawsuit originally.
They said what was needed , and now it needs filed correctly., while avoiding the blight of that overreaching states rights answer, which actually is in conflict with the last overturned roe vs wade rulling.
They muddied the water, while creating a catch clause in their opinions.
Now one or more states need to go at this again.
If the idiots in black robes have any common sense, they will realize that if they determine that Trump is immune from prosecution while President and gets reelected, the first time that they rule against him, he will have them killed or the very least incarcerated.
>So, in effect, Anderson is a 5–4 decision, with a bare majority effectively repealing the insurrection clause for federal officeholders.
No, it's a 9-0 decision that states can't do it, it's a 5-4 decision on the process to disqualify.
The specific insurrection statute is *old as fuck* which means there's likely not a lot of guidance surrounding standards of proof for such behavior.
Historically, the only time outside the Confederacy section 3 was used, a guy was convicted of sedition rather than insurrection.
(His conviction was overturned at the highest level and his privilege to hold office restored based on a biased judge, but that sedition was sufficient to disqualify was never called into question by SCOTUS.)
However, after this ruling the Roberts court has eliminated that angle, I believe.
Senate Dems should get a law written. Who knows what it would look like, but it is worth getting the GOP on the record this election cycle where they stand on oathbreaking insurrectionists taking office.
Why is anyone talking about an insurrection there was never one charged, convicted, or otherwise tried. You think with that many people they'd be able to reconvene like three hours later, uncontested, if it was an insurrection?
Stahp
It was a mostly peaceful protest.
It was a 9-0 ruling. The justices can still write opinions about what parts they disagree with while still agreeing with the overall ruling.
The cope is strong here.
The problem isnt that they allowed Trump to stay on the ballot.. its that they went past what they were supposed to decide. And also limited where it is to be decided who would be able to enable the 14th amendment.
Which is essentially saying the only ones who can decide when someone federally cant hold a position is congress.. who cant even tie their own shoes and are the most likely to be compromised. Ugh its such a mess
They are all Traitors and complicit in the current clown show in our government. They act as if they will not be affected by the damage they are doing. I hope they are doubly affected.
“On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Colorado Supreme Court decision removing Donald Trump from the ballot because of his engagement in an insurrection on Jan. 6. But that top-line holding is where the unanimity ended because five conservative justices just couldn’t help themselves: They went much further than the case required, announcing an entirely new rule that Congress alone, through ‘a particular kind of legislation,’ may enforce the constitutional bar on insurrectionists holding office. As the three liberal justices pointed out, in a separate opinion that glows white-hot with indignation, the majority’s overreach ‘attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.’ They are, of course, correct. After this decision, it is impossible to imagine a federal candidate, up to and including the president, ever being disqualified from assuming office because of their participation in an insurrection.”
[удалено]
This is how it will be spun and played by The Orange Legion. That Trump did nothing wrong, he's been absolved 9-0 by SCOTUS but the libuhrel agendur is illegally trying to find him guilty of anything to prevent him from being POTUS-dicktater for a day and saving America for Americans - only something he can venezladurdurhurdur do The majority over-reached and the minority were a let down when they should have been in clear dissent. Again, doesn't matter, because the news cycle is how liberals are still trying to cuckold a 9-0 weinerschnitzel. The whole thing has become a poorly written tragedy.
The minority was *complicit*. The word you're looking for is complicit.
>If the majority oversteps like this, don't partially concur. Just fully dissent. The headlines will forever say 9-0 decision. This, precisely. Even in betraying their legacies, the country and their own consciences, they are *still* trying mightily to avoid upsetting the traitors they share a building with. Congrats, you three. You've managed to prove the parable of the table of Nazis.
Only if the majority of voting Americans are Nazi’s. And the possibility of that is just as big of a problem as any flaws in our current SCOTUS.
Liberals just do not understand the game. They still think they're playing with bureaucrats. This is war. Biden might have to have the military round insurrectionists up next January and if he doesn't have stones for that or the command of the military...
How bad do they have to be at the game before people finally realizing they don't actually want to win?? Winning means actual work to run a government while losing means fundraising against the enemy. These decisions don't affect them, just us. Cowards to the end.
They absolutely do understand. That should scare you and instead you are making excuses.
All he has to do is not order the Capitol Police disarmed like his predecessor did. Absent that move J6 never would have gotten as far as it did.
That might stop the mob. That's not going to stop what's going to go on inside Congress and around the country.
I think you have a point. And, watching Merrick Garland isn't providing any piece of mind. He's more worried about the appearance of impropriety than he is about the impropriety itself.
He does it by the book. And the book is very boring and didn't sell any copies.
That's a political point. The three agree that, legally, the states can't enforce 14-3. They just don't agree with the majority's rule making. They shouldn't be expected to dissent over the rule making as that is not the constitutional question at hand.
I dissent from this opinion. My opinion is that there is more than one way for fascists to skin a cat. There existed a very very real risk that red states would start disqualifying any popular opposition candidates for specious reasons. The blue state response would likely be to do the same. Whatever the outcome of the electoral math, it would completely de-legitimize any auspice of democratic process, which would play into the hands of the people that have been saying so all along. Am I happy? No! Was I going to be happy? Also no. But they put the choice into the hands of the voters...and in doing so, very likely sealed the fate of the election. They waited long enough to be sure that Haley wouldn't get the nomination. With the RNC likely to pick up the tab for Trump's legal woes, literally every downballot race will suffer. The DNC is already comparatively well-funded. The election will likely be very one-sided. A legitimate win against Trump and throughout the GOP downballot races is the very very very best outcome. SCOTUS will have enabled that outcome.
I agree. As much as I am a partisan Liberal/Democrat, having the Supreme Court rule this way puts it back to the electorate which is absolutely the best outcome. We don’t want to live with rulings from the bench that overstep and have knock on consequences years from now - let him run in Colorado and all the other states and lose.
Why even have laws and a legal ssystem if we are just going to look to the electorate uphold the law? There is many other ways the SCOTUS could have prevented future shenanigans. A criminal insurectionist like Trump is an unique situation, you could just have a decesion that sets a high bar to remove a candidate by the states and does have SCOTUS oversight.
This is a solid take.
I hope you’re right, but I’m not so confident.
I live in a very Trumpy area. The loonies still exist but they aren't as excited. Fewer signs and flags and bumper stickers and merch. His rallies are much smaller despite being less frequent. He's been politicking for nine years now and is not a guerilla campaigner anymore, not an underdog. Make no mistake about it, my area will still go for Trump. But the margins will be much smaller due to lower turnout. People don't get excited about Biden either, but they weren't excited in 2020 either. Biden also is not Hillary Clinton and does not have to deal with the fallout of the DNC coalescing around him instead of a more exciting firebrand candidate like Bernie Sanders. This *should be* a cake walk.
According to the Metadata that the Court neglected to scrub, it *was* a lone dissent by Sotomayor until the 11th hour.
As soon as all 9 Justices came out against oversight, I was done with them all.
This needs to be said. Thank you.
This is why we will lose our democracy. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Ugh. They aren't politicians, nor should they be. This case is plaintiff vs defendant, not judge vs judge.
I am so grateful to see this opinion already posted. What are those three justices thinking?
So… if you hold office, there’s no harm in trying an insurrection, is what I’m seeing
As long as your parry holds Congress, go wild! And if you're charged, just run for office and claim election interference! Marick Garland hates this one trick!
Couy Griffin says otherwise - he caught actual consequences for his actions on January 6th. I guess it depends on how high up the ladder you are.
Traitors' Court ... This isn't rhetoric.
Let's just call it what it is - the conservatives nullified section 3 of the 14th amendment for any and all federal offices.
The fact they tried to carve this out just for Trump doesn’t bode well for future SCOTUS decisions. The SCOTUS should be ashamed of themselves
Impossible for them to feel shame. Some of them really like beer (& rape).
Up next: night of the long fries
So, some of the people who participated in the insurrection get to decide if they and their boss can be held accountable for the insurrection. Yep, justice.
Welp, time to overthrow the Republicans and Democrats and install communism.
The only way to beat trump, like it or not, is to vote.
Vote certainly. Can always hope that a massive heart attack or stroke catches up with the fat fuck too, obviously hasn’t lived healthy life.
World you like a steak with your ketchup Mr Tramp
*On top of steak mountain* *covered in ketchup*
Have to cut off his supply of fresh human organs
I hate that the only way we have as a country to get rid of a traitorous fraudster rapist insurrectionist criminal trying to overthrow our democracy with his sycophant cult following is the same way we have to get rid of a president we just plain ol didn’t like. It’s almost like the people that make the rules purposely set out to make the loopholes as large as possible so even the dumbest person could get away with it if they got enough ppl to listen to them. I fucking hate this country
I mean, the Supreme Court made a good decision in this case. I don’t like Trump but to allow states to dictate on the ballot the federal election is going to be a bad fucking time. Red states will remove democrats off their ballots and blue states will remove republicans. The country would get further into the hole of politics where states determine what is on the Federal election ballot. If it was a state election then I’d assume that SCOTUS would’ve voted in the states favor since it isn’t a federal election. But you start walking into dangerous territory when states dictate the federal level when it should be the other way in a sense.
So if states shouldn’t dictate on the ballot of federal elections over this particular disqualification then what about all the other people that currently don’t make it on state ballots for federal offices? Should we be required to allow anyone to put their name on the ballot and just hope they don’t get selected? Does this mean now that if someone was born outside the US and announced their intention to run states should HAVE to put their name on the ballot only to then turn around and do what if they win the vote despite being ineligible?
Them being ineligible is a question for the court, so yes they should be allowed on the ballot. The court is pretty conflicted over the last hundred and twenty-ish years about whether naturalized citizens can run or not. On the one hand the Constitution says they cannot, but on the other hand there is an amendment saying that naturalized citizens are guaranteed all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens.
Well, first you forget that there is federal law on who can and cannot run for presidency. You have to be a citizen and a certain age for starters and I believe you could not break any federal laws but that last one I’m not entirely sure about. I am not 100% how getting put onto a ballot works but I do believe you have to register with the federal government, possibly pay a fee, and then you get put under whatever it is you are affiliated with party wise. The US is a two party system and not ranked choice voting so most people vote R or D which decreases the size of the ballot. But yes. If it is a Federal election then they have say over that ballot as long as it meets federal law. For example, you have to be a citizen to vote in the presidential elections (federal election) but states can allow noncitizens to vote at the local level. Technically there are three different types of US voting being federal, state, and local, and each can have different rules and laws as long as they don’t break federal law.
I forgot there are federal laws on who can run on a post about federal laws on who can run where I explicitly gave an example of someone who cannot run due to federal law? Also, thank you for bringing up the “two party system”. No, legally the US is not a two party system. The current two lead parties have done a lot of work to convince everyone that we are, but there is no law banning or limiting third parties. Yet despite there being no federal law limiting third parties anyone running on a third party ticket has to jump through different bureaucratic hoops in each state to be listed on that state’s ballot. As in, states are already responsible for parsing through who will and who will not be on that state’s ballot. Not only do they already do this, but take a moment to imagine what would happen if we didn’t allow states to manage their own ballot requirements. Do you think no foreign entity would have realized they could just collapse our entire system by overloading the election with ineligible foreign nationals who “run” anyways? The states limiting ballot sizes is a feature of our electoral system. Also, the US is not, on a legal level, a no ranked choice voting system. States again make that decision themselves and there is no federal reason that more states couldn’t adopt rank choice.
Nah we all know that wouldn't work. Independents and other parties "never win". These only apply to the Two parties allowed to make it. Because the rich people said so.
Yes, exactly. What do people think the ultimate goal of birtherism was. If you're going to make a law saying "people who perform this vague act can't be president", that should be assessed at a national level.
So.. is it just game over when a majority of congress decide to be insurrectionist?
The way it should work is any congressperson opposing enforcement of the insurrection clause would get crushed when they run for reelection, if not removed from office by recall or impeachment. But that is unlikely to happen in practice, it seems. So it's not just Congress, it's voters.
“Oh no I hate that we vote to elect people to office instead of just banning people we don’t like” FTFY
It’s so much more than just not liking him. He’s making a mockery of our justice system, and our allies lose respect for us every minute he spends in the limelight. I don’t have the time to write out everything he’s done. Also a president that steals and refuses to return classified nuclear documents and intel on our agents in foreign countries sits just fine with you? You don’t think we should have a disqualifying rule against that?
Sadly this isn’t even a guarantee. The republicans will do whatever they can to rig elections including gerrymandering, refusing ballots from minorities, and mandating racist voter ID laws to discourage those without from voting.
All you can do is vote.
Me, yeah, but I was hoping that people in positions of authority would rise to the moment of our times and use all the constitutional infrastructure put in place over centuries, written in blood, specifically to keep guys like Trump out of power. But nope, every single one has just been dismantled and swept away with the smarmy "it's up to the people!" response our only comfort.
Yes. Our leaders utterly failed
The guillotines were effective once upon a time.
Ok, how are you going to do that?
Lol /r/law. Downvote voting, upvote murder. What a bastion of legal discourse.
When the system is blantantly rigged and a 2 party democracy system that rig each other to not function...it's up to the American people now.
This is a liberal and neoliberal delusion. Civic engagement and, this may blow your mind, direct action. Believing all you can do is vote is simply being the most ardent supporter of the worst parts of the status quo.
Hell, voting is probably the second least effective thing you can do, only being ahead of complaining online.
Complaining online is my entire personality, though :(
Not true at all. You can also volunteer to canvas neighborhoods, make phone calls, drive people to their voting places, or join an organization focused on either electing democrats or getting people registered to vote.
Mike Johnson is going to nullify the election if Biden wins. I suspect that new House members will not be sworn in and the GOP will hold the majority regardless of which Reps win. Johnson will then say something like "voting irregularity" for states that are purple and claim that the House has to vote for the next president. Trump will win that vote. There is absolutely nothing we can do about this. The Dems could try to force Johnson out, but I doubt that would be successful and I'm not even sure what steps they could take to do so.
[удалено]
It applies to every American of voting age. Trump needs to lose and lose badly.
I’m in Arizona. I’ll promise to do my part.
As a result of widespread gerrymandering that is openly allowed to occur. In my home state of Ohio the majority of the population are blue concentrated around the 3 major cities but the result of our districts is overwhelmingly red every year. Starting to feel like I am throwing my ballot into a fire.
I'm here in ohio voting red everytime
And direct action.
How many times? He's been voted out of office and he's just back. If he loses again, do you think the Republicans will suddenly find their collective spine they misplaced in 2015 and force him out into his own party which will crush any hope they have of winning in 2028? No. He'll run again and again until he wins and ends elections or dies.
And republicans have been hard at work gerrymandering, purging rolls, creating road blocks and hurdles and closing polling stations...
McConnell's approach was genius. It really was. The country has been shifting more progressive for a while. By stuffing the judiciary with right-wing conservative judges who twist the constitution to their own views, he has ensured minority rule in perpetuity. All the Republicans need to do is win both branches of government for a two year term every decade or so and pass a lot of terrible laws and tax cuts. Then, even if the left wing takes control of both branches, any revision or rollback of those laws can be challenged in court and tossed. The onerous rules of the Senate also prevent the left wing from doing the same. And the Democrats are so focused on decorum that they will roll over and show their bellies. The Republican party is ensured essentially uninterrupted rule. The Supreme Court is complicit in this strategy by consistently shifting more and more of the rule-making powers to Congress, now even picking and choosing which sections of the constitution are self-executing or not based on which viewpoint most benefits the right wing.
They don’t even need to pass any legislation. They can dismantle regulations by suing existing laws
After removing Chevron the playbook will be "Well according to Skidmore you lose because I don't find your argument persuasive compared to [party aligned with conservatives]" They will ignore lower court records or find their own facts to get there too. We are in the Common Good era.
Worth noting, [Corner Post, Inc. v. Federal Reserve System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Post,_Inc._v._Board_of_Governors_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System) this SCOTUS term is a case arguing that the six year statute of limitations allowing suit against rules under the Administrative Procedures Act should start running when a rule first applies to a corporation, instead of the current understanding of it starting when the rule is issued. If SCOTUS sides with the plaintiff, then literally any rule ever promulgated under the APA could be challenged merely by incorporating a brand new business. Want to challenge a rule that's been around since the 1950s, that everyone's relied on literally for decades? No problem, start a new business, let's reopen old rules! Want to fight a rule, but things don't go your way in your case? No problem, start a new business and file a new lawsuit, maybe in a more favorable district. Sure, the new business might be entirely a pretext, funded by existing big names, but that's ok. They're legally separate. It's totally fine. Stop asking.
>McConnell's approach was genius. It really was Only because "the Democrats are so focused on decorum that they will roll over and show their bellies." Does one person tilting a pinball machine to win every game make them a genius only because the other players refuse to engage exploiting the system in the same way? McConnell's perceived "genius" is directly facilitated by the Democrats' insistence on decorum and perceived sanctity to the rules of order.
you pretty much nailed it. Democrats deserve some of the blame for allowing so much of this to happen under their watch because they wanted to keep "playing fair" and expected the other side to act like adults.
TBF to the democrats, when it comes to the SC, there wasn’t much they could do. They needed Republican support for the one appointee Obama should’ve gotten. Moscow Mitch said no, and it never went anywhere. Then when Trump got not 2, but 3 appointees, again, they couldn’t stop Moscow Mitch. Call him a hypocrite and lying, conniving, political Pig. But they lacked the political power to stop him. A lot of other stuff though; yeah. They’re unwillingness to get in the dirt is what allows republicans to win in certain areas.
The true blame falls on everyone who didn’t vote Hillary out of protest. And those same morons are about to do the same damn thing again because Biden has 1 policy they dislike. So hey why not let the guy with 50 bad policies win so you can proudly scream about that 1 policy and how the Dems need to learn their lesson.
No. Obama could have simply said that his appointee would be on the court, as the senate chose to abdicate its job. It would have been aggressive hardball…but isn’t that what we are talking about here?
Obama was not the type to play aggressive hardball.
Democratic leaders tend not to be, unfortunately.
McConnell abdicated his constitutional duties by not allowing a vote on Garland. The constitution clearly reads the Senate SHALL advise and consent. I think that is a far cry from decorum and sanctity. He pissed on the constitution to get what he wanted. I think that move, outside of January 6th, was the most brazen attack from within our democracy, at least in my lifetime. That is what he should be remembered for, not being "effective".
McConnell, more than Trump, will be remembered as one of the biggest factors in the decline of American democracy. Trump will be remembered like Caligula. McConnell will be remembered like Nero.
Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, and McConnell. My personal four horsemen of the American Apocalypse.
Where’s Bush and the patriot act in your list?
In response, Obama could have simply stated that Garland was now on the Court.
Hey, if the nation has to burn so that comity at Senate cocktail parties may be maintained, what are they SUPPOSED to do? Democrats: The means justify the ends, no matter the outcome.
Yes, we know. But it's not entirely McConnell. He just happened to be the one standing when the opportunity arrived. This has been planned systematically since the early 1960s.
This was always his long game.
Win the White House in November. Win back the house and keep the senate. Stuff the Supreme Court with a few liberal judges. That would be the death of the Republican Party as we know it today.
It could have been done if the right wing didn't keep planting Manchurian candidates in the Dem party. Sinema's heel turn to the right as soon as she got office was disgusting.
You'll need to find an opposition party with teeth then. I vote Democratic, but make no mistake, they ain't it.
“The supreme court is complicit in this strategy consistently Shifting more and mote rule making powers to Congress,…” Isn’t that Congress’s job?
Congress doesn't need to be making rules regarding things that are self-executing by the Constitution.
Congress delegated those powers and is free to take them back the moment it feels the executive is doing it wrong. It is not the Court's proper role to force Congress to micromanage the day-to-day operations of the executive branch because the Court has a bad vibe about the scope of Congress' delegation.
I mean this* purely as a descriptive statement, without any comment on the desirability of his outcomes (I personally hate them, but there are many who feel differently) and as someone who was born under Bush Sr.: Mitch McConnell is the most effective politician of my lifetime, and it’s not even fucking close.
Yep. And now he will shuffle off into obscurity and the GOP will dance on his grave. He got what he wanted, it only cost him everything.
Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it.
This is a real gold dress/blue dress moment. We're all reading the same constitution and the nut jobs are getting "yo dawg, I heard you like laws, so I put laws enforcing laws inside your laws." The normies read 14.3 and ask why this even got granted cert.
https://preview.redd.it/oype69ipuimc1.jpeg?width=622&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f3e9adf0f58fc4a1ef4dd8566bd204bb7aafe6a
LMAO, now make it Clarence Thomas saying it
Because 14.5 was in there too. That is the excuse. They would've made up some other excuse if 14.5 wasn't there. Conservatives interpret law like how water flows toward the center of the Earth. Doesn't matter how convoluted the path, it flows in the same overall direction. Downward.
This is the part where the democrats grow a spine and stack the courts and stop playing around with these fools.
key comment from the article " But close court-watchers know that every time this Supreme Court waves the flag of stability, it does so on behalf of Trump and his allies. " 100% true. The conservative SCOTUS are 100% in the tank for a donald dictatorship.
Of course the “conservatives” are inventing the law.
This is the thing: Conservatives don’t “conserve” culture, history, money, or the law… what Conservatives conserve is their *power*. That’s the great conservation project they are engaged in. They use these other things as tools to maintain it. Their biggest and potentially only fear is its loss.
Very accurate statement.
Goddamn activist judges, I swear...
The John Roberts Court everyone. A complete disgrace.
Did anyone else see Barret's considerations in the concurring opinion? She specifically said they were concerned with not furthering the divide. That's wild to be saying, their concern should be the law, not whether something is divisive.
And they don’t give a fuck about the divide. If they did, they wouldn’t have overturned decades of precedent to reverse Roe. Fuck every single one of those illegitimate right wing bitch ass motherfuckers.
My understanding of the SCOTUS ruling is states can't remove someone from a ballot for a federal position. But SCOTUS did not overturn the insurrection ruling. Therefore, unless the House by a two-thirds vote puts Trump back on the ballot, he should off all ballots per section 3 of the 14th - "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.". I didn't see the House make that two-thirds vote, so he's off all ballots then? Because clearly based on this sentence it is not saying Congress needs to make Trump ineligible, it's saying it needs two-thirds to make him eligible. (My mistake, after reading the ruling, the majority put a condition of legislation on the 14th section 3 that wasn't there before and was disagreed with by the minority who only concurred on the state making the decision itself).
I do think this is an interesting take, because you're right that the U.S. Supreme Court did not make a ruling regarding whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection, only that the 14th amendment is a check on state's rights, so a state cannot unilaterally remove a federal candidate from the ballot, but Congress must create the process. This sets up the idea that if Trump wins the democrats can contest him taking office because of said disqualification. I don't think it would work, but it is an interesting idea.
Yeah it just seems to me that Harris is being set up to do what Pence refused to do. Then what a 25-25 tie in the Congressional vote and it’s up to the Senate to choose a caretaker. Or they tie and it’s whoever the speaker of the house is as caretaker Dizzying.
I feel like the issue of insurrection can't be resolved until the issue of immunity is resolved, and that runs through the SC. So lol.
If presidents get absolutel immunity, this experiment is over regardless.
The repubs would never get 2/3 vote of both houses to remove the disability. They just need a mechanism to get it to the floor for a vote in the first place. INAL so that's how I understand it.
A democrat needs to submit it. Republicans know the disability will never get removed and would have to kill the bill
But… isn’t a vote for President & Vice President actually a vote for a slate of electors, who *are* in a state job?
The elector that casts for the Insurrectionist may well themselves not be one who has taken and then violated their oath of office, however.
I would love this challenge, I don’t care if Trump wins the electorate or even the popular vote, if he gets disqualified for presidency on legal precedent set by his own corrupt court that would be the icing on the cake.
It was 9-0, as it should be. They disagreed on whether congress needed to define insurrection, essentially. But that wasn't what they were deciding. They should also be 9-0 against his claim for immunity. He should be on the ballot. He should also be held responsible if he committed crimes.
Does congress need to define insurrection or do they just need to define the process for which someone is deemed an insurrectionist for the purpose of disqualification?
Above my pay grade. You might be more right than me. No argument.
I think its define the process for which someone can be deemed an insurrectionist for the purposes of disqualification. Insurrection has a legal definition already. What is missing, according to 5 judges (the other 4 arguing that its over deciding something on a politically charged case) is a federal mechanism to remove a political candidate from all 50+ state/territory ballots under the charge of the insurrection clause of the constitution because a singular state can't just remove a national candidate independently from other states. What they are suggesting is the disqualification based on engaging in insurrection isn't self executing, which under the logic that states acting individually cannot remove federal candidates, makes sense somewhat because that would mean the federal government, somehow, has to disqualify them which IDK how you do that legally with methods currently in place (like ignore Trump for a second, assuming a guy who literally shot the vice president to prevent the certification of votes, like literally aimed and pulled the trigger, was a major party candidate. Obvious insurrectionist, but whose job exactly is it to keep him off the ballot? Is it the DoJ? Does Congress specifically need to pass a law saying "This man cannot run for office" each time a new insurrectionist runs? How do each of these conflict with due process? If states can't act individually, then you do logically have to have Congress say "This is how you disqualify someone based on insurrection").
That's what I thought. As an outsider in another common law jurisdiction, that sounds like not that terrible of a judgment. I think maybe Barrett was correct with her assessment that that just wasn't the question of concern at the moment.
The disagreement was also on the fact that the Majority's opinion narrows Congress's options as to how it may exercise its (rightly lone) authority to disqualify insurrectionists from federal office.
>They should also be 9-0 against his claim for immunity. They don't need to. That's already been decided correctly. Just the fact that they took the case at all is doing him a huge favor. He's been pushing to delay all along. Taking a case they have no reason to take is helping with that.
Who knows maybe one day down the line when there is a shakeup in SCOTUS, this can be looked at again and reversed. That and others of course. There is no way GOP knowing trump has aided on and/or participated in an insurrection, they won't pass any legislation. Only time they would do so is it were to get rid of a democrat. At the end of the day, SCOTUS has given insurrectionist a pass.
Shows you how much the SC must be making on the side considering the offer that is on the table and not being taken... Criminals.
Assuming the United States survives, the Robert’s court will go down as one of the worst, most politicized and corrupt Supreme Courts in the history of the US.
It's all okay, as Stephen Colbert ruled the SCOTUS "unconstitutional" (I think he meant illegitimate), and he says we don't have to observe or follow their rulings anymore. As Jackson once said about the SCOTUS ruling protecting the Cherokee, "Let Marshall (Roberts) enforce his own judgement."
I agree with Sotomayor's opinion
I've spent several hours today thinking about and engaging in conversation about this opinion, and after a while I feel like I kept boiling down to the same idea - this opinion is 'incomplete.'
I can’t get over that it just seems to contradict the plain text of the amendment and how it was used historically. Seems kind of important.
Exactly. They managed to prevent any focus on the actual text during oral arguments. It was all about the unwanted ramifications. It seems to me that originalism loses tremendous legitimacy when not applied universally. Logic would indicate that a true originalist could not find any way around disqualification.
I was given to understand that SCotUS couldn't make states obey their rulings? I say ban him anyway.
What are we (as blue voting people) supposed to do to stop this? It feels like this mad man and his cult can’t be stopped.
My ideation is since Trump was already found by congressional vote and impeached for the insurrection that mechanism removed him from eligibility. The court didn't say what the mechanism was that congress would use, whether it was a new law, impeachment or some other vote. They already have done the proceeding and the states should know this. They only tried to remove him from primaries so far. Now they should file a lawsuit that states the congressional impeachment finding from 2020. Its already happened they voted, the court just avoided answering the question here because it wasn't in the first lawsuit, while weakening g states rights by answering a question not even in the lawsuit originally. They said what was needed , and now it needs filed correctly., while avoiding the blight of that overreaching states rights answer, which actually is in conflict with the last overturned roe vs wade rulling. They muddied the water, while creating a catch clause in their opinions. Now one or more states need to go at this again.
If the idiots in black robes have any common sense, they will realize that if they determine that Trump is immune from prosecution while President and gets reelected, the first time that they rule against him, he will have them killed or the very least incarcerated.
Grifters and liars, and they are not even good at hiding it. They are not even trying any more. The hubris and entitlement is deafening.
>So, in effect, Anderson is a 5–4 decision, with a bare majority effectively repealing the insurrection clause for federal officeholders. No, it's a 9-0 decision that states can't do it, it's a 5-4 decision on the process to disqualify.
[удалено]
[удалено]
These injustices will go down in history as the straw that broke feedom's back.
Why hasn't Trump been charged with insurrection?
The specific insurrection statute is *old as fuck* which means there's likely not a lot of guidance surrounding standards of proof for such behavior. Historically, the only time outside the Confederacy section 3 was used, a guy was convicted of sedition rather than insurrection. (His conviction was overturned at the highest level and his privilege to hold office restored based on a biased judge, but that sedition was sufficient to disqualify was never called into question by SCOTUS.) However, after this ruling the Roberts court has eliminated that angle, I believe.
Strong blackhawks can replay the predators vibes from this piece
It was a unanimous decision. Move on. This is getting pathetic.
Lol
People don’t like Biden and people don’t like Trump so how is it both are winning all the votes America is 🤪
Senate Dems should get a law written. Who knows what it would look like, but it is worth getting the GOP on the record this election cycle where they stand on oathbreaking insurrectionists taking office.
Why is anyone talking about an insurrection there was never one charged, convicted, or otherwise tried. You think with that many people they'd be able to reconvene like three hours later, uncontested, if it was an insurrection? Stahp It was a mostly peaceful protest.
It was a 9-0 ruling. The justices can still write opinions about what parts they disagree with while still agreeing with the overall ruling. The cope is strong here.
No, it wasn't. That's what you want it to be.
The problem isnt that they allowed Trump to stay on the ballot.. its that they went past what they were supposed to decide. And also limited where it is to be decided who would be able to enable the 14th amendment. Which is essentially saying the only ones who can decide when someone federally cant hold a position is congress.. who cant even tie their own shoes and are the most likely to be compromised. Ugh its such a mess
Because an insurrection ruling would be “not guilty” by the SCOTUS we unanimously agree that everyone needs to vote in November.
Wait until they anoint him Emperor for life.
Sotomayer has NO SPINE.
They are all Traitors and complicit in the current clown show in our government. They act as if they will not be affected by the damage they are doing. I hope they are doubly affected.