The justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow Colorado to bar the former president from the state’s primary ballot. The justices offered different reasons, but the decision was unanimous.
I'm honestly flabbergasted by the people, including the justices, who make the argument that Colorado betting allowed to disqualify Trump would lead to a landslide of other states disqualifying other people for partisan reasons.
He was being disqualified for aiding an insurrection! If that would apply to any other candidate, then yes, disqualify them too! That's the fucking point!
I'm okay with them trying to explain how he did and then having to prove it in court when it's obviously challenged, sure. I'd be down for them making a fool of themselves.
And assuming a state court of competent jurisdiction ruled that he was engaged in an insurrection and therefore banned from the ballot, you’d be okay with that too, right? Even, say, if that court system was composed of ultra-conservative judges?
The argument is that only federal court can do that, not state court. Which means there souls be a federal case to do so. Why there is no such case? Or is there one?
The part that’s troublesome is the “giving comfort of aid to the enemy”. Florida was in the process of crafting such an argument to the Florida Supreme Court which, given their friendliness to the current governor, would have removed Biden from Florida. I’m sure Texas would have had something similar related to give aid and lax border policies (at least lax in their eyes).
Without a higher power specifically defining what rises to disqualification status, each State would get to set the bar and lots of States would have set that bar super low.
I mean hell, given Alabama’s Supreme Court recently used the Bible for justification in a ruling. Biden giving aid an comfort to the devil doesn’t seem far fetched for disqualification.
No. This is absolutely something we don’t want States to start getting creative about. If Trump violated Federal law, which we’ve got a Federal law the pretty much says Trump should be disqualified, then it’s the Federal Courts that need to rule that, which the Supreme Court indicated that yeah if Trump is guilty under 18 USC 2383, then he can’t be President.
States being allowed to interpret giving aid to the enemy is very dangerous door to open.
I mean ultimately, I just think it’s kind of weird for a state to decide somebody’s guilty while the investigation is ongoing, and I am 100% convinced he started the insurrection. But be hasn’t been convicted of it so like…what? My state can bar me from things because it claims I’m guilty of a federal crime I haven’t been convicted of?
The whole Colorado thing was flimsy and they knew it. I think he totally deserves it. I think Colorado is correct in that they should not allow an insurrectionist on their ballot and I would want Trump removed yesterday. But again, he has not been found guilty of insurrection. So it’s kind of moot.
I wouldn't say federal authority prevailed either, because they essentially neutered the entire clause by denying that it's self executing (like age or being a natural born citizen). That means even if someone is convicted of an insurectionist act, the federal courts can't touch it, only Congress can. It's a dumb decision.
I've lost all faith in the supreme court, it is totally corrupted by Trump. I used to look up to it as an institution that would protect us. Now it's a tool for Christofascist oppression. The 14th amendment must be upheld at the federal level if it can't be enforced at the state level.
Unanimous in that they all agreed it was a federal issue.
They differed in that the fascist judges then added a bunch of additional hoops that only Congress can do it, that aren't specified anywhere in the law.
No, the political party that installed them, that they belong to, is fascist. "Conservative" judges have embraced Trumpian anti-democracy. They are corrupt. Just look at Thomas accepting bribes and his wife coordinating insurrection.
Though the justices offered different reasons, the decision was unanimous.
[…]
[…] The provision was adopted after the Civil War to forbid those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
[…]
The case, Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, is not the only one concerning Mr. Trump on the Supreme Court’s docket. The justices said last week they would decide whether he was immune from prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, delaying trial proceedings in his criminal case as they consider the matter. And the justices already agreed to decide on the scope of a central charge in the federal election-interference case against Mr. Trump, with a ruling by June.
There you have it - a unanimous ruling, though the three liberal justices had a different logic than the six conservative ones.
The only way Americans will be rid of Trump is by voting for Biden in November.
yeah this ruling was a rare good one. The states can't enforce the federal constitution. Now it would be more interesting if the state itself had a constitutional section being used.
Unfortunately, it really wasn't. They unanimously agreed that the Colorado Supreme Court was overstepping its authority, in that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has to be executed at the federal level for federal officers. While I'm not particularly happy with this result, I understand their reasoning, and I think it's as fair a ruling as they could have made. Four of the justices wanted to stop here, however, but the more conservative justices did not -- which is what makes this ruling problematic. Basically the other 5 justices ignored the plain-text of the amendment to assert their preferred outcome, which was basically to invalidate Section 3 in its entirety. (They argued that congressional action was necessary to clarify how Section 3 works, which is, IMO, absurd -- especially given how they're quite willing to invoke the plain-text meaning of other sections of the Constitution when it conforms more to their liking.) With this judgement, they're basically saying that it doesn't matter if Trump committed insurrection or not, it will take an act of Congress to so define it and invalidate his ability to be President.
SCOTUS has crossed out Section Three with a Sharpie.
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrongly depended on "b-b-but it would be a patchwork!" Every state already has different rules - set by the state - to determine ballot qualification for Presidential candidates. Just because Colorado (and Maine and Illinois) have determined that Trump is not qualified to be on their state's ballots, does not oblige any other state to disqualify.
States are responsible for handling elections. This ruling very clearly ignores that constitutional provision. I would love nothing more for Colorado (or Maine or Illinois) to still keep Trump off of their ballot, saying "Make me."
It's one thing to say that this is a federal issue and must be handled by a federal court, but if states can't decide who is on their ballot in this instance, what authority allows them to do so ever? Different states have different rules with regards to which candidates and how they get on the ballot.
Federal elections should not be run by States if States are going to be limited seemingly at random on what they can and can't enforce. What happens if a 20 year old runs for president? Are states allowed to say no to that because it's in the Constitution, or would Congress need to clarify that as well?
Add comment