Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution.

It’s like you want another 9-0.

SCOTUS just said that legislation is required. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.

That's just dicta.

Where are you going to get the SCOTUS votes to allow the Congress’ action to stand, in this hypothetical scenario? It’s isn’t going to happen.

Are you kidding? You think that if Congress chooses not to swear in Trump because of the Fourteenth Amendment, that SCOTUS would overrule them?

Of course I do and I think 5 of the judges just made that clear.

No, the Supreme Court is not going to tell Congress that they have to swear in the other guy on January 21. Really?

No, I’m saying SCOTUS would not allow Congress to disqualify the winner by tossing out electoral votes after the fact. Whether they would take the case for the loser, doubt it. Standing would be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

Colorado acted appropriately to interpret the Constitutional provision, since there was no SCOTUS precedent for guidance. It was appealed to SCOTUS so they could interpret the provision and provide that guidance and they refused to do it.

The decision is Constitutionally stupid because there is no federal cause of action until Congress meets two months after the election. Any case before the election has to originate in a state because states run the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

That’s not in the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

Not at all, friend. Being on the ballot doesn't mean he is qualified. Cenk Uygur is on the ballot in some states and he is not native born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

Apparently, we don't take word of a loon in determining who the people get to vote on. Colorado should remove its Secretary of State for trying to destroy her own democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

Colorado acted appropriately to interpret the Constitutional provision, since there was no SCOTUS precedent for guidance.

Many other states properly shut this down. They knew this wouldn’t hold up. You are giving CO way too much credit here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

Not at all, friend. Being on the ballot doesn't mean he is qualified. Cenk Uygur is on the ballot in some states and he is not native born.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if he was elected. It sounds like SCOTUS would require Congress to have some sort of mechanism in place for him to be able to dispute the idea that he is disqualified, perhaps to argue about his birth place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

His actions disqualified him, not Colorado.

You say that, yet there he is, on the ballot.

Hmm? What does being on the ballot signify?

That unless Congress deems him ineligible via legislation, he is.

That’s not in the Constitution.

5-4 of the judges are referring you to section 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

Colorado acted appropriately to interpret the Constitutional provision, since there was no SCOTUS precedent for guidance.

Many other states properly shut this down. They knew this wouldn’t hold up. You are giving CO way too much credit here.

Nope. SCOTUS just said that states don't get to control their ballots. Those states that removed Uygur acted improperly and he should be put back on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

Colorado acted appropriately to interpret the Constitutional provision, since there was no SCOTUS precedent for guidance.

Many other states properly shut this down. They knew this wouldn’t hold up. You are giving CO way too much credit here.

Nope. SCOTUS just said that states don't get to control their ballots. Those states that removed Uygur acted improperly and he should be put back on.

? Those other states chose NOT to remove Trump. They were right and Colorado was wrong, as the verdict showed. Colorado did NOT act properly, as many of us pointed out at the time.