Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:45
Subject: Re:Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.
When’s the trial?
It was last year. You missed it.
LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.
Did you read the opinion? The majority said that even if Trump was convicted of insurrection it still wouldn’t count. The y said congress has to pass a new statute that specifically outlines the procedures for determining if someone is disqualified and the existing insurrection statute isnt that.
None of that means that SCOTUS considers Trump to have been convicted.
But it does mean the dumb argument that “he wasn’t convicted” is totally irrelevant.
It explains why they didn’t “unconvict” him as the poster asked. They don’t consider him convicted in the first place and even if he had been, a state couldn’t unilaterally take him off the ballot.
The Court completely dodged its obligation to interpret how to apply the insurrection disqualification for a Presidential candidate. They said nothing about the merits of Colorado’s finding that Trump’s actions were engaging in insurrection. They just said Colorado can’t make that call. It’s a non-decision decision because it doesn’t resolve how or when the insurrection prohibition can be enforced.
That wasn’t the question at hand for them though. Once they determined that this wasn’t a decision for
Colorado to make, their role here was done. If congress were to pass legislation following through on a disputed presidential nominee, then that legislation is subject to judicial review. But that would be a separate case.
It’s a Constitutional provision. If a state can’t start an enforcement action that would be appealed to the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th amendment, then how does a federal action happen before the election?
They call it a federal election, but it isn’t. It’s 51 state & DC elections that present their certified results to Congress two months after the election. There is no official federal opportunity to challenge a candidate’s eligibility until Jan. 6 when the electoral votes are counted. That’s too late to disqualify a major party’s nominee.
SCOTUS should either rule on the state case or move it into federal court so there can be a federal ruling on the candidate’s eligibility before the general election. This insurrection language has been enforced for lower offices by states so it’s bullshit to say only Congress can interpret it.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:43
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Actually in this particular point it’s 5-4. You’d know that if you read the case. Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote concurrences saying they disagreed with this part of the majority opinion.
"All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.
The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
It is so ordered."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:39
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Actually in this particular point it’s 5-4. You’d know that if you read the case. Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote concurrences saying they disagreed with this part of the majority opinion.
This. PP is either disingenuous or not very bright.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:38
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
A deeply divided 9-0. Read the dissent. Read and understand the WHY.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:38
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
9:0 on the Colorado ballot question. And I agree with that as well.
5:4 on 14.5. I agree with the 4 on this one. This was not the case before them (and it was poorly supported, to boot).
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:37
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Just to recap:
Democrats (some masquerading as Republicans) try to remove Trump from the ballot in numerous states with the reasoning that he took part in an 'insurrection'. We are told if he is elected he is a 'threat to democracy'. The first experts brought in to discuss this say it will be an easy appeal for Trump and (I remember this guy specifically) that it could be a 9-0 decision quite easily. Disappointed, media bring in more extreme talking heads until the narrative is that there is no way the Supreme Court could side with Trump.
Supreme Court hands down 9-0 decision that Trump remain on the ballot, including Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who I would consider a radical Leftist who normally rules by ideology rather than the Constitution.
Democrats are now calling to disolve the Supreme Court.
I'm supposed to believe that somehow Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy? Democrats are the party trying to make it impossible to vote for a candidate. Democrats are the party who want to destroy the Supreme Court and remove any checks and balances to the violation of citizens rights. Democrats are the ones interfering in an election.
+ 1 million
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:34
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Actually in this particular point it’s 5-4. You’d know that if you read the case. Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote concurrences saying they disagreed with this part of the majority opinion.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:32
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. Democracy
Right. A decision the ensures voters get to decide who will be president is truly an assault to democracy? Do you even hear yourself?
And you are excusing insurrection as a viable and just fine action to take when losing an election.
They are and I think it’s time we stop pretending that Republican voters are good people with different values. They are actively bad people who will countenance any kind of crime so long as it serves their purposes.
Interesting how the GOP once hated Communism but have now adopted the manifesto of "The end justifies the means." Joe McCarthy is so turning over and screaming in his grave!
You’ve got to be kidding me. Because one state can’t decide for itself to strike a presidential candidate off the ballot, suddenly Republicans are like communism? The hysteria for this case is hilarious.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:31
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
As far as I know, this is the first time SCOTUS has ever said that the 14th requires legislation to be enforced. There are of course some statutes enforcing other parts, like the Voting Rights Act (which this court has all but eliminated in its great deference to Congress’s rights under Section 5). But they’ve never said those are necessary and in fact they’ve decided many many cases based on the amendment alone.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:29
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:26
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:24
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
^addition
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:24
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:22
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
And there is also precedent of the judiciary stopping what they deemed congressional overreach in regard to section 5. It’s murky, and to S,K,B and evenBarrett’s point, the majority’s hasty and sloppy edition of this was wrong. The decision needed to stop at the Colorado case before them.