SCOTUS rules Trump can stay on CO ballot

[neverfstop]

More details & opinion forthcoming...

[neverfstop]

This makes it seem like the decision was 9-0?

From CNN
The Supreme Court was united on the idea that Donald Trump will remain on the ballot in Colorado and that the state cannot unilaterally dump him off the ballot, in their opinion issued Monday.

But the justices were divided about how broadly the decision would sweep. A 5-4 majority said that no state could dump a federal candidate off any ballot – with four justices asserted that the court should have limited its opinion.

[kittywalker]

It was 9-0. I just read the opinion. Take home is that only Congress has the power to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot based on the insurrection language. The opinion does not at all get into whether Trump committed insurrection.

[neverfstop]

Per WaPo

The justices said the Constitution does not permit a single state to disqualify a presidential candidate from national office, declaring that such responsibility “rests with Congress and not the states.” The court warned of disruption and chaos if a candidate for nationwide office could be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct.

“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration,” the court said in an unsigned, 13-page opinion.

-------------
So this seems to wipe out all the other state challenges? And now since congress declined to "convict" trump of Insurrection during his impeachment, we can assume it's never going to be a vote to disqualify him?

[erbear]

Mar 4, 2024 11:24:11 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

Per WaPo

The justices said the Constitution does not permit a single state to disqualify a presidential candidate from national office, declaring that such responsibility “rests with Congress and not the states.” The court warned of disruption and chaos if a candidate for nationwide office could be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct.

“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration,” the court said in an unsigned, 13-page opinion.

-------------
So this seems to wipe out all the other state challenges? And now since congress declined to "convict" trump of Insurrection during his impeachment, we can assume it's never going to be a vote to disqualify him?

This is how I’m reading it. This is bad, especially bc we stood by and let Trump stack the courts using the legislature. Fuck McConnell.

[Jalapeñomel]

So how does states rights play into this?

[basilosaurus]

Mar 5, 2024 7:45:10 GMT -5 Jalapeñomel said:

So how does states rights play into this?

States have the right to prevent minorities from voting, have the right to ban books and the word gay. But apparently they don't have the right to follow the 14th amendment passed by the legislature and enough states. Hth

[kittywalker]

Mar 5, 2024 11:51:12 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Mar 5, 2024 7:45:10 GMT -5 Jalapeñomel said:

So how does states rights play into this?

States have the right to prevent minorities from voting, have the right to ban books and the word gay. But apparently they don't have the right to follow the 14th amendment passed by the legislature and enough states. Hth

Or, from the actual opinion:

"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."

[wanderingback]

Mar 5, 2024 7:45:10 GMT -5 Jalapeñomel said:

So how does states rights play into this?

Rules and laws and rights are all arbitrary and made up!
Trump was very correct that he could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone and still become president.

[neverfstop]

Pretty Rich at Amy Coney Barrett ...
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/barrett-laments-amplified-divide-in-trump-ballot-decision

Barrett, too, agreed that the court shouldn’t have decided what she called “the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.”

But her one-page concurrence focused as much on the tone of the liberal justices’ opinion as it did on the holding in the per curiam ruling.

“Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” Barrett said.

She’s calling attention to “the need for judicial statesmanship in matters involving presidential elections,” Weiser said. In doing so, she continued,"Barrett accuses the other concurring justices of ‘amplifying disagreement with stridency.’”

[pixy0stix]

I think this is the right decision. I disagree that Congress should have the power (because what a shit show no matter which party is in charge).

[quesyrah]

Mar 5, 2024 18:31:22 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I think this is the right decision. I disagree that Congress should have the power (because what a shit show no matter which party is in charge).

Totally agree.

Not only that, but republicans would absolutely weaponize removing anyone they don’t like from ballots.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 5, 2024 18:31:22 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I think this is the right decision. I disagree that Congress should have the power (because what a shit show no matter which party is in charge).

I'm pretty sure I agree with this.

However, when I voted today, I noticed that Cenk Uygur was on my ballot. Now, he's not going to be winning any primaries, so this is hypothetical, but he's definitely not eligible to be president, so in the event he won enough primaries to become the Dem nominee, that seems to open up a grey area as to what happens.

[curbsideprophet]

Mar 5, 2024 18:31:22 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I think this is the right decision. I disagree that Congress should have the power (because what a shit show no matter which party is in charge).

I honestly don’t know. I don’t think leaving it up to Congress is effective. So what other way do you enforce this?

[pixy0stix]

Mar 5, 2024 23:23:01 GMT -5 curbsideprophet said:

Mar 5, 2024 18:31:22 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I think this is the right decision. I disagree that Congress should have the power (because what a shit show no matter which party is in charge).

I honestly don’t know. I don’t think leaving it up to Congress is effective. So what other way do you enforce this?

I'd say our legal system would probably be our best bet, but again that's so mucked up that it's virtually ineffective now. We've kicked the can down the road too far, and now we're seeing just exactly how bad our systems are with no way to fix them fast enough.