Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off Colorado ballot

[ap215]

Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off Colorado ballot

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a Colorado court ruling that said former President Donald Trump was ineligible to run for office again because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under a provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna132291

[Ted]

The most relevant sentence from the decision.....

Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

[JoeMemphis]

The most relevant sentence from the decision.....

Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

It’s strange how two different courts can read the same plainly written language in the US Constitution and yet come to polar opposite decisions.

[Ted]

It’s strange how two different courts can read the same plainly written language in the US Constitution and yet come to polar opposite decisions.

Also interesting is the 4-3 vote by the Colorado Supreme Court and the unanimous decision by the SCOTUS.

[gounion]

It’s strange how two different courts can read the same plainly written language in the US Constitution and yet come to polar opposite decisions.

That’s because five of the Supreme Court Justices are ideologues that brought a point of view and an agenda to change the country with the courts.

[ZoWie]

And three of them were picked by drumpf, with a little help from the GOP leadership in the Senate and the very long tentacles of the Federalist Society.

[JoeMemphis]

And three of them were picked by drumpf, with a little help from the GOP leadership in the Senate and the very long tentacles of the Federalist Society.

Well if this was so far out of the mainstream legally, do you care to explain the unanimous SCOTUS decision? Not everything is a conspiracy Zowie no matter how bad you may want it to be.

[gounion]

Well if this was so far out of the mainstream legally, do you care to explain the unanimous SCOTUS decision? Not everything is a conspiracy Zowie no matter how bad you may want it to be.

Not EXACTLY a unanimous decision.

First, the Court did NOT do what Trump demanded - it did NOT declare Donald Trump innocent of insurrection.

And Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson wrote a separate opinion that disagreed with several parts of the final decision.

But you couldn't understand nuance, could you?

This is just like Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court makes new law from the bench. Truly sad.

[Glennfs]

That’s because five of the Supreme Court Justices are ideologues that brought a point of view and an agenda to change the country with the courts.

So it's the republicans fault that 4 left wing judges in Colorado made a decision so bad that scotus shot it down 9-0

[Glennfs]

Not EXACTLY a unanimous decision.

First, the Court did NOT do what Trump demanded - it did NOT declare Donald Trump innocent of insurrection.

And Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson wrote a separate opinion that disagreed with several parts of the final decision.

But you couldn't understand nuance, could you?

This is just like Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court makes new law from the bench. Truly sad.

Amazing how you know more about law and the Constitution than the 9 legal scholars on scotus

[gounion]

Amazing how you know more about law and the Constitution than the 9 legal scholars on scotus

I read the decision. Did you?

[Toonces]

Unsurprising.

If they voted the other way, it would have created chaos, allowing the states to decide if they could throw anyone off for anything they deem insurrection. As I said previously, I know that being charged and/or convicted of insurrection isn't a requirement, but it would be much easier if it were the case.

No non-blue state was going to be removing him from the ballot, so it wouldn't have an impact on the outcome except allowing Donald to whine or use it for a rallying cry that could have influenced purple states.

Altogether, it's for the best.

[Glennfs]

Unsurprising.

If they voted the other way, it would have created chaos, allowing the states to decide if they could throw anyone off for anything they deem insurrection. As I said previously, I know that being charged and/or convicted of insurrection isn't a requirement, but it would be much easier if it were the case.

No non-blue state was going to be removing him from the ballot, so it wouldn't have an impact on the outcome except allowing Donald to whine or use it for a rallying cry that could have influenced purple states.

Altogether, it's for the best.

They definitely made the correct decision. Otherwise going forward we would have states knocking people off the ballot right and left. The unintended consequences would have been crazy.

[JoeMemphis]

Unsurprising.

If they voted the other way, it would have created chaos, allowing the states to decide if they could throw anyone off for anything they deem insurrection. As I said previously, I know that being charged and/or convicted of insurrection isn't a requirement, but it would be much easier if it were the case.

No non-blue state was going to be removing him from the ballot, so it wouldn't have an impact on the outcome except allowing Donald to whine or use it for a rallying cry that could have influenced purple states.

Altogether, it's for the best.

It was an obvious over reach by those states and it was purely political. So much so that legal scholars on the left and right predicted a 9-0 or 8-1 decision to over rule the states. Fortunately SCOTUS was following the law and fortunately the decision was in the best interest of the country both now and in the future. Hopefully one day we will get to a place where we can get back to election processes where people ( either foreign or domestic or private individuals or government) aren’t trying to rat fuck with the results. One can only hope. We have a fair amount of work to do to get there.

[ZoWie]

The decision seems to be that states can't throw candidates out of Federal elections, the Feds have to do that. I believe that the major point of law involved was the 14th Amendment, Section 3, regarding state ballot listing of Federal candidates who "engaged in insurrection," with no reference to whether or not they were convicted for it. Drumpf of course is in a grey area here.

[Glennfs]

I read the decision. Did you?

We are well aware of your reading comprehension or lack thereof.

[gounion]

We are well aware of your reading comprehension or lack thereof.

Did you read the decision? Yes or no?

And I can read FAR better than you. Remember all the times you gave us links from Nazi and white supremacist websites?

[Glennfs]

Did you read the decision? Yes or no?

And I can read FAR better than you. Remember all the times you gave us links from Nazi and white supremacist websites?

No politics is not my hobby. Bottom line is the ruling was 9-0 and now liberals like you are claiming to know more than the justices on scotus.

[gounion]

No politics is not my hobby. Bottom line is the ruling was 9-0 and now liberals like you are claiming to know more than the justices on scotus.

Reading a decision doesn't take that long. It's better to go to the primary source. You'd rather have some right-winger TELL you what to think it means, and you eat it up. You don't even understand what the other opinions were and what they meant. That's because you don't care, you just want the talking points fed to you.

[Glennfs]

Reading a decision doesn't take that long. It's better to go to the primary source. You'd rather have some right-winger TELL you what to think it means, and you eat it up. You don't even understand what the other opinions were and what they meant. That's because you don't care, you just want the talking points fed to you.

Did you also look at the various other decisions they used as references so you can fully understand the ruling.

I wonder why we even bother requiring 8 years of higher education and the bar examination. When legal documents are so simple to read and comprehend

[gounion]

Did you also look at the various other decisions they used as references so you can fully understand the ruling.

I wonder why we even bother requiring 8 years of higher education and the bar examination. When legal documents are so simple to read and comprehend

Well, you don't know this, because you're too scared to go to the source, but they aren't hard to understand. But you'd rather take what Trump and Hannity and Facebook says as gospel, right?

[Glennfs]

Well, you don't know this, because you're too scared to go to the source, but they aren't hard to understand. But you'd rather take what Trump and Hannity and Facebook says as gospel, right?

Actually I did go ti the source and like every scotus ruling it mentions 3 or 4 other rulings.
The bottom line is a novice reading a document written by legal scholars is about as relevant as a novice playing chess against a grandmaster.
Unless you're educated in the subject and have a lifetime of experience you are only feeding your ego.
Those 9 judges combined have over 40 years of higher education and perhaps 300 years or more of judicial experience.
Yet somehow you believe a retired union boss has the level of expertise to read and comprehend their rulings.
Unless you spent the time to refer to the other rulings and then to the other rulings those rulings were based on. You are just a guy who whose hobby is politics.
The same as if I were to think I understand Bill Belichick's game plan or can play poker with the Phil Helmuth

[gounion]

Actually I did go ti the source and like every scotus ruling it mentions 3 or 4 other rulings.
The bottom line is a novice reading a document written by legal scholars is about as relevant as a novice playing chess against a grandmaster.
Unless you're educated in the subject and have a lifetime of experience you are only feeding your ego.
Those 9 judges combined have over 40 years of higher education and perhaps 300 years or more of judicial experience.
Yet somehow you believe a retired union boss has the level of expertise to read and comprehend their rulings.
Unless you spent the time to refer to the other rulings and then to the other rulings those rulings were based on. You are just a guy who whose hobby is politics.
The same as if I were to think I understand Bill Belichick's game plan or can play poker with the Phil Helmuth

No, Glenn, you didn’t. Just more of your bullshit. All you know is what Trump tells you.

[Glennfs]

No, Glenn, you didn’t. Just more of your bullshit. All you know is what Trump tells you.

Just like you follow everything the socialist party supports.

[gounion]

Just like you follow everything the socialist party supports.

You’ve got nothing. You spout whatever Dear Leader tells you to.