vimdiesel ,

this thing was doomed from the start and the unanimous vote of the Supreme Court shows that. Y'all are overlooking the fact that this keeps red states from taking Biden off the ballot too.

GiddyGap OP ,

Biden didn't commit insurrection.

nutsack ,

a lot of trump supporters think he did. "no u" is a classic american strategy

jpreston2005 ,

classic republican strategy. Also the Gish Gallop.

52fighters ,

It seems like someone should be eligible for all states or no states when it comes to this question. But a federal court, not only congress, should have authority to convict on these charges and thereby rule the candidate ineligible.

rustydrd ,
@rustydrd@sh.itjust.works avatar

Where them "states' rights" advocates at?

taanegl ,

Not advantagous right now. It'll rear it's ugly head again once it becomes politically advantagous to do so.

afraid_of_zombies ,

On the brightside many cynics are enjoying being proven correct once more.

captainlezbian ,

No we’re very sick of being right someone please stop us.

ChunkMcHorkle ,
@ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world avatar

Anyone here remember this?

The Guardian: Kavanaugh will ‘step up’ to keep Trump on ballots, ex-president’s lawyer says

Looks like Boofin' Brett kept his word after all.

DragonTypeWyvern ,

It was unanimous. Against constitutional precedent from the people who wrote the Amendment, btw.

So much for Originalism.

ChunkMcHorkle , (edited )
@ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, I know. And I get the feeling they were internally strong-armed into unanimity, given the strong objections the liberal justices included in their concurring opinion, as though anything less than unanimity would leave it open to debate. But all they did was punt it back to the legislature.

Today is a dark day in American jurisprudence, IMO.

EDITED TO ADD: Turns out, according to The Guardian today, the decision was formally issued by the court as "per curiam" which is not default for a unanimous SCOTUS decision, but must be specifically designated by the court. So it wasn't just my feeling, the court really is driving home the point of "unanimity" beyond the norm.

Bakkoda ,
@Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works avatar

Keg stands for everyone!

Yeller_king ,

SCOTUS rules the Constitution unconstitutional.

A_Random_Idiot ,
@A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world avatar

amazing how quickly those states rights arguments evaporate when its not to the republicans benefits, huh

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah this was very predictable. It's a presidential election, of course the federal court can override state courts. And the 14th amendment argument always hinged on the question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection, and that exact question is already being explored in the same court. And he has not yet been found guilty, so as far as the law is concerned, he hasn't engaged in insurrection.

Everyone's upset because this hasn't gone the way it's supposed to, the DoJ should have charged Trump years ago so things can go in the correct order, Trump gets tried for insurrection, and then cant run for office if found guilty.

fcSolar ,

Oh look another illegal power grab by the supreme dipshits. 14th amendment section 3 states only Congress may remove an insurrectionist's inability to hold office, not SCOTUS.

frezik ,

That's not how the opinion works. The Supremes said states can't remove candidates from the federal ballot under the insurrection clause. They can remove state candidates. It doesn't rule on anything else.

Corkyskog ,

So how do they remove someone who isn't of age or a natural born citizen?

frezik ,

That's a very good question, because I don't think it's ever been a real issue. Not among "serious" candidates (read: not some rando third party with zero chance).

Those factors are more mechanical. Being of age isn't a judgement issue unless someone says there's a mistake on their birth certificate or something. Natural born citizen is usually mechanical. Most candidates have been clearly born in the United States, and there's no debate about it. There was a little question around McCain, who was born in Panama, but there was clearly an act of Congress that made kids born there to American service members into citizens. If we take all the claims of the Obama Birthers at face value (which are nonsense), then he'd still be a citizen due to his mother being a citizen.

However, I do think the Birthers uncovered a problem while they fumbled around like idiots. They tried to get Obama off the ballot using the courts, and repeatedly had them dismissed due to lack of standing. If there actually was a valid reason to challenge someone under those requirements, it's not obvious who can enforce it.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

I was under the impression that being a citizen wasn't enough, you had to be a natural born citizen. I don't think Obamas citizenship was ever in question, just his birthplace

"The U.S. Constitution states that the president must: Be a natural-born citizen of the United States"

frezik ,

There's documented evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii, and no real evidence that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else. That resolves the issue right there.

That said, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother is a US citizen, and he therefore had citizenship automatically at birth under US law. There's some SovCit-level bullshit about making a distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth", but it's not taken seriously.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy , (edited )

There’s documented evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii

I don't disagree

There’s some SovCit-level bullshit about making a distinction between “natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth”

Did you read the link in my post? that distinction IS made on an official US Government website

I misread your post

chakan2 , (edited )
@chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

The rest of their reasoning was basically "Congress can't do this shit, it'd be a mess, so we'll step up and reverse that clause."

They specifically said they will enforce the constitution as they see fit.

Milk_Sheikh , (edited )

Unfortunately not a new power grab, they’ve long held that their judicial review is sacrosanct, and they get to pick and choose not just the cases they hear, but also what issues within that case they feel like legislating reviewing. Same again here, the RNC asked three questions and they left most of it wellll alone:

The Questions Presented are:

  1. Whether the President falls within the list of officials subject to the disqualification provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment?
  2. Whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing to the extent of allowing states to remove candidates from the ballot in the absence of any Congressional action authorizing such process?
  3. Whether the denial to a political party of its ability to choose the candidate of its choice in a presidential primary and general election violates that party's First Amendment Right of Association?

#1 & 3 were completely ignored because they’re only willing to craft big legislation opinions on conservative/originalist topics, but “show respect for the lower courts” when it’s convenient for SCotUS

They focused in on the state w/o congress aspect of #2, because it’s the weakest part of the Colorado case unfortunately, and allowed this fig-leaf opt out on disqualification being kicked back to Congress

Atyno ,
@Atyno@dmv.social avatar

They won't, but Colorado should still keep him off the ballot. The ruling was clearly made in fear of chaos instead of what was correct, so they deserve chaos irregardless.

Or at least make a show about it, like all those states did when Texas was told to let the fed agents cut the razor wire.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Colorado should still keep him off the ballot.

The final vote is tomorrow. It's far too late to put him back on the ballot.

Even then, I suspect he'll win on write in alone. This contest is functionally over as soon as he's got a majority of the primary delegates, and that's likely to happen a few states after Super Tuesday, given current trends.

So the decision is moot from a "Will Trump be the nominee" perspective.

Atyno , (edited )
@Atyno@dmv.social avatar

That is admittedly why I also said "or make a show about it"...

I'm actually not sure if Texas actually did stop the Feds from cutting the razor wire. I actually checked and it seems like the entire story just disappeared from all news after they made a lot of noise on it.

Corkyskog ,

AFAIK they already had ballots with him on it.

Harriet_Porber ,

Yeah our ballots had him on the list still, but I think with a mention of the pending court case.

xploit ,

Next obvious steps for Colorado should be;
Do nothing
Point finger at Texas

j4k3 ,
@j4k3@lemmy.world avatar

The supreme court is anything but. They are traitors to the USA.

TokenBoomer ,

When do we decide the social contract has been broken?

captainlezbian ,

It has been. The question is when the left takes up arms against the armed and marching right

Suavevillain ,
@Suavevillain@lemmy.world avatar

Trump is never held accountable for his own actions and things will only get worse.

Dkarma ,

The Roberts court is illegitimate.

More proof.

Evilcoleslaw ,

Eh. There are way more obvious examples of illegitimacy. The fact that it's unanimous speaks volumes for that. There's sound logic here in this ruling. Read the concurring opinion by the three liberal justices and you can see why I think this is mostly the correct answer.

The real illegitimate thing here were all the articles by legal experts saying this was all self-executing and that the status of "having engaged in insurrection or rebellion" is as self-evident as a candidate's age.

Ghostalmedia ,
@Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world avatar

Someone should photoshop 2 pound weights into his tiny hands.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • random
  • movies
  • news
  • stillalive
  • ServerNonsense
  • istillthinkofyou
  • oneorangebraincell
  • MBBS
  • All magazines