Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack.
You're viewing a single thread.
Unanimous. Something we are missing?
They were probably all afraid that banning Trump on the ballot would tear so violently at the fabric of the country that it could end in a civil war with armed members of Trump's base roaming the streets creating chaos.
This ruling is very unsurprising to me. I'd been very surprised if they had gone the other way.
The US is a very unhealthy country.
Edit: Spelling
Lol, no. They don't give a shit about the country or its citizens.
They knew their asses would be targeted by his cult if they did the right thing. Honesty, Trump probably fits the bill for a RICO case. Maybe the IRS can take him down like they did Capone.
Lol, no. They don’t give a shit about the country or its citizens.
Generally not a good idea to use the legal system to suppress the most popular political candidate in a democracy. They tried it with Hitler, he came back stronger. They just tried it with Lula in Brazil and likewise he came back stronger.
To speak to the actual Supreme Court ruling, of which all 9 justices agreed... here's the 14th amendment.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
Here's the little section at the bottom that basically killed this whole thing that Colorado tried
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Here's the relevant part of the Supreme Court ruling
Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.
I mean, how much clearer can it be? Fuck Trump but a) we're a country of laws and if we start breaking the laws to try and stop Trump we are no better than Trump and are headed towards the same direction anyways and b) he is the most popular candidate, not just Republican but for the general election. No good will come of suppressing him, especially unlawfully
I just hope that by tossing the Republicans this bone, that they will end up not ruling that the president has absolute immunity in the next case.
Losing this one is not a big deal, because he only would have been removed from states that he was almost certain to lose anyway. Republicans love their insurrectionists, after all.
I think with a ruling like this where the intent was so crystal clear that it couldn't have possibly been misinterpreted by anybody yet the ruling was entirely backwards, that now is a good time for a constitutional convention and a total rewrite of the constitution. If it's not clear, let's make it clear.
I have a very strong feeling that they're going to find that the President has immunity for his official acts. That's the only question before the court in that case. However, what he was accused of doing clearly was not an official act as President but an act as a candidate in his capacity as a private citizen.
So it'll get kicked down to the district court and they'll decide that, and it will proceed. The terrible part is the timing which is partly on the Supreme Court but also largely on Merrick Garland for slow rolling everything for the first two years of the Biden administration.
I have a very strong feeling that they’re going to find that the President has immunity for his official acts.
That's not really the argument that the Trump legal team is making, though. They are arguing that the President of the United States has absolute immunity from civil or criminal prosecution. Absolute being the key word here. According to Trump's lawyers and Trump himself, no president would be able to do the job if they weren't allowed to bend or break the law with impunity because they'd be so tied down in the courts that they would never get anything done.
Setting aside how ridiculous that assertion is, the historical basis for presidential immunity has always been that the President does have civil immunity, although that too has some limitations (The E. Jean Carroll case, for instance) but we have never had a situation quite like the one we are in right now where the president is accused of committing felonies while in office. Theoretically, we would have tested this with Nixon, but Ford pardoned him and that was that.
I do think that they will not find that his argument has any merit, but the slow-boating and stalling on behalf of Trump and his cronies is frustrating to watch. It's almost like they want this court stuff to all coincide with the election so that they can claim they are being politically persecuted. I mean, they already are, but people are going to be sick of hearing about it by November and might be persuaded that Trump is the victim just by the inconvenient timing of the trial dates.
This is a very real possibility. There's a lot of politicking that goes on in SCOTUS, and I've heard from other lawyers that they cut deals amongst themselves all the time ("I'll go with you on this, if you go with me on the other").
They do it less, due to having a conservative majority, but they don't all always agree on everything in spite of that power imbalance.
Fat chance. The way they're handling the immunity case almost certainly puts the trial in or after November. They've completely stopped all pre-trial movement while they take at least 3 months to return a decision on immunity.
So the immunity decision is scheduled for the end of April, and assuming the verdict is that Trump does not have immunity from prosecution, the trial should resume in June and be wrapping up by October. Very close to the election to be receiving potentially the worst news of Trump's life and political career, but hopefully we get the decision before mail-in ballots are cast so that the American people can have the opportunity to make an informed decision.
Oh no. Arguments are scheduled for April. These arguments were just to see if the criminal trial would be stopped. Trump had appealed to stop the trial and the government asked the court to let the trial go forward or treat the appeal as a full thing that requires all the normal stuff. SCOTUS chose that last option.
So now we get arguments again in late April. Then we get a decision any time after that. Then they have at most 30 days to physically deliver the decision to the lower court. Who would then have to issue their own decision. (But that court isn't playing for time so probably within 24 hours.) At that rate the trial can't even resume pre-trial stuff until late May thru late June.
Then the trial judge said pre-trial stuff should take about 80 days. So we aren't getting in front of a jury until after early voting starts. And if SCOTUS drags things out long enough, maybe not even before November.
Ah heck, I thought it was still on pace for earlier than that. Drat.
Yeah and we haven't even gotten to the rest of the pre-trial delay tactics yet.
So they’ve traded almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as a direct result of their decision, for…
checks notes
…almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as an indirect result of their decision, and also get a fascist government.
Where they'll surely be in the in-group of power. Right? Right...‽
/s
The problem is this is something that needs to be lanced earlier than later. In almost every historical case of a government in crisis like this, the earlier it is handled, the better the outcome.
Basically this is a test of our country and we can either weather it or not. By deferring it gets worse. For example if we had prosecuted Nixon there would be far less appetite for breaking the rules. And as we go forward extreme opinions will seep further into the intelligence and armed organizations of the government. Whereas a problem now might see the military mostly stay on their bases, in 8 years that could be completely different. Especially if conservatives purge officers not loyal to the president personally.
I'm not saying you're wrong, it's always just so weird to hear people say that they don't just, you know... interpret the law.
Unaminous, but the 3 Liberal judges wrote their own opinion saying while they agreed with the ruling, they feel it should have been narrower, and that the ruling cuts off some legitimate avenues for punishing insurrectionists.
states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.
States aren't "invoking" anything.
Trump does not qualify as per the standards in the Constitution.
Same as any 34 year old.
Stupid states following the words in the Constitution!
Shuffling this to congress means nobody will ever be excluded for insurrection, because obstructing any laws that would enforce the clause are easier to kill than pass.
I guess 34 year olds now must be on the ballot unless congress removes them... and Elon can run too. Heck my cat must be allowed on the ballot unless congress removes him.
Apparently the Supreme Court of The United States disagrees with you, DKarma.
Edit: Wow. I don't know if this crowd is full of non-Americans or people who haven't passed a sixth grade social studies class or just a bunch of emotional dummies. I would encourage people to spend more time reading about the things that upset them rather than wasting time whining about it on the internet. Someone posted a thoughtless comment to which I responded with a quote from the article which clearly explains the answer. I'm certainly not pleased with the court's decision but I, without any degree in law at all, would never presume to know half as much as, let alone more than, the justices of the Supreme Court.
That's the problem.
People deserve the right to an abortion, but the supreme court disagrees with that, too.
Fuck them.
Note that this is a 9-0 decision. Dobbs was not.
The entire court agrees that states do not have the right to remove federal candidates from the ballot. They can remove state candidates. Honestly, this is pretty obviously correct from the language of the 14th amendment. There's nothing that empowers states to do that.
However, there is disagreement on the court on how this should be executed. The main opinion wants it to be solely up to Congress, but the liberal concurrence points out what a big ass problem that is.
If the SCOTUS rules 9-0 that the fox is allowed to guard the henhouse, that still doesn't make it a good ruling.
In this case, the SCOTUS says that the insurrectionists in congress must be the ones responsible for punishing the insurrectionist running for president again.
The Supreme Court doesn't make up the rules.
The Constitution is meant to be read in plain text. The hunting for extra definitions and meanings in and of itself destroys the legitimacy of this ruling.
That's funny because you would have to hunt for extra definitions to find something other than what the court ruled. This was a pretty cut and dry case.
Regardless, to claim the constitution is meant to be read "in plain text" is laughable. And to presume you know more about the constitution than nine Supreme Court justices in agreement on this matter is just embarrassing for you.
Well considering they hold 15th century English church law to be above the Constitution I'm not so sure about their law degrees.
Sec 5 of the 14th clearly says only Congress can remove him
I can see the argument from a certain perspective of the language, outside of context.
But remember when this amendment was passed. Right after the Civil War.
So, they wanted an amendment to bar traitors from federal office. Then they put in a section saying Congress has to actually make laws enforcing that rule, or it does nothing. And then, they didn't make any such laws?!
So, what, they went through all the work to make a constitutional amendment, and then it does nothing?
No, they clearly felt that the rule was clear enough as it was, and section 5 is there to allow Congress to make supporting laws built upon that to help enforce that rule. But that rule should have teeth on its own.
The rule has been used before.
The craven corruption of the Roberts court is on full display here.
They actually did make such a law. But then there was an amnesty for many under President Grant and an expansion of the amnesty at the onset of the Spanish-American War. And then that law was largely repealed in 1948. And then in the 1970s Congress posthumously removed the disqualification from Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis for some reason.
Edit: Oh and they still have one, 18 U.S.C. § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection. Trump hasn't been charged with it though.
for some reason.
Racism is the reason.
No, it says only Congress can re-instate, the removal is to be assumed.
"Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Bolding mine.
He was quoting Section 5, not Section 3. Which I also think he is wrong about.
That's if he's in office. He's not in office.
Sec 5 is the means of enforcing sec 3
That makes no sense. Why would
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
be included in section 3 if congress has the power to enforce (or not enforce) the clause by simple majority. It's obviously a self-executing clause.
