• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Jan. 6: The Failed Insurrection of Donald Trump...

www.nbcnews.com

Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off the ballot

The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states can bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling states cannot kick him off the ballot over 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 in an unsigned ruling with no dissents reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced. As such the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado.

"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.
Click to expand...

States have used the 14th amendment in the past for keeping candidates off the ballot, Trump was just the latest.

6zz7YQq.jpeg


 
Last edited:
Now we wait to see if Schumer and/or Johnson schedules a vote on disqualification.

As others have pointed out, a president could veto such legislation pertaining to his or her status as an insurrectionist thanks to SCOTUS.

Though Marcy Wheeler believes an existing law that the SCOTUS majority cited could come into effect that disqualifies Trump but only if Smith (or another prosecutor) charges him with insurrection.

www.emptywheel.net

SCOTUS Invites Jack Smith to Supersede Trump with Inciting Insurrection - emptywheel

Between SCOTUS' delay of Trump's January 6 trial and its holding that only conviction of inciting Insurrection can disqualify someone under the 14th Amendment, it seems like an invitation for Jack Smith to charge Trump with inciting insurrection.
www.emptywheel.net www.emptywheel.net
 
Last edited:
I hate this!!!! What does a guy have to do to get kicked off? Actually murder someone in front of a crowd? Geez...
 
squeekness said:
I hate this!!!! What does a guy have to do to get kicked off? Actually murder someone in front of a crowd? Geez...
Click to expand...
Probably. But even then, I'm sure the hard-core Trump supporters would still vote for him. :(
 
Trump can personally coup / kill / oppress / rape / defraud as many Americans as he wants.

They won't choose another candidate until he's dead. Then many will choose his spawn.

They don't care.

It's a cult...following the pied piper of bigots.
 
I was honestly expecting it to be 9-0 to put him back on the ballot. Though, I thought it was going to be more along the lines of the concurrenct opinion.
 
MagnarTheGreat said:
Trump can personally coup / kill / oppress / rape / defraud as many Americans as he wants.

They won't choose another candidate until he's dead. Then many will choose his spawn.

They don't care.

It's a cult...following the pied piper of bigots.
Click to expand...
I used to believe people wouldn't be that stupid, but now the crazies are running free out on the front lawn. :(
 
I guess my main concern was that I don't think states should be able to disqualify candidates for a federal election. Imagine a state that's possibly in play with conservative supermajorities in the legislative branch (think gerrymandering) or with a conservative Supreme Court. It's possible they could decide to disqualify a candidate and shift the election.

I think the decision needs to be made at the federal level for federal elections.
 
InCali said:
I guess my main concern was that I don't think states should be able to disqualify candidates for a federal election. Imagine a state that's possibly in play with conservative supermajorities in the legislative branch (think gerrymandering) or with a conservative Supreme Court. It's possible they could decide to disqualify a candidate and shift the election.

I think the decision needs to be made at the federal level for federal elections.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about the state and federal rules. I'm just annoyed that it is as though the Court is saying that what Trump did isn't really an insurrection is all. :(
 
squeekness said:
I agree with you about the state and federal rules. I'm just annoyed that it is as though the Court is saying that what Trump did isn't really an insurrection is all. :(
Click to expand...
I think what they are saying is he hasn't been "charged" with insurrection (I think this is a sneak peek at what they'll rule WRT immunity). They seem to be allowing for him to be charged; which would indicate complete immunity isn't really on the table. I think the SCOTUS is simply delaying a ridiculous decision that they already know how they are going to rule on in order to benefit Trump.

The question, to me, is if there's an insurrection trial during the election, as opposed to a conviction in advance of the election, does that really benefit him? Say he's convicted in October. He has a month to whip people up with the "I'm a victim fighting for you" card. Whereas if he's in an ongoing trial without a resolution, it's a huge distraction and while he can talk about politically motivated prosecution, no one has actually convicted him yet. It leaves a dark cloud hanging over his head and it might actually be worse for him.
 
InCali said:
I guess my main concern was that I don't think states should be able to disqualify candidates for a federal election. Imagine a state that's possibly in play with conservative supermajorities in the legislative branch (think gerrymandering) or with a conservative Supreme Court. It's possible they could decide to disqualify a candidate and shift the election.

I think the decision needs to be made at the federal level for federal elections.
Click to expand...

There were red states threatening to do just that.
 
Sithborg said:
There were red states threatening to do just that.
Click to expand...
While I think I heard something about that, I paid about as much attention to it as I did to CO and IL. When a true battleground state starts talking like that, it has the chance of overturning a federal election. Opening that door, IMO, would have been a very bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C. Lee
  • Locked
NEW RULE FOR THE BLM PROTESTS ACROSS THE WORLD THREAD
Replies
0
Views
6K
C. Lee
C. Lee
Metamorpho1977
The Comedy Central Roast of Donald Trump
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
Dr. Evil
Dr. Evil
Karea07
Donald Trump to Sue Rosie O'Donnell
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
4K
Yurka
Yurka
J
*HUMOR * Who Said It: Hopeful Donald Trump or ‘Idiocracy’ President Camacho?
Replies
1
Views
988
Teelie
Teelie
CFE
CFE's 1000 Moments in Film
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
CFE
CFE

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 741 (members: 31, guests: 710)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,665
Messages
21,782,660
Members
45,620
Latest member
stevezorz

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"