guitardeac
Well-known member
So hard to believe these intelligent SC judges are behind someone as obviously stupid as Trump.
I get it that people don't want Trump on the ballot. Me included. But we need to be mindful of the ability of state legislatures to determine who appears on ballot in a state. In particular, if GOP state politicians had the ability to just remove Biden or a future dem from the ballot in their state, do you think they would resist that?Not exactly. 9-0 Trump stays on the ballot. But 5-4 on the breadth of the holding. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson with a pretty blistering concurrence and Barrett with a “I don’t want to say I concur with the liberal block, but read between the lines and see that I do” concurrence. So we’ve got boys vs. girls…
All justices say a state, on its own, can’t disqualify under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. Majority goes further to say that Sec. 3 is not self-executing and that the only way to for any candidate for federal office to be disqualified under it is through a statue enacted by Congress.
They don't have to answer to you or anyone else. They can make up whatever they want and it doesn't even need to make sense.Can’t wait to see the mental gymnastics on them ruling presidential immunity for Trump but only Trump
The lord uses imperfect tools to do his will.So hard to believe these intelligent SC judges are behind someone as obviously stupid as Trump.
Do you feel better about Congress? SCOTUS seems to.I get it that people don't want Trump on the ballot. Me included. But we need to be mindful of the ability of state legislatures to determine who appears on ballot in a state. In particular, if GOP state politicians had the ability to just remove Biden or a future dem from the ballot in their state, do you think they would resist that?
Yes.Do you feel better about Congress? SCOTUS seems to.
I don't disagree with this from a practicality standpoint and that seems to be where all 9 justices stood. I am right there with the concurrence (that apparently was at some point styled as a concurrence in part and dissent in part, based on the metadata in the PDF opinion - not really a surprise, it sure reads more dissent-y than anything else), however, that the idea that the only way for any candidate for federal office to be disqualified under it is through a statue enacted by Congress was 1) not necessary to decide and 2) to the extent that it was decided, it was wrong. Without some kind of enabling legislation, you could easily read the majority opinion as saying a federal court could not apply disqualification to someone actually convicted of insurrection! That is just bat shit crazy.I get it that people don't want Trump on the ballot. Me included. But we need to be mindful of the ability of state legislatures to determine who appears on ballot in a state. In particular, if GOP state politicians had the ability to just remove Biden or a future dem from the ballot in their state, do you think they would resist that?
Republicans will get right on that.Perhaps we need to work on this in the next few months:
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So hard to believe these intelligent SC judges are behind someone as obviously stupid as Trump.
I get it that people don't want Trump on the ballot. Me included. But we need to be mindful of the ability of state legislatures to determine who appears on ballot in a state. In particular, if GOP state politicians had the ability to just remove Biden or a future dem from the ballot in their state, do you think they would resist that?
Another quiet part out loud?“We can’t follow the Constitution because can’t trust our elected officials” is pretty rough logic.