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

    From Blue State Ignorance@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 5 06:54:12 2024
    XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, co.politics
    XPost: talk.politics.guns

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win
    to former President Donald Trump by ruling that 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.

    In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the
    Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could
    not serve again as president under Section 3 of the
    Constitution's 14th Amendment.

    The provision prohibits those who previously held government
    positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for
    various offices.

    The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed
    that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or
    other candidate for federal office is ineligible.

    The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set
    rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced
    against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to
    all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar
    people running for state office from appearing on the ballot
    under Section 3.

    "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.

    By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided
    any analysis or determination of whether Trump's actions
    constituted an insurrection.

    The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

    Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-
    capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, "Big win
    for America!!!"

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24454892/trump-v-
    anderson.pdf

    In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in
    Colorado, the decision will end similar cases that have arisen.
    So far, only two other states, Maine and Illinois, followed
    Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions
    were put on hold.

    Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold registered
    "disappointment" with the decision in an interview with NBC
    News' Katy Tur on MSNBC.

    "Ultimately, this decision ... leaves open the door for Congress
    to act to pass authorizing legislation. But we know that
    Congress is a nearly non-functioning body, so ultimately, it
    will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in
    November," she said.

    Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows was quick to act after
    the ruling,

    "I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trump’s primary
    petition is invalid," she said in a statement, citing her
    obligation to follow the law.

    The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump
    accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election
    results, including his exhortation that his supporters should
    march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to
    formalize Joe Biden’s win.

    Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The
    Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on his broad
    claim of presidential immunity.

    The ruling warned of the dangers of a patchwork of decisions
    around the country that could send elections into chaos if state
    officials had the freedom to determine who could appear on the
    ballot for president.

    "The result could well be that a single candidate would be
    declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the
    same conduct," the ruling said.

    Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some
    divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority,
    as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices —
    Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson —
    complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the
    court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how
    Section 3 could be enforced by Congress.

    They said the decision could "insulate" Trump from "future
    controversy," adding that the ruling "shuts the door on other
    potential means of federal enforcement" of section 3.

    Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court
    went further than required, although she did not join the
    liberal justices’ opinion.

    Barrett said although she had some disagreements with the
    rationale, the liberals should not “amplify disagreement” in
    such a politically charged case.

    “All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is
    the message Americans should take home," she added.

    The Colorado court based its Dec. 19 ruling on Section 3, which
    was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates
    from returning to power in the U.S. government.

    The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether
    the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to
    decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.

    The state high court’s decision reversed a lower court’s ruling
    in which a judge said that Trump had engaged in insurrection by
    inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to
    the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are
    not an “officer of the United States.”

    Trump and his allies raised that point, as well as other
    arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also
    argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.

    Republicans, including Trump’s primary opponents, broadly
    supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot
    is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats
    including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed
    unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a
    partisan weapon.

    The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters
    by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for
    Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.

    They alleged in court papers that Trump “intentionally organized
    and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in
    a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes
    cast against him.”

    Noah Bookbinder, CREW's president, focused on the silver lining
    after the ruling, saying that the court "had the opportunity to
    exonerate Donald Trump for engaging in insurrection, and they
    did not do that."

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court- rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291

    Thank you liberals for demonstrating your ignorance again.

    It is not up to the Supreme Court to do the job of Congress.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 63h.1504@21:1/5 to Blue State Ignorance on Tue Mar 5 03:04:36 2024
    XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, co.politics
    XPost: talk.politics.guns

    On 3/5/24 12:54 AM, Blue State Ignorance wrote:
    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win
    to former President Donald Trump by ruling that 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.

    We've heard.

    And the CO officials are FREAKING OUT and trying
    to find ways AROUND the ruling already. How DARE
    someone from the Non-Woke party be allowed on the
    ballot !!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)