Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
I think its a step in the right direction. Removing him from the ballot is an act of cowardice, it literally says "Because im a worthless piece of shit democrat, you dont get to vote, only i get to vote" Unless congress its self removes him from the ballot, no one should have that power.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
I think it's telling that even the liberal justices were like "this is a horrible precedent to set"
Ten years from now all the Blue states would ban the Red candidate and vice versa
"oh but he's a criminal!"
1) I'm in D. C. they all are.
2) I don't remember a criminal trial
3) The classified documents thing? Every General and full bird needs to be on that indictment too. Make it RICO, F it.
I'm hardly the conductor of the Trump Train, but this has been ridiculous.
Well, judges DO fill in the law and they've done so for hundreds of years. That's what Common Law is.
OK, some background...
First, this is Section 3 and then Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:
==
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.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
==
(more)
Many in the SCOTUS felt Section 5 gives Congress the authority. Some may argue that Congress then needs to craft legislation to make Section 3 have a definitive process. I more or less agree with that.
However, to me, this was also something of a no-brainer.
1. Here's the meat in Section 3:
"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"
Insurrection and rebellion and aiding or comforting enemies is performed against the United States, not Colorado.
2. Therefore, the United States needs to define these acts are in law so that someone can be charged with violations of such laws and then stand trial against those charges.
3. The United States has done that! It's basically any crime under United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 115.
18 U. S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
These include:
§ 2381. Treason
§ 2382. Misprision of treason
§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
§ 2386. Registration of certain organizations
§ 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
§ 2389. Recruiting for service against United States
§ 2390. Enlistment to serve against United States
4. So, to me, if you are convicted of any of these, then you automatically are ineligible under Amd 14 Sec 3.
===
(more)
Now, some lawyers might debate that. As I mentioned, perhaps there should be an expressed statement to that fact - that is, a statute under the USC stating this. Or perhaps a different statute outlining the Section 3 process. I don't have qualms with that.
I DO have qualms with something Trump's lawyers asserted: That acts done while President doesn't fall under jurisdiction of Section 3 since the President is not an officer. I think that's horseshit and the SCOTUS didn't seem to entertain that either although they were not explicit about this issue. To me, the President is an officer because, under Article II, he takes "the Oath of Office".
That Trump wasn't convicted of any of these (yet) and I am not sure he was charged with any of these - I'd have to check that - has me feeling OK that Trump is on the ballot. I can't stand the guy and, to me, this isn't a "let the people decide" thing - they already decided by electing legislators to make laws - those laws need to be followed. But, bottom line, Trump wasn't (yet) convicted of anything under Chapter 115, so Section 3 should not yet apply.
@abc3643 It's an interesting reading of it. The constitution says that someone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible to run for office, there's still a court's findings of fact that show that Trump engaged in insurrection, but SCOTUS didn't rule on the findings of fact but decided that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" means that only Congress has that power, rather than Congress has the power to force states to conform to the law.
Why shouldn't states make decisions about the elections they run, as long as they're consistent with the constitution?
The people claiming Republican states would not allow Biden to run are crazy; there's no grounds for excluding him. There are for Trump.
@goaded There's always a reason. If law were cut and dry it would be done by algorithms and there'd be no relevance how good a lawyer you have, it would just be about objective inarguable facts.
Whole buncha lawers in my family. Each of them can have a completely different argument with the same fact pattern. Hence the joke about when you ask a lawyer anything the answer is always "it depends."
It's like your employer being told they can't fire you for XYZ after they tried to. Go ahead and start looking for another job. There's always a reason to fire someone, and in some states you don't even have to give one, just, you're fired, why? because I said so.
It's possible the reason is political, or self-preservation, though, not legal. A court adjudicated that Jan 6 was an insurrection and Trump engaged in it. An appeals court concurred. SCOTUS didn't look at that at all.
Then there's the whole "does the president have absolute immunity for any crimes committed while in office" question, which is absurd. There's obviously a certain amount of leeway (arguably too much when it came to Bush) given to preceding presidents by their successors for illegal acts against terrorists and enemies of the USA, but that can't possibly extend to trying to overturn the results of an election, or killing your political rivals.
Germany made the mistake of giving Hitler four years to make laws without input from government; inside four months he'd eliminated elections.
If you're going to pretend to be a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic then any citizen should be allowed to have his or her name on the ballot paper as an option to vote for.
That's what constitutes "free and fair" elections.
If an African nation had tried to do what Colorado tried then the hypocrites scream of "election fraud" and "vote tampering" would have been screamed by those same people.
Opinion
10Opinion
I see it as not only a win for Trump but more so a win for the people of the US because they have a right to vote for the candidate of their choice. If Trump were to have been removed from the ballot, it would have been a violation of the right people have to vote for their chosen candidate if that chosen candidate happens to be Trump.
Jesus Christ, Keith Olbermann just called for the supreme court to be disbanded. You can't make this stuff up.
Seriously? Wow. When do you think the protesting will start?
Let them start rioting. That will guarantee a Trump victory.
True, and hopefully the police actually do their god damned jobs
Politicians love to seize power wherever they can. That SCOTUS stopped dead their desire to impede the right of the people to vote was yet one more reason I find I’m unable to vote Democrat ever again.
guess what? democrats control senate... so as you said.
It should be a sign to the idiots that if scotus votes 9/0 on something then it is beyond questioning. They rarely agree unanimously on anything
This was the proper outcome. I am glad it was decided unanimously although the justices had different reasons for reaching the same conclusion.
However, this had nothing to do with Democrats, so don't think this is a Democratic ploy.
The initial case in Colorado was filed by REPUBLICAN voters who wanted Trump off the ballot.
While they had a legitimate complaint, a single state was not really the forum to do that and that was what was decided in this case, rightfully so.
I think you're going to have to have a political solution to a political problem, but that the trials should go ahead so that everyone knows if they'd be voting for a criminal or not. (Trump is very obviously a criminal.)
I don’t think people will care whether he is considered a criminal or not. I mean people still voted for Biden and other criminal democrats knowing they were criminals
@SolitarySolace No they're not. Could you be any more transparent?
Good thing Trump isn’t a convicted criminal than, eh?
@SolitarySolace Only because no criminal trial has started. They've been delayed by SCOTUS and a Trump appointed judge who's already been overruled by an appeals court for favouring Trump.
@abc3643 "They did not opine on whether Mr Trump had, in fact, engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021. They didn't discuss whether the attack on the US Capitol by the former president's supporters constituted an insurrection at all (or was a riot, as characterised by one of Mr Trump's lawyers).
The court also didn't delve into whether presidents are specifically exempt from the 14th Amendment's insurrection language, another of Mr Trump's legal arguments in challenging the Colorado decision.
Instead, the court focused solely on which authorities have the power to enforce the insurrection provision. Only Congress, not individuals states, has that power, it held - a view that avoids the "patchwork" scenario in which a candidate could be eligible in some states and disqualified in others."
So, for some unfathomable reason (unless it was self-preservation, they're getting death threats), they decided to ignore the Colorado judge's findings of fact and that it had been upheld on appeal.
I think multiple 30 year olds should stand for president. Apparently, only Congress can decide if they're eligible.
The one thing that they universally agreed upon is that only Congress has the authority to enforce Section 3. Now, don't look to much into this. When we say "Congress" a lot, what that really means is that a statute needs to be written and then put into place. Congress doesn't directly authorize a whole lot; that's what statutes and the Executive Branch are about.
So, it's not like Congress is going to directly authorize who is eligible to run or not.
Congress already has sort of done that. In Title 18 Chapter 115 of the US Code, perhaps every crime listed is sufficient for Section 3 disqualification. That is, if a person is convicted of any of those crimes, then Section 3 disqualification applies. Whether that is automatic or not is subject to debate. To me, it should be automatic but the explicit process of the disqualification act should be spelled out in law.
@abc3643 How does that mean that states *can't* enforce "the provisions of this article"? It's the law of the land.
This decision is about SCOTUS not rocking the boat (while their other actions delay Trump's criminal trials), and avoiding the obvious facts laid out in the lower court's findings that Trump engaged in insurrection.
States can't enforce it because, under Section 5, Congress enforces it. Furthermore, there's an issue of jurisdiction where the due process is concerned. The insurrection in Section 3 is against the United States, not Colorado. Only the United States can determine if insurrection was committed against it.
It's the same reason why Colorado can't prosecute you for a murder you committed in Kansas just over the state line even if everyone in Colorado watched you do it and knows it was you who committed the murder. The murder happened in Kansas, not Colorado, so Colorado doesn't have jurisdiction.
The fact that this was unanimous says something.
I listened to the entire argument live as it happened and it was obvious that this was likely going to be unanimous.
You can listen to the arguments here:
www.supremecourt.gov/.../23-719
Here is the transcript of the oral arguments:
www.supremecourt.gov/.../23-719_5he6.pdf
I might stick with the 20 page decision, for now at least. www.supremecourt.gov/.../23-719_19m2.pdf
Because they have to in a case like this. Legal points are always raised on both sides and then the SCOTUS needs to elaborate on points of law in their opinions/dissents.
Presidents do have a lot of immunity but absolute immunity they don't. The United States v. Richard Nixon in 1974 and Clinton v. Jones in 1997. But both of those cases involve specific circumstances, neither of which really applies here. So, that needs to be officially determined.
What's frustrating is the delay on the immunity case.
@abc3643 Not really. It's already been officially determined that it's horseshit, they could simply let the lower court's decision stand, no need to hear arguments about what is clearly a stalling tactic. They not only didn't accept hearing arguments bypassing the lower court, as they could have, they waited for its ruling, then took up the case, after a few weeks delay.
The delay's the thing. I really worry the American experiment is coming to an end.
I believe they already accepted the case.
www.scotusblog.com/.../
"[Trump v. United States] will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024."
www.scotusblog.com/.../
Trump v. United States
Docket No. Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
23-939 TBD TBD TBD TBD OT 2023
Issue: Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
...
Feb 28 2024 The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari s granted (23-939), and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for stay is dismissed as moot. The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p. m., Monday, April 15, 2024.
So, on the date of oral argument, listen in live either at C-SPAN...
https://www.c-span.org/supremeCourt/
or at the SCOTUS website...
www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
SCOTUS website is pure audio, but it is a reliable stream.
C-SPAN website shows pictures and names of who's talking but, for me at least, is less reliable.
If you know the SCOTUS justices' voices, you can follow just using the SCOTUS site fairly easily but you have to listen carefully to know which litigants are at the podium.
@abc3643 Smith asked SCOTUS to take up the case in December last year. Everyone knows it's horseshit. Any delay is simply supporting Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R1fOyCnd4Q
The delay does support Trump, but that's not their concern. (And, this may turn out to be a good thing...)
But, keep this in mind:
The GOP Convention is Mon, Jul 15, 2024 – Thu, Jul 18, 2024.
"OT 2023", the current US Supreme Court session, usually ends in the last week in June, sometimes the first week of July for major opinions. This means that the SCOTUS will likely issue an opinion in Trump v. US before the GOP Convention. If they rule that Trump did not have absolute immunity while President and the case goes forward, the entire summer will be filled with headlines about Jack Smith's case going to trial. It will be a form of negative advertising, especially if the case is televised which likely would not happen, but might be since it is of such national interest.
it was republicans in CO who sued to block Trump.
Also did Elizabeth Prelogar argue for the plaintiffs?
No. And she wasn't even invited by the SCOTUS to chime in. Often, the SCOTUS will invite "The United States" (that is, the Federal Government via the Solicitor General's Office) to file an amicus brief asking it what it thinks about the situation. Since Biden is up for re-election, the Solicitor General's opinion could be viewed as a conflict of interest, so that is likely why there was no amicus invite from SCOTUS.
The Solicitor General of Colorado was one of the litigants in oral arguments though.
Wow! I envy you. Wish I could do that.
No, she did not file a brief.
You can review all the artifacts associated with the case at SCOTUSblog. com.
www.scotusblog.com/.../
By the way, here's a good rule of thumb:
Often, states are suing the shit out each other and, when that happens, the SCOTUS has "original jurisdiction" under Article III.
In such cases of state v. state, SCOTUS will often invite the Solicitor General to 'file a brief expressing the views of the United States" (that is, the Federal Government).
One such case decided not too long ago sticks out in my mind: Mississippi and Tennessee were embattled over the pumping of groundwater from an underground aquifer that straddled both states.
Here is the SCOTUSblog entry for that case.
www.scotusblog.com/.../
Mississippi v. Tennessee
Docket No. Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
22O143 Oct 4, 2021 Nov 22, 2021 9-0 Roberts OT 2021
Holding: The waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment; Mississippi’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.
Judgment: Dismissed, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on November 22, 2021.
In the history for that case, you will see this:
Oct 20 2014 The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
====
No such entry is in the history for the case of Trump v. Anderson.
Because it's shows the unconstitutional rule of Democrats
Good deal.
They got it right
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
