***Official*** SCOTUS count down thread on Trump's ballot ruling, due 1000 Mon 4 Mar

[Anti Federalist]

Place your bets, boyos.


https://twitter.com/9NewsNancy/statu...73219308441769

[Anti Globalist]

6-3 or 5-4 decision. Sotomayor, Kagan, Brown, and Roberts will be the dissenters. Find it hard to believe none of the leftists judges will not dissent.

[nobody's_hero]

They'll make the right decision for the wrong reason or something like that, as usual for the SCOTUS.

[69360]

I think nothing happens. They kick it back to federal courts or maybe decide they don't have authority. Something along those lines.

[Occam's Banana]

9-0

[Anti Federalist]

9-0

Brave man.

I'll wager a round of bourbon on that.

[Anti Federalist]

9-0

I owe ya drinks

[Anti Federalist]

SCOTUS Unanimously Rules States Cannot Disqualify Trump from 2024 Ballot

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...m-2024-ballot/

BRADLEY JAYE 4 Mar 2024

WASHINGTON, DC – Colorado cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court said only Congress can disqualify a candidate from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Insurrection Clause”, overturning a 4-3 opinion in December from the Colorado Supreme Court that the provision prohibits former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the presidency in 2024.

That ruling partially reversed a prior ruling in November that Trump is not an officer of the United States as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Amendment therefore cannot be used to disqualify him from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot.

This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

More to come…

[acptulsa]

They want so badly for him not to be president again that they attack him only with paper tigers with no teeth.

Psyop 101

[spudea]

Another W prediction for my signature. Expect the losers on this forum arguing the law allows Colorado to do this to quickly pivot to "well this was expected..."

US SC should rule 9-0 to overturn and completely vacate the Colorado SC.

[69360]

This ruling doesn't say that Trump can't be removed from the ballot. Just that states don't have the power to, only congress. Not that the current congress would. Like I thought scotus just kicked the can down the road and didn't do anything substantial.

[Occam's Banana]

9-0

I owe ya drinks

It wasn't too hard to figure out what was going to happen:

In this post I said "I won't be surprised if SCOTUS overrules [the Colorado decision] 9-0" - but that is not due to any supposition on my part of high-minded republicanism at SCOTUS. Rather, it is because courts tend to (small-"c") conservative circumspection - and the higher the court, the more conservative the circumspection.

The courts really don't want to touch any of this radioactive election stuff - not even with a ten-foot gavel. (That, at least as much as anything else, explains why nothing ever came of any of all those 2020 election cases.) The "insurrection disqualification" issue is a hot potato that SCOTUS was more than happy to toss back to Congress.

I suppose there might have been a chance it could still have turned out to have been an 8-1 or even 7-2 decision. But when, contrary to routine, they explicitly scheduled beforehand the announcement of the decision for this particular case, that's when I knew it was going to be 9-0. If it had been a split decision, they wouldn't have done that - it would only have served to highlight and put an exclamation point on division in the court over an historic and momentous case.

[acptulsa]

The courts really don't want to touch any of this radioactive election stuff - not even with a ten-foot gavel.

It's a point. Bush v. Gore didn't exactly go over well.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/3YearLetterman/s...70535089209729

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

This is as bad as overruling the killing of babies!
Need to get rid of the Supreme Court!

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/stat...99578618520056

[susano]

I only read the Breitbart article about this but this quote from the decision almost sounded like whoever wrote it was inviting a challenge to amendment itself.

Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment expanded federal power at the expense of state autonomy and thus fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...m-2024-ballot/

[Anti Federalist]

I only read the Breitbart article about this but this quote from the decision almost sounded like whoever wrote it was inviting a challenge to amendment itself.

Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment expanded federal power at the expense of state autonomy and thus fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...m-2024-ballot/

The 14th has been a disaster since its inception.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Maybe all this will be insignificant when USA goes to war with Russia and China. USA takes a page out of Zelensky playbook and cancels the elections.

[ClaytonB]

They want so badly for him not to be president again that they attack him only with paper tigers with no teeth.

Psyop 101

Did I miss something? Is Resident Biden an obstacle to The Agenda somehow??

[nobody's_hero]

I wonder what this will mean (if anything) for future candidates.

Assuming the ruling is applied equally (har har), future attempts to remove candidates (or keep them off ballots) could be struck down using this precedent.

[TheCount]

I wonder what this will mean (if anything) for future candidates.

Assuming the ruling is applied equally (har har), future attempts to remove candidates (or keep them off ballots) could be struck down using this precedent.

It means that there are no constitutional qualifications (age, citizenship, birth) for president unless/until Congress writes a law to enforce them.

[nobody's_hero]

It means that there are no constitutional qualifications (age, citizenship, birth) for president unless/until Congress writes a law to enforce them.

So technically, whether it's the Texas GOP trying to remove libertarians from the ballot or the Democratic party trying to remove RFK,jr, it shouldn't stand, right?

[Anti Federalist]

[Anti Federalist]

[Swordsmyth]

They want so badly for him not to be president again that they attack him only with paper tigers with no teeth.

Psyop 101

They have nothing else.

[Swordsmyth]

It means that there are no constitutional qualifications (age, citizenship, birth) for president unless/until Congress writes a law to enforce them.

The qualifications don't state that Congress must enforce them, that's the difference.

And SCOTUS already shredded the required qualifications when it ruled nobody had standing to challenge O'Bummer.

[Swordsmyth]

[familydog]

I dunno. I kinda think that States ought to run their own elections. All this ruling does is continue to strengthen the the de facto Constitution (the 14th Amendment) at the expense of the original.

[TheCount]

The qualifications don't state that Congress must enforce them, that's the difference.

None of them do.

And SCOTUS already shredded the required qualifications when it ruled nobody had standing to challenge O'Bummer.

Which you... agree with?