[Bill Daniels] Playing the Trump Card: SC rules CO can't block Trump from the ballot

[DJ_Critterus]

Wow...and this was a unanimous decision

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...cation-dispute

[04 commemorative]

Just saw it.....good decision on their part.....could have spurred an insurrection

[Yadkin]

Wow, actually a common sense decision.

[Bill]

Sad we're reduced to celebrating winning a fight that we paid for both sides to wage. We paid the government to do the lawfare, and Trump/Trump supporters paid to defend against it. Good decision, but this isn't winning.

[KenHorse]

So when do the AntiFA riots start?

[Vandelay Industries]

A good decision. A little surprised that even the "wise latina" and Miss "I'm not a biologist" were on board with it.

As always though, the left will use this as another excuse to attack & discredit SCOTUS. That effort started to ramp up again last week after the court agreed to hear the presidential immunity arguments.

[Swany00]

here comes "pack the court" bullshit again

[Bill]

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Yadkin

Wow, actually a common sense decision.

Exactly. A few of them must be high or

[Bill]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

Exactly. A few of them must be high or

I'm betting Jumanji has a quality weed dealer. She probably brings enough for everyone.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

I think we're going to lose, and I'm going to die in a
concentration camp for trans people.

No, you should die in an insane asylum because you are mentally ill.

[Bill]

Twitter

For Gene:

https://twitter.com/JenaGriswold/sta...70650592186392

Meanwhile, in Colorado:

[gs568]

I can only imagine how the libs and rinos are losing what’s left of their pea brains. It truly is a good day.

[Jughead]

Well, there's always voter fraud, election interference & intimidation

[Onebadcad]

9-0 IS A BOOTSTOMPING!!

A sad day for those who hate OUR CONSTITUTION!!

[ZipZap]

Originally Posted by 04 commemorative

Just saw it.....good decision on their part.....could have spurred an insurrection

I know you say that tongue-in-cheek with 1/6, but that is something that I've actually wondered.

What would push it over the edge? Trump losing the election would be one thing, as I still think there are enough Nevers to keep it close. Keeping him off the ballot would create chaos at the voting spots at a minimum.

I have no inkling that the SC even slightly considered safety, as applying penalties without any convictions, or even realistic charges, would be not only moronic, but unconstitutional.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Onebadcad

9-0 IS A BOOTSTOMPING!!

A sad day for those who hate OUR CONSTITUTION!!

A couple of the leftist judges voted with the group but wrote dissenting opinions leaving the door open for congress to make such a decision.

[ZipZap]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

https://twitter.com/JenaGriswold/sta...70650592186392

For Gene:



Meanwhile, in Colorado:

All my gun nests point North.

[MidLifeinMI]

Saw that the left-leaning media are still claiming it as a victory - "Notice that SCOTUS didn't deny he's guilty of insurrection?" Idiots.

[Onebadcad]

Originally Posted by LATB

A couple of the leftist judges voted with the group but wrote dissenting opinions leaving the door open for congress to make such a decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-719_19m2.pdf

kagan and jackson:

SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in judgment
It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3.
The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose. It cites Griffin’s
Case, but that is a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by
a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge. See ante,
at 5 (quoting 11 F. Cas., at 26). Once again, even petitioner’s lawyer distanced himself from fully embracing this
case as probative of Section 3’s meaning. See Tr. of Oral
Arg. 35–36. The majority also cites Senator Trumbull’s
statements that Section 3 “‘provide[d] no means for enforcing’” itself. Ante, at 5 (quoting Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st
Sess., 626 (1869)). The majority, however, neglects to mention the Senator’s view that “[i]t is the [F]ourteenth
[A]mendment that prevents a person from holding office,”
with the proposed legislation simply “affor[ding] a more efficient and speedy remedy” for effecting the disqualification. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626–627.
Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It
forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as
might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further
holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must
prescribe certain procedures “‘tailor[ed]’” to Section 3, ante,
at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By
resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts
to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.
* * *
“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.”

SOTOMAYOR, K AGAN, JACKSON, JJ., concurring in the judgment
6 TRUMP v. ANDERSON
SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in judgment
Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 158 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting). The Court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual State may keep a Presidential
candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot. The majority resolves much more than the case before
us. Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way
at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that
enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section
3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to
disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In
a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons
that course.
Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role
in our democracy. The American people have the power to
vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is
a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed
an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3.
They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in
that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections,
could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority
goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section
3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming
President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce
Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to
define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.
Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur
only in the judgment.