I didn't think about the fact this would constitute solicitation. — Relativist
(bold added)“Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announced novel rules for how that enforcement must operate,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in their joint concurrence, referring to the section of the 14th Amendment that contains the insurrection clause. The court’s main opinion, those three justices wrote, “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.”
(bold added)We granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single
question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we now reverse.
States cannot use their control over the ballot to “undermine the National Government.”
To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers’ vision of “a Federal Government directly responsible to thepeople.” U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 821. The Court should have started and ended its opinion with this conclusion.
... 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.
There is one issue brought before the court and decided by the court. Per Curium. 9-0. And that was whether those who tried to remove Trump from the ballot were wrong in doing so. They were. You ignore it. — NOS4A2
(https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-disaster.html)The majority says that Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment. Such procedures, of course, do not exist today. And without them, the majority insists—in just a few paragraphs of sparse reasoning—the insurrection clause cannot be enforced against office seekers.
The majority mentioned the laws already in place to jail and disqualify insurrectionists from office. — NOS4A2
Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
They probably should have mentioned that Trump was already acquitted of insurrection, as well. — NOS4A2
... on the basis of some hare-brained theory, — NOS4A2
.Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.
We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.
The majority said:
Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
Section 3 works by imposing on certain individuals a preventive and severe penalty—disqualification from holding a wide array of offices—rather than by granting rights to
all. It is therefore necessary, as Chief Justice Chase concluded and the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognized, to “‘ascertain[] what particular individuals are embraced’”
by the provision.
...
The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment.
Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35 Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives §§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12 Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383.
First, what they said is not limited to Trump. It affects all future candidates. Second, the majority of senators voted to convict Trump — 57 to 43, including seven Republicans. But this fell short of the 2-thirds majority required.
The court did not determine that it is a hare -brained theory. The issue was whether the states rather than the federal government has the authority to disqualify insurrectionist candidates, not that a candidate guilty of insurrection should be disqualified.
You're quoting the concurring opinion. — NOS4A2
Thankfully the justices can all read the plain language of the Constitution. — NOS4A2
Trump only won 60% of the vote in many of the primaries he carried, meaning there's a large percentage of Republican voters who won't vote for him — Wayfarer
'IF I DON'T GET WHAT I WANT EVERYONE IS GOING TO SUFFER!!!' How can that amount to a winning strategy? — Wayfarer
↪boethius You're forgetting abortion. Since Dobbs, Democrats have overperformed in every special election. SCOTUS is taking up abortion again this Summer, and no matter what they decide, the mere fact of them sticking their noses in women's wombs will enrage and terrify them. — RogueAI
Democrats also have a massive cash advantage. This is going to be a turnout election, and I would much rather be a Democrat candidate than Republican. — RogueAI
Money is not the end-all-be-all, but it is an important factor, and candidates would rather have it than not. — RogueAI
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.