I would not go this far, as the 14th amendment is something that really exists and crucially provides no text explicitly stating who was to be the ultimate arbiter of when this amendment can be enacted. I think most of us agree with SCOTUS’ ruling here, but the fact that the court even made this ruling shows that the question was open. Now, if a state does this again after this ruling, I’ll be with you that they deserve punishment, but we should not engage in the practice of retroactively enforcing laws.
Not surprised at all and think it is for the best. Trump isnt gonna win Colorado anyway. No doubt trump will spin this as a big win, so be it. However, it doesnt address in anyway his guilt as an insurrectionist. Would be nice if the Supremes could resolve some of the other issues as quickly. It will be funny if he is a convicted felon prior to the election who cant vote for himself. (I know, a longshot given all his delays.)
Someone mentioned something interesting to me about the scope of the ruling going beyond what the Court needed to hold to reach its unanimous result in this case. Was it to foreclose arguments that a criminal conviction might matter going forward?
Bad: Only congress can disqualify an insurrectionist candidate. Well what if congress is riddled with insurrectionists? Good: Trump asked SCOTUS to state that he wasn't guilty of insurrection. They did not do so.
The sane American citizenry cannot expect the courts to save them from Trump. It will have to be done at the ballot box no matter how many roadblocks his violent and deranged fans put in the way in November.
It was some Republican voters in Colorado - I don't believe they were in government though I could be wrong. They brought suit and the Colorado Supreme Court found in their favor.
The Colorado Supreme Court gets put in their place by the real Supreme Court... 9-0. All that remains is the blubbering people in disbelief. LMFAO!
I for one think Trump is the least likely candidate to beat Biden so I welcome the decision. That part of the constitutional amendment was poorly written so I get their hesitancy. Turns out the amendment didn’t consider that it would happen again, much less by someone who would have mass support for running for president.
So, it's true that Biden can have Trump murdered and it wouldn't be a crime if 34 Democrats in the Senate say it's not? Can he also murder and replace some Scotus judges?
I guess we'll see about the criminal immunity issue in a couple months. At the very least, this Opinion seems to mean that Biden could do those things you mention and still serve a second term so long as he wins the Electoral College and Congress fails to disqualify him.
According to the four judges, if it isn't the states and isn't Congress, who is it that disqualifies federal officers?
I don’t understand how someone who is NOT in a specific group can credibly talk about the expectations of the group they are not a part of.
Did I miss something here. Where in the hail do you Liberals think a state can disqualify a candidate based on an unproven case of insurrection in the first place? I can see them trying to keep President Trump off the ballot if he were convicted of leading an insurrection, but that case is still not yet been proven either way.
Seems like a good question to me. I didn't read the briefs and arguments. Perhaps they were imagining, for example, a case where there has been a Federal criminal conviction? But in that hypothetical, I'm not sure how that would play out procedurally or even matter assuming states are powerless to do anything absent Congressional action.
