Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot

9-0 is my prediction.

 

JUST IN: Supreme Court Sets Unusual Opinion Release For Monday Morning - Signals Ruling on Trump Ballot Eligibility is Looming | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

JUST IN: Supreme Court Sets Unusual Opinion Release For Monday Morning – Signals Ruling on Trump Ballot Eligibility is Looming

 

Legislation from the bench incoming...

 

Opinion is out. As expected, they reversed Colorado. Only Congress can disqualify people running in federal elections. This is the outcome I supported (as long as that includes criminal convictions), yet I do love that it's another example of the originalists on SCOTUS abandoning originalism when it becomes harmful to their politics.

Don't forget that when they tell us that they have to reach some god awful and harmful conclusion because of originalism. It's always a choice.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

FWIW, it's 9-0 that states can't disqualify federal officers. 5-4 that Congress has to do it.

 

Saving democracy by eliminating political opposition.

 

Short and interesting concurrence by Barrett:

JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.

The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

 

The politics seem to be clearly in play when it comes to which issues should be states rights and which issue should fall under federal acontrol

 

Breaking News, Latest News and Videos | CNN

Unanimous. Ouch!! What are the libs 0For now?

 

Trump claims " total exoneration" by the scotus in 3,2,1... ( even though the ruling does not say that).

 

I would love to see trump kicked off of every ballot and just be rid of the man for forever, but this is what’s best for the country long and short term. All that would happen from this is that the republicans would find an excuse to do it to a dem in the next cycle and it would get normalized, just like all the other insane garbage of the last few years. And trump hasn’t been convicted of a thing at this point. Would be a horrible precedent, states just deciding who is loyal and who isn't.
9-0 wasn’t an accident, the court wanted to send a clear message to politicians across the country - stop weaponizing laws for political gain.

 

Repost.

Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot | Page 24 | Swamp Gas Forums

 

Lol, you guys are funny. Beyond dumb of the left to claim they like democracy and then pick who you can vote for. Corrupt as hell. 9-0 decision speaks volumes on how dumb this was.

 

I would go a step further and anyone who started this, should be removed from Gov. Its completely undemocratic, even if they believed it was the right thing to do morally.

 

Interesting take. I read through the opinion prior to reading the reporting at CNN and Fox and then here. My review of the opinion was that it was application of originalism - namely, that the central issue decided (whether States or Congress had authority to enforce/apply 14th AM, Sec. 3 to federal officeholders) that Section 3 and the historical context provided by contemporaneous analysis supported the result. I appreciate the dissents and ongoing debate whether this ruling flowed beyond the necessary on issues of how Sec. 3 was to be enforced/applied, but I am curious as to your reasoning that "SCOTUS abandon[ed] originalism" in this case. This is not intended as a snarky question. I am interested to consider/learn what nuance or perspective you have to make that statement. Thanks.

 

This news must have you really pleased and excited!! You can organize a conspiracy to deny the results of a federal election, coerce elected officials to do the same, coerce your VP candidate to disregard the Constitution, and stand by watching idly as your supporters beat hundreds of police while they try to assist.....and still run for President.

How exciting for you!

 

Well said. This should not be viewed as a right vs left battle. This was instead a win for our republic, as all of our laws must run both ways.

 

Out: election deniers. In: SCOTUS deniers.

 

If Trump is purportedly strengthened when courts rule against him, does it follow that he is weakened when they rule in his favor?

 

It is exciting, I have alot of Orville Redenbacher ready in 2024.