US Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off any ballot - The 9-0 decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states could bar Trump from state ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

1709565075620.png

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a Colorado court ruling that said former President Donald Trump was ineligible to run for office again because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

The court in an unsigned ruling with no dissents reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced. As such the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado.

"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.

The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado, the decision will li similar cases that have arisen. So far only two other states, Maine and Illinois, have followed Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions were put on hold.

The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election results, including his exhortation that his supporters should march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to formalize President Joe Biden's win.

Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on Trump's broad claim of presidential immunity.

The Colorado court based its Dec. 19 ruling on section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various federal offices.

The provision was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to power in the U.S. government.

The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.

The state high court’s decision reversed a lower court’s ruling in which a judge said Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are not an “officer of the United States.”

Trump and his allies raised that point as well as other arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.

Republicans, including Trump’s primary opponents, broadly supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a partisan weapon.

The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.

They alleged in court papers that Trump “intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.”

Colorado is one of more than a dozen states that has its primary election on Tuesday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...rump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291 (Archive)
 
I'm fucking amazed Sotomayor realized the consequences of allowing states to ban whoever they want to run, biggest surprise of 2024 is her deciding not to be a partisan hack for once.
She doesn't want to find herself at the end of a rope. None of them do. I was surprised Roberts fell in line-if there was going to be at least one dissenting judge, he'd be my first choice.
 
Dumb question, I know. How does the Supreme Court work with elected officials and overall ruling?
 
The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election results, including his exhortation that his supporters should march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to formalize President Joe Biden's win.

As far as I know Trump hasn't been found guilty so far on anything related to J6 and journos write things like this.

They really are the absolute worst people, on par with child and animal fuckers.
 
Don’t get excited until maybe we find out the outcome of the presidential immunity case.
Haven't they been gunning for more justices on the Supreme Court ever since Brandon was wheeled into the White House?
No, since Trump declared he would quickly replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg after her death. Barrett is a swing vote who ended up being a predictable disappointment, but even a milquetoast judge is a scourge of the wokeists.

My bet is that this is just a front for their plan, wait for the conservative judges to die and then appoint radical SJWs to replace them. Thomas and Alito are in their seventies so assuming Trump doesn’t come back, they will definitely be replaced next decade if it doesn’t happen this decade.
 
I wonder when they're just going to dispense with the theatrics and just try to fucking kill him, because every single avenue they've tried to get rid of him has just resulted in worse and worse losses
I really hope they aren't stupid enough to go down that path. Would they really want to make him a martyr and risk the unrest that would surely follow?
 
9-0 lol

Kagan, Kween, and Wise Diabeetus had to whine about it anyway tho lol get fucked
Turns out state attorneys trying to get their grubby mitts on playing with federal laws is a bridge too far for federal judges, even the ones whose brains are rotted by MSNBC

Dumb question, I know. How does the Supreme Court work with elected officials and overall ruling?
You're going to have to be more specific. In terms of elected officials, they're appointed/confirmed by them, so they have to politick for a lot of their career before getting on the bench.
In terms of overall ruling, once they've said part of federal law is to be interpreted a certain way that's the law of the land unless they change their minds down the stretch and use another case to say "yeah actually this ruling we made in the past was actually flawed and this is an update to it", which was basically how Roe got overturned.
 
The entire 14th argument was retarded from the start. First it relies on "muh Janrary 6th!" and even the wake of the civil war there were plenty of former confederates that held office as congressmen and senators. So no duh the Supreme Court would rule this way and it was obvious to anyone without TDS.
 
Back