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)
 
Wait, why didn't Amy Coney Barrett vote like the demonrat libcuck libtard Let's Go Brandon lefty tranny that she is? Did she hit her fucking head?
Bro the amendment they were using to justify removing Trump from the ballot literally said that only Congress had the power to create and enforce legislation related to its insurrection clause. Nobody else. This isn't even a 2nd amendment thing where there's fierce legal debate over the exact meaning of the text because it has old-timey grammatical structure:

Amendment 14 said:
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
For all the women on the court it was a decision between whining about Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch while begrudgingly voting with them, or fail a legal interpretation test most high school civics students (if that were still a thing) would have passed. Like, I'd be surprised if anyone who voted with Colorado's case on this would be able to find clerks in the future capable of passing the mirror test, working for them would be such a warning sign for upcoming careers. Like @Gehenna keeps telling people ITT, judges are, before all else, cowards.
 
I wouldn't get too hard up on the 9-0. The retarded 3 probably were acting more on direction from the Uniparty, that the states blatant and petty attempt to circumvent democracy was pushing the center away from the left, then on their own beliefs.
 
Calm down, now the regime knows if it wants to keep Trump out it needs to do it through Congress. We're not out of the woods yet
Bruh, they can't even pass a budget longer than a week. The dems don't have control over the house. Its highly unlikely they'll pass something to prevent Trump from being on the ballot.
 
it's hard for me to wrap my head around the ruling. not that i thought colorado decided correctly, but the justices confused my retard brain.

from my understanding the court's main argument is that it is ahistorical that the intent of the 14th amendment was to empower states to disqualify federal officers (including the president). that it'd make no sense after the civil war to allow southern states to have that kind of sway.

they then say that the proper forum for the 14th amendment to be used is congress. but congress involves those same southern states that historically the 14th amendment was designed to disenfranchise. i guess that's where my confusion comes from.

i guess the thought process is that it's better than individual states unilaterally applying the amendment. but in my mind it seems like a situation better solved by the courts, if the original intent was to keep the states out of it. or maybe even just striking down the 14th amendment entirely as unconstitutionally vague. this is why i'm not in law or a constitutional scholar, i suppose.

if anyone can explain why i'm dumb on this topic i would appreciate it.
 
Back