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 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.
The Justices are all very smart people. At the core of their entire life's work is the fact the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic with Democratic elections. If people are not allowed to vote for their chosen candidate, then they have failed the system. There was no chance whatsoever this would have been allowed to stand. It didn't require any nefarious purpose.

They don't even preclude that Trump may be removed one day, just that he would need to actually be convicted first, which are two other constitutional principles.

The idea to remove Trump was catastrophically stupid. I think it really helped his chances, even if he stayed off the ballots.
 
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?
You haven't been paying attention, haven't you? They are, indeed, that goddamn retarded.
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:
And even then, when you actually read it, it's fairly unambiguous.
 
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?
I hate to say it, but yes.

They can't help but continually double down and make the opposition to them larger and more powerful.

They just hate him and they don't care about anything else. Most of these people didn't even have a political thought prior to him being elected.
 
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.
When a dying animal is backed into the corner it may thrash about violently even if it hurts itself in the process. Or maybe you're right, the Uniparty won't do anything else gay and retarded to try and keep Trump out of office. They tried and now that the SC ruled they'll just accept that they need to beat him in a fair electoral fight. No more shenanigans. lol

For the record, I think Trump's chances of winning are pretty good but that has more to do with the fact that he's backed by an influential counter-elite and there are probably regime elements interested in using Trump as containment. Electoralism is a show.
 
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 said as much during oral arugments. Jackson did too. I thought jackson would flake with her emphasis on the history of the law but she didn't.

The justices brought up retaliation threats from gop states and the plaintiffs and co state went "what me worry? lol trust".
 
Why does anyone take Olbermann seriously anymore? He said Drumpf was done in 2018 and then went and hid in his penthouse overlooking Central Park until Biden was elected.
Olbermann literally went so insane over politics that he was committed to a mental hospital not once but twice. He is a literal crazy person and I have absolutely no idea why anyone listens to him or finds him credible.

He is an actual raving schizo.
 
Olbermann's literally went so insane over politics that he was committed to a mental hospital not once but twice. He is a literal crazy person and I have absolutely no idea why anyone listens to him or finds him credible.

He is an actual raving schizo.
>committed to a mental hospital over Drump.
Orange man was all it took? Jeez he's nuts
 
He'd been going downhill for years before that repeatedly getting fired from media jobs and going on unhinged rants but Trump was the final fracture that broke his brain.
Apparently he's not taking his industrial grade meds, because his brain certainly still seems broken
 
Opinion of the court archived in attachments for anyone that wants to read it.

The more liberal Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson notably had a concurring opinion.

View attachment 5781951

There was also a concurring opinion from Justice Barrett.

View attachment 5781961
lol the women arent happy the men decided to resolve the other question of how to enforce section 2 or whatever the fuck
 
Olbermann literally went so insane over politics that he was committed to a mental hospital not once but twice. He is a literal crazy person and I have absolutely no idea why anyone listens to him or finds him credible.

He is an actual raving schizo.
imo as a Sports TV kid back in the day, I think it's very clear he has some kind of schizophrenia or similar type of mental illness, he used to be very on the ball with stuff and seemed like he could figure stuff out. I don't think it a coincidence this started happening after he turned 45ish
 
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.
The thought process is that the amendment specifically states that congress has sole discretion on the matter, meaning that states have no right to enforce the insurrection clause unless duly authorised by an act of congress.
 
Back