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 actually went into r/politics when the news broke and like 70% of them are actually agreeing with the decision. They have to qualify that they hate trump before saying it though. Only people with a severe case of TDS seem to be sperging.
Yeah, there is a surprising amount of people who want him to stay on, it's just the fringe lefties who want him off. I think everyone knew what would happen if he got pulled off and how it would become a free for all.
 
Opinion of the court archived in attachments for anyone that wants to read it.

View attachment 5781970

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
Very on-brand for the 3 proggos to insist on referencing Dobbs in their plea for people to not take away that only Congress can take Trump off of the ballot, because Barrett had to write her own concurrence because of that and she used plainer language about how it's not so clear federal legislation is the only way Section 3 can be enforced, giving up the game.
So not only did she fail the legal test I was saying she risked doing by voting against the decision, I'm sure at least one turbo-Blue state senate is going to write their own legislation about insurrection and charge Trump under that.
 
lol the women arent happy the men decided to resolve the other question of how to enforce section 2 or whatever the fuck
Their opinion can be summarized as they concur with the judgement but think the court ruling goes too far and unnecessarily addresses other issues. Basically all the Justices agreed with the judgement of ballot issue itself, but the court was more split 5-4 when addressing what is described as "novel constitution questions."

opinion 1.png
opinion 2.png
 
Last edited:
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.
While this is a good post, I suspect what they tried to pull is a long-term strategy on the Democratic Party’s part. Have Colorado, Illinois, and Maine try to violate the Constitution by removing Trump off the ballot, then when the Supreme Court smacks the attempt down, learn from it in hopes of denying Trump his presidential immunity, make plans to get a few Republicans to vote against certifying a hypothetical Trump victory, and make plans to start denying “problematic” candidates the ability to run from running as the sheriff to using Section 3 to deny them ballot access in the primary and general election. Trump is unique in that he is a Republican billionaire with some sort of understanding of how American culture works, something the average Republican politician doesn’t have.

It’s not hard to see why Trump scored a 9-0 victory. I agree that the justices did this out of their own volition, but don’t be surprised when we get a liberal majority again instead of a 3-3-3 swing court that a much less funded candidate gets denied ballot access. This, and Nikki Haley tainting the voting database for the Republican Party is about fine tuning how to defeat uncontrolled opposition in future elections even if Trump gets to return to the White House in 2025.
 
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'm not saying it wouldn't of passed, it's just I feel like Sotomeyer has voted that stupidly before and her not doing so in this case speaks more to states doing this helping Trump and less on the liberal Judges going against the Uniparty.
 
This was an obvious outcome for anyone familiar with the matter, IMO. This was just too blatant of an abuse of power for the court to ignore it.
The colorado supreme court laid it's dick on the table. The Supreme Court of the United States was obligated to show that theirs was bigger.
 
For a 9-0 decision, you're gonna have to add at least 10 justices that are guaranteed to ignore their constitutional duties. Even in clown world, that's a pretty big ask.
For that to happen one would need a government trifecta to nominate and then vote in partisan justices constantly, sure it would crush any respectability the Supreme Court has an institution and make it look like a sham but you'd have your judicial rubber stamp.

The more liberal justices concurring with this judgement at least shows they themselves recognize that allowing Trump to be kicked off the ballot over this issue is an obviously bad idea with terrible legal consequences.
 
one turbo-Blue state senate is going to write their own legislation about insurrection and charge Trump under that.
The legislation reads: If you're a big meanie orange man named Donald BLUMPH you are an insurrectionist and must go to the poo poo pee pee rape dungeons! REEEEEEEEE!

They will then lose their case anyways as Donald Trump's last name is in fact not "Blumph."
 
Back