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)
 
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.
seems like my problem was poorly reading the text of the 14th amendment itself. thanks for clarifying.
 
Colorado Secretary of State crying on MSNBC
View attachment 5782228
What is up with her body language? Her posture, eyes, and mouth all feel like they're trying to communicate different things. I can't tell if she is a hostage trying to message for help or an alien bug creature in a human suit a la Men In Black.
 
From the main political sperging thread:


Basically all 4 women(including Barrett)said that yes the States couldn't disqualify a candidate based on the insurrection clause, but that doesn't mean they should say Federal Agencies(like the DoJ) shouldn't be allowed too. Or, at the very least that shouldn't have been decided with this ruling.

I'm guessing that was the plan for disqualifying Trump, and the States might of fucked it up so that even if the Jan 6th case finds Trump guilty of insurrection he still can't be removed from the ballot with out an act of Congress. Probably just the Court predicting the next step and punting it past that so they don't have to do this again in October and put the likely very radicalizing decision on Congress to receive the blame.
 
From the main political sperging thread:



Basically all 4 women(including Barrett)said that yes the States couldn't disqualify a candidate based on the insurrection clause, but that doesn't mean they should say Federal Agencies(like the DoJ) shouldn't be allowed too. Or, at the very least that shouldn't have been decided with this ruling.

I'm guessing that was the plan for disqualifying Trump, and the States might of fucked it up so that even if the Jan 6th case finds Trump guilty of insurrection he still can't be removed from the ballot with out an act of Congress. Probably just the Court predicting the next step and punting it past that so they don't have to do this again in October and put the likely very radicalizing decision on Congress to receive the blame.
That is assuming congress even can. They can barely pass a budget. It's over. He IS on the ballot.
 
Anyone with a spec of legal understanding knew this was going to be the outcome, I am delightfully surprised that it was 9-0 though. I know all justices aren't created equal, but perhaps they aren't as fuckign stupid as we thought they were. I'm looking at you nigger bitch, and fat spic.
 
That is assuming congress even can. They can barely pass a budget. It's over. He IS on the ballot.
Senate definitely could, probably will. I think Jan 6th case is set for late May if the Court punts on immunity, gives us a verdict around the end of July, Senate probably passes a law that would disqualify Trump in August or even midJuly before the verdict. It goes to the House to die, but that's not the point. They want to energize the base by going right up to the Rubicon and then saying it's other side fault we can't cross.
 
Senate definitely could, probably will. I think Jan 6th case is set for late May if the Court punts on immunity, gives us a verdict around the end of July, Senate probably passes a law that would disqualify Trump in August or even midJuly before the verdict. It goes to the House to die, but that's not the point. They want to energize the base by going right up to the Rubicon and then saying it's other side fault we can't cross.
I don't think it matters. Congress is in deadlock. If you don't know that you're living under a rock. Even dems know. They would be writing a check they couldn't cash and only piss off their base.
 
Back