Here's the full text. From the per curiam opinion:
Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse....
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.
Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.
ADDED: The per curiam opinion emphasizes the role of Congress in determining that Section 3 applies to someone:
The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5 [of the 14th Amendment], which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 536 (1997)....Congress’s Section 5 power is critical when it comes to Section 3. Indeed, during a debate on enforcement legislation less than a year after ratification, Sen. Trumbull noted that “notwithstanding [Section 3] . . . hundreds of men [were] holding office” in violation of its terms. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626. The Constitution,
Trumbull noted, “provide[d] no means for enforcing” the disqualification, necessitating a “bill to give effect to the fundamental law embraced in the Constitution.” Ibid....
The Court rejects a role for the states — for textual reasons and because a "patchwork" approach is unworkable.
Justice Barrett concurred to express regret over getting into "the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced." The Court ought to "turn the national temperature down, not up," she says.
There's also a concurring opinion by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. They agree that there is no role for the states, but disapprove of the limitation on how Congress can perform its role:
Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.
That is, there needs to be a statute in place to use Section 3.
From the per curiam opinion:
Any congressional legislation enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870 and §2383, reflect “congruence and proportionality” between preventing or remedying that conduct “and the means adopted to that end.” City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 520. Neither we nor the respondents are aware of any other legislation by Congress to enforce Section 3. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 123.
Why didn't Jack Smith charge Trump under §2383? I found this, from last August in Reason — "What The Trump Indictment Left Out" by Josh Blackman:
This decision was not particularly surprising, since none of the January 6 defendants have been charged with insurrection.... Federal prosecutions for insurrection are extremely rare, and there were many open questions about how to obtain a conviction.....
[I]f Smith had indicted Trump for violating Section 2383, he would have had to lay out in a systematic fashion why Trump's conduct amounted to insurrection....
[W]hat lessons should we draw from the fact that Smith did not indict Trump for insurrection? In some legal circles, advocates contend that it is so obvious that Trump committed insurrection. Yet, the special counsel, after studying the issue for months, opted not to bring that charge....
Posts
178 comments:
Colorado Supreme Court's progressives are a joke.
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.
Big rebuke. Unanimity is good for America. Also the resident LLR Ch*ck is 0-for=forever in his SCOTUS predictions. Just sayin'.
and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case.
Just agree and shut up…
Who will be held accountable for this blatant disregard of the plain text of the Constitution?
No one. That's why this bullshit will continue.
As most people were expecting, I think. Roberts avoids any discussion of "insurrection" and basically throws it to Congress (where it should go).
Indeed. That is was unanimous is good.
Yo - Krista Kafer. Dummy.
How many states will ignore it?
Shocked and happy it's per curiam.
Despite a little grumbling from the Liberal wing, its nice to see a unanimous decision.
9 - 0, well done. That will take the wind out of the sails of the Democrat enemies of democracy.
Good time to recall Jack Smith's dismal record at SCOTUS as the only US Attorney for the DOJ reversed 9-0. That case and today's decision should give him pause...but it won't. We all know it won't.
And isn't that just sad for Lady Justice and the rest of us watching this lawless gang of jackals go after Trump?
Note the details:
Section 3 doesn't apply to Trump. POTUS is NOT an "appointed officer" despite some on here insisting he must be. (On the contrary, presidents do the appointing of people covered under that term in 14A.) States cannot unilaterally disqualify national candidates. Only Congress, not states, can apply 14A to office-holders. All the logical stuff that a plain reading would give you. Progressives need to stop adding imaginary meanings and paragraphs to the Constitution.
No sec 3 action against a person can be taken unless sec. 5 is followed. ie, tried and convicted for treason.
So Trump was within his rights to seek political redress on J6? It was not an insurrection after all? It’s all in the Constitution, plain as day?
Democrats Five Stages of Grief following the 2016 Election:
The Denial and Anger stages are complete. We entered the Bargaining stage with the post-Jan 6 2021 Trump legal disqualification efforts, and Democrats immediate flip-flop on prosecuting political protesters (vice the Mostly Peaceful Arson Summer of 2020).
Bargaining is now failing with a 9 to 0 SC decision and the clown show in Georgia. Depression will follow.
While concurring in the result, all the SCOTUS women seem to want to "out-conservative" the men with added "judicial restraint."
JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced. The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.
THe colorado court and the Sec of state of Maine's actions were so bizarre and ahistorical, they should have been smacked down with more force. The emphasis on Federal over state power makes me believe Roberts was the guiding force behind the opinion.
People need to realize how partisan and stupid the Colorado Court was. In an UNSIGNED opinion, the Democrat justices decided that a Republican ex-POTUS, and shoo-in for the nomination, should be removed from the ballot and Democracy stopped in its tracks based on an obscure portion of the 14th admendment that hasn't been used for over 100 years. First they labeled Trump an "insurrectionist" and went from there. It was an insane bit of Leftwing Judicial tyranny.
I wish the SCOTUS had gone farther, and stated the Trump did not commit insurrection as defined the 14A, and gotten this absurd Democrat authortarian talking point out of the public debate.
I haven't read the minority concurring opinion.
That's a shock! I would have thought the Wise Latina would have got marching orders and broke ranks with the rest of court.
So will Colorado now secede?
I suspect a hissy fit will be thrown on today's episode of The View.
What I was hoping for. The game was probably over when Jackson asked her questions at Oral Arguments. I was guessing on 8-1, but hoping 9-0. Sotomayor was the big iffy one in my mind.
My theory was that either this argument (14A § 3 not self executing) or the President-Not-AN-Officer argument would be the one utilized, but what was really driving this was not having to address the Due Process claim. I think that CO very clearly violated Trump’s Due Process rights by the way that they came to the decision. But reversing on those grounds would have been messy, because the Court would then have had to have set out how much Due Process was required. Much too messy, esp when here, a simple textualist theory would suffice.
WAPO commenters are having a glorious meltdown.
Sample:
"Funny how fast the corrupt supreme court can fast track anything that benefits their employer , Donny Trump. "
It's unfortunate that Section 5 clearly makes Congress, and only Congress, responsible for passing legislation to enforce Section 3? Which Congress has already done? 76 years ago? Truly, unfortunate! Expect such nonsense from Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, but Barrett should be ashamed for indulging in it as well.
There's also a concurring opinion by the Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson:
The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.
Not sure this is a bad thing.
What other form "federal action" (outside of Congress) is there that we should have to litigate again, potentially before this election?
An incumbent's Executive Action... against his opponent?
OK, i skimmed through the minority opinion and its quite bizarre. Basically, the 3 blind mice are upset that the majority opines that only congress can enforce 14A section three. But what about Federal judges, they wail. How can we leftwing judges use Section 3 as a weapon, if only congress can enforce it?
Frankly, congress should pass a law stating the whole section on 'insurrection' has served its purpose, is out of date, and is null and void. In fact, every law passed before 1920 should be sunsetted and new laws passed, if they needed. Its absurd that people are using some law passed in 1870 to affect life in 2024.
Yeah, pretty much what I expected. What any reasonable person expected. Kudos to the leftist justices for recognizing the absolute necessity for a unanimous pronouncement- the pressure on them must have been pretty intense.
It's rich that the Democrats claim Trump is the danger to democracy. Look in the damn mirror. And I'm not a Trump fan nor will I ever vote for him.
I’m pleasantly surprised by the opinion’s brevity, although that may derive from its Per Curiam nature. I wish the concurring justices gave some examples of the federal enforcement mechanisms they would notionally protect, because otherwise it seems like they are straining at gnats.
I, for one, have always found it odd that a conspiratorial group calling themselves, thrillingly, 'The Resistance' would be the one disputing what a nation's Constitution says, and instead making up the interpretation of laws as they go along, to suit their objectives.
That's not 'resistance'; that's a bizarre, insidious form of insurrection. Not so? "A rising against civil or political authority, or the established government; open and active opposition to the execution of law in a city or state. "
How stupid do those four Ivy Leaguers on the Colorado Supreme Court look now?
One of them is up for retention in November and should be voted out.
Another wet dream of the rabid left halted juuuuuust before the happy ending.
So sure, yet so wrong. Again.
And the prewritten articles about the ultra/MAGA/raical conservatives on the courts.... also dies aborning.
"9 - 0, well done. That will take the wind out of the sails of the Democrat enemies of democracy."
You underestimate the lengths to which they will go to undermine democracy in defense of "our democracy."
I agree with Justice Barrett's concurrence. Her path is not only genuinely conservative, it would have mooted the need for separate opinions from Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. A single 9-0 opinion addressing the chief substantive issue would have served our nation best. I'm not Trump's biggest fan, but I really like Barrett and acknowledge that no other Republican would have nominated her.
I'm just wondering, as I watch the various ends of the Dems massive lawfare attacks play out, what happens in the end? What is the end game for Democrats, Establishment GoPer's, and of course, the career bureaucrats who make up the Deep State, particularly the various departments under DoJ?
As we watch Fani Willis and her case disintegrate, Jack Smith get put on hold, and Alvin Bragg...yet to come but so far being saved from embarrassment, the only thing they seem to have accomplished is a massive fine brought on through the Leticia James suit, for appraising his properties higher than she thinks they should have been, even though his banks approved them all, made massive interest on them all, and got paid back- in a timely fashion- on every one. No crime was committed, everyone was paid back properly, but for this one, he owes hundreds of millions of dollars. It's pending appeal, but he still has to pony up now.
What I'm getting at is this: When all of these various and bizarre lawsuits fail to stop him from running, what are they left with? My worry is what they are holding out as their last desperate action. It's not like it hasn't happened here in the US.
SCOTUS to states: Stay in your lane.
I bet the liberal justices are thinking of Congress refusing to accept Trump electors if he wins as a way to enforce section 3, but requiring a statute would seem to not allow that as a reason.
I can understand the dissent’s argument that the ruling should be limited. However, I think there are multiple vagaries in Section3, so much so that a couple of States actually thought they were within their rights to exclude a presidential candidate based on what they themselves determined were insurrection-y. I believe that they knew they weren’t able to exclude, but they decided to create the election chaos because of those vagaries. So I think it’s ok to provide the multiple clarifications of 14A in the ruling, so as to avoid future chicanery. Hopefully.
Jan 6th was a riot - and not everyone rioted. Many masked feds in the shit-show instigated the riot.
"Insurrection" is a CIA-Media-Democrat party word-play manipulation.
The media companies that ran hour after hour of breathless commentary about how this might be the end of Trump should be forced to re-run all those segments for the next 24 hours with the caption underneath that Trump won 9-0.
And they should have to do it commercial free.
Think of all the money that's being spent on these witch-hunts, that could have otherwise been used for sex reassignment surgery for children or salaries for more Ivy League DEI administrators. What a waste.
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" does not seem complicated.
Will there be rent-a-mob actions at the justices' homes? If not, why not?
Temujin worries about what the D's and DS'ers "are holding out as their last desperate action."
I've thought for years that Trump will be assassinated, and this makes it more likely IMO.
The Party of Chaos is also the party of By Any Means Necessary.
Justice Barrett -- The Court ought to "turn the national temperature down, not up," she says. I wish she had thought of that when she helped decide Dodds (instead of joining with Roberts for a more limited holding that could have salvaged Roe). This cost Rs the Senate and a lot of House seats, threw gasoline on progressives' ongoing arson, and split this country even further apart.
What I'm getting at is this: When all of these various and bizarre lawsuits fail to stop him from running, what are they left with? My worry is what they are holding out as their last desperate action. It's not like it hasn't happened here in the US.
I expect attempts to remove him from the ballot at the last minute later this year. If he wins, but the Dems take Congress, there will be an attempt to refuse to certify the Electoral College.
Blogger Dave Begley said...
Not a close legal question at all.
12/20/23, 6:16 AM
Temujin, "What I'm getting at is this: When all of these various and bizarre lawsuits fail to stop him from running, what are they left with? My worry is what they are holding out as their last desperate action. It's not like it hasn't happened here in the US."
The end game is that the Dems win the November election with about 5 million illegal alien votes. The lawfare is just a distraction.
When the Dems win in Nov, the Fake News will go on and on about how democracy was saved and that the electorate rejected potential dictator Trump.
This is all obvious to me.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The SCOTUS majority zeroed in on the last sentence. If Congress can say someone is NOT an "insurrectionist" and can be elected to office, that means Congress has the sole power to decide who is, and is not a FEDERAL insurrectionist. The Leftwing judges and DoJ, of course, want that power. Hence, the leftists wailing about how the SCOTUS is giving it all to congress. This would appear to destroy the Trump is an insurrectionst argument. But when it comes to Republican judges "never say never".
My reading of the partial dissents is that the three progressives on the court wanted to leave it open to the federal courts to remove Trump from the ballot. I am guessing Roberts did some horse trading to get this partial 9-0 decision- I wonder on which current cases he submits to the Left- the Chevron one, the bump stock one?
Temujin said...
What I'm getting at is this: When all of these various and bizarre lawsuits fail to stop him from running, what are they left with? My worry is what they are holding out as their last desperate action. It's not like it hasn't happened here in the US.
Buy a rifle, stock up on ammo.
Oh! oh! oh. Que lastima. Pobrecito!
What new narrative will the left come up with now?!
I'm gonna bet that it will be because our supreme court is corrupt beyond all redemption and the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. Or some nonesense along those lines.
Oh! oh! oh. Que lastima. Pobrecito!
What new narrative will the left come up with now?!
I'm gonna bet that it will be because our supreme court is corrupt beyond all redemption and the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. Or some nonesense along those lines.
Our Constitution works as intended.
We all knew this was going to be the result. The real "tell" for the SCOTUS will be the immunity issue that they've decided to slow walk in an effort to delay the trials he's facing.
Just let him run. He's going to bankrupt the RNC and most likely himself with what's already been decided. He's also most likely going to further alienate more moderates and independents by the time the election rolls around. He's lost the popular vote twice, and with his current trajectory, he'll only have the hard-core MAGAs on his side.
A reminder that the CO Supreme Court (in concert with the radical progressive CO governor, and the radical progressives in the CO state house) thought it was OK to HARASS a cake baker for his refusing to create obscene sexualized cakes for angry homosexuals.
They are really struggling with this ruling on CNN.
I'm wondering if the politicians who barred Trump from the ballot will face Rico charges?
I'm not a lawyer, but I did get drunk with one at a wedding three decades ago. Even I knew what the SCOTUS would rule on this.
>Temujin said...
What I'm getting at is this: When all of these various and bizarre lawsuits fail to stop him from running, what are they left with? My worry is what they are holding out as their last desperate action. It's not like it hasn't happened here in the US.<
Temujin - Lots of us have been thinking that very thing for quite some time. But it was always just sort of a throwaway line. It no longer is - not at all.
Say its name: They will kill him if needs be. Who can doubt this?
From the Denver Post, "“While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. “… The Supreme Court removed an enforcement mechanism, and in letting Trump back on the ballot, they failed to meet the moment. But it is now clear that Trump led the January 6th insurrection, and it will be up to the American people to ensure accountability.”
My constitutional law professor at Creighton always said, "Yeah, the defendant got off on a technicality; the Constitution."
More importantly, SCOTUS can move fast on an issue when it feels like it. So… if we could get that immunity ruling before June, that would be nice.
"I bet the liberal justices are thinking of Congress refusing to accept Trump electors if he wins as a way to enforce section 3, but requiring a statute would seem to not allow that as a reason."
Congress doesn't need a statute to decline to confirm an electoral slate nor even a reason to do so, and I don't think this court would involve itself should the next Congress decide to not accept a Trump winning slate unless that Congress tried make a minority electoral vote candidate the President without the required normal state delegation vote.
Temujin asked what happens if it all fails- I predict that there is a good chance some of the states might ignore SCOTUS when it comes time to print up the general election ballots. The Biden Administration is already ignoring SCOTUS decisions it doesn't agree with, and the ground is being prepared for expanding this tactic.
In the 5-4 part of the opinion, the Court doesn’t actually say a §2383 prosecution is the exclusive means currently of enforcing section 3 of the 14th amendment.
The obvious alternative method would be in the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. But if we are to accept the Trump side of the argument, isn’t that a political question not within the Court’s jurisdiction? And, might the Electoral Count Act also be urged as a means of enforcement? I don’t see anything I the opinion that would preclude that.
The enforcement mechanism that does seem to be precluded is a civil suit to take Trump off the ballot.
Biden's disapproval is nipping at 60%, actually, 60% is within the margin of error, since it's 59% percent. Can we start calling him "Landslide Joe" yet?
I am sure his State of the Union Address will turn it around.
I'm just curious what other federal enforcement mechanisms the minority opinion had in mind?
"I'm just wondering, as I watch the various ends of the Dems massive lawfare attacks play out, what happens in the end? What is the end game for Democrats, Establishment GoPer's, and of course, the career bureaucrats who make up the Deep State, particularly the various departments under DoJ?"
The endgame is to keep Orange Man out of the White House by any means necessary. When they say that claims that the 2020 election was stolen are baseless, what they mean is either (a) "we hid our tracks so well there's no proof we did it," or (b) "We didn't need to do it to win, but we're fully prepared to do it next time if that what it takes. After all, who wouldn't stuff a few ballot boxes to keep Hitler out of power?"
Roe was not merely wrongly decided but flagrantly wrongly decided, and had been a major contributor to the hysteria surrounding Supreme Court confirmations. It needed to go, and after the succession of obvious false witnesses during Kavanaugh's confirmation, it needed to go ASAP. Dobbs was ripping the bandage off a wound that had gone septic. Looks awful and smells worse, but it's got to be done to get the poison out.
"the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement..."
Waaaah! Joe Biden can't appoint a prosecutor to determine that his opponent in ineligible! What a blow to democracy!
“Neither we nor the respondents are aware of any other legislation by Congress to enforce Section 3.”
“Aware” is an interesting word choice - leaves a door open. This is a situation where it may not have been in the interest of either adversarial party to be “aware” of such legislation. For Colorado, such legislation might tend to undercut their case. For Trump, it’s not in his interest to draw attention to legislation that might keep him off the ballot.
I had no idea JJ Jackson was on the SCOTUS.
It is unclear to me how this decision "turns the temperature up" except in the minds of people who wanted to undemocratically exclude Trump from the ballot.
In most cases, the accusation, and dismissal would taint the candidate, and alter the outcome of the election.
Trump? It’s another Red Badge Of Courage!
you haven't see anything yet should the dems take over all three branches.'
The shape of things to come, first the movie then Canada.
"Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future"
Justice Minister Arif Virani has defended a new power in the online harms bill to impose house arrest on someone who is feared to commit a hate crime in the future – even if they have not yet done so already.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-justice-minister-defends-house-arrest-power-for-people-feared-to/
The system works. Separation of powers confirmed. The seditious insurrectionist is innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not worried about it because we all know that the Democrats are going to win the election by hook or by crook 🤣.
I prefer animous decisions.
they try to murder you for an opinion, because there are not enough sacrifices to moloch,
Inga and Freder hit hardest...
No one has ever been charged with insurrection on January 6th, 2021 by any jurisdiction. Yet some took it upon themselves to behave as if there had been both charges and convictions. Trump represents the resistance to this kind of arrogation of power, this lawless "because we can". He both calls it out for what it is and demonstrates its existence by its lawless attacks on him. If he were not being attacked by The Blob, regular people would be its helpless, silenced victims. Just imagine what's been going on in Fani Willis's or Alvin Bragg's jurisdictions based on the wealth they've accumulated.
Trump's been President and we know his policies worked well. And he's been Presidential Candidate v. The Blob showing up its ultimate lawlessness. Good for the country; bad for the Blob; elected or indicted: in both cases, he can run on his record.
"tim in vermont said...
So Trump was within his rights to seek political redress on J6? It was not an insurrection after all? It’s all in the Constitution, plain as day?"
Absolutely within his rights. President Donald J. Trump has been THE most law-abiding POTUS in recent history. PERIOD.
Are we witnessing the collapse of eighty years of the American version of Bolshevism? Maybe. Much as I despise Mitch McConnell you have to give him his due: he held the line on SC appointments. Things are changing. Worms are turning.
EH @ 9:48, that's a really interesting theory.
@Virgil Hilts. The distinction is that Roe was clearly lawless. Its only proponents relied solely on stare decisis, which is beyond weak. It needed killing.
Per Curiam opinion. David French hardest hit.
Enigma writes, "Bargaining is now failing with a 9 to 0 SC decision and the clown show in Georgia. Depression will follow."
The Five Stages ends in acceptance, but not necessarily. We wouldn't have melodrama if Stage Four always settles into a serene Stage Five. Would we enjoy "Romeo and Juliet" better if having found Romeo a corpse, Juliet says "Oh, well...just thirteen and already a widow." and then exits stage left to marry Paris? No, because there's the Stage Five detour to suicide-o-rama!
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of anti-Trump offenders who might well be underground
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
I eagerly await the deep insights from our usual suspects.
Keith Olbermann is not taking this well. He is going full insurrectionist calling for the court to be dissolved.
Doesn't this also invalidate the idea of an insurrection that these states have relied on?
An MSNBC law professor said that a Supremes decision favouring Trump was “inconceivable” 🤣
To all the TDS afflicted loonies who "thought" they had a case here, some words from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson:
Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency
9 - 0
It is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.
That struck me as a particularly interesting statement. To what extent are concurring-but-separate opinions part of the established precedent?
SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, JACKSON, JJ., concurring in the judgment
Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.
Yes, that is correct, and it IS correct. 5 members of SCOTUS, led by CJ Roberts, are announcing to America "enough with this lawfare BS. If you want to beat Trump, do it at the ballot box. The Courts will not serve as your proxy."
Expect every single case against Trump to get tied up by SCOTUS until after November 5.
Wince said...
While concurring in the result, all the SCOTUS women seem to want to "out-conservative" the men with added "judicial restraint."
JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
Yeah, IMO Barrett is being an idiot here. Of course, she's doing it at no cost, but she's still being an idiot.
The point of the 5 man majority is "lawfare BS is over." This should make Barrett very happy, because it means far fewer BS cases coming to SCOTUS that they have to shut down, all to screams of outrage from the TDS lunatics.
The men ARE "turning down the temperature." They're saying "you kids take this outside the courts, and run an election."
Which is where all this belongs
Just a temporary speedbump for the Democrats. Letitia don't need no Congress. Judge Engmoron don't need no Constitution. They're just getting started. So many corrupt prosecutors. So many imperial judges. They'll just keep coming up with new, improved ways to "preserve our kakistocracy."
Lucien said...
I’m pleasantly surprised by the opinion’s brevity, although that may derive from its Per Curiam nature. I wish the concurring justices gave some examples of the federal enforcement mechanisms they would notionally protect, because otherwise it seems like they are straining at gnats.
Here's the tl;dr: for today's ruling:
5 men: Enough with the lawfare BS. Let the voters decide
Barrett: You don't have to be so mean about it
3 lefties: But we WANT more lawfare. Just not quite this stupid!!11!
IMO, what this means is that CJ Roberts has decided that the greatest "damage to the reputation of SCOTUS" would come from 1/2 the country seeing the Courts try to put a thumb on the election, and so he's just not going to let it happen.
In this case, that caused him to actually rule according to the written US Constitution. But as that hasn't been a big decider from him in the past (see Obamacare, Dobbs), I don't see that driving him here. What's driving him here is that the lefties are playing with fire with their lawfare, and Roberts doesn't want to get burned.
"Dave Begley said...
How stupid do those four Ivy Leaguers on the Colorado Supreme Court look now?"
As Kevin noted previously, nobody will be held accountable, particularly any of the Ivy Leaguers on the Colorado Supreme Court. Sure, at a cocktail party, somebody might say "ha, you were overturned by SCOTUS", but then that cocktail party will probably be held by the people celebrating they cost Trump's campaign money to appeal the decision and used taxpayer dollars to argue against Trump. When you consider who is making money off the bad decision, those Ivy Leaguers are doing just fine with in their circles. It will only stop when they are help financially accountable for their actions. This goes for Maine's SecState and the Illinois Judge.
As I said before, the really dumb part about what Colorado did is that Colorado is a winner-take-all state and Trump would have never won the state. So it would have made no difference if Trump was on the ballot or not.
So this was just egotistical, virtue signaling that has just bitten them in the ass.
Blogger Virgil Hilts said...
Justice Barrett -- The Court ought to "turn the national temperature down, not up," she says. I wish she had thought of that when she helped decide Dodds (instead of joining with Roberts for a more limited holding that could have salvaged Roe). This cost Rs the Senate and a lot of House seats, threw gasoline on progressives' ongoing arson, and split this country even further apart.
While the decision itself certainly had some affect on voters, I think the bulk of the political blowback came not from the decision but from Republican lawmakers enacting too strict of abortion regulations. Even in states like Virginia, Republicans could have captured 70% or 80% of people's personal beliefs (in so far as what is an acceptable level of abortion regulation not necessarily their preferred level) if they limited abortion after 14 weeks with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I suppose the silver-lining for Republican in their losses is that the Pro-Life movement learned that the bulk of work they need to do now is in cultural change and changing people's opinions on abortion and when life starts, before they do more dramatic legal actions. The strongly Pro-Life contingent got what it wanted in most states and Republicans and the Pro-Life movement suffered as a result.
This is a date that will live in ecstasy.
Lucien said...
I’m pleasantly surprised by the opinion’s brevity, although that may derive from its Per Curiam nature. I wish the concurring justices gave some examples of the federal enforcement mechanisms they would notionally protect, because otherwise it seems like they are straining at gnats.
**********
The Court's not in the business of giving "advisory opinions."
BREAKING: NeverTrump "legal scholars" like the Lincoln Project know as much about the Constitution as they know about pleasing their wives in the bedroom.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.
Big rebuke. Unanimity is good for America. Also the resident LLR Ch*ck is 0-for=forever in his SCOTUS predictions. Just sayin'.
************
The score thus far:
US: Infinity
Chuck: Dick
Wile E. Coyote flattened again.
You know, its just occurred to me that every single person who supported the CO SC decision engaged in "disinformation".
I think America should show its opposition to disinformation, by removing every single "expert" who defended the CO move from social media, from now until November 6th
Barrett's argument in favor of a more limited opinion that only prevented STATE enforcement of section 3 overlooks the fact that dems are already actively conniving to come up with other ways to prevent him from taking office if he's elected. I can think of two things they might try: First, putting forth a congressional resolution that purports to declare Trump disqualified under section 3. Second, an action in the USDC for the District of Columbia by some federal officials (if not Biden and/or his electors, then perhaps a group of dem congressmen), seeking a declaratory judgment that Trump is disqualified. Either way, the Supreme Court would potentially have to decide the case a second time, and on a much more abbreviated timetable.
Judicial restraint is a generally a good thing, but in a situation like this, it made very good sense for the Court to go the next step and foreclose any enforcement of section 3 that was not provided for legislatively (since that's what a majority of the justices believe). The interests of finality here are compelling.
What's the over under for another FBI/CIA assination of an American President? What odds are the Brit bookies giving?
He's lost the popular vote twice, and with his current trajectory, he'll only have the hard-core MAGAs on his side.
His "current trajectory" you say, Rich? He's polling 5 or more points above Biden, which never happened in 2020 or 2016, and the margins are increasing week by week. He's got favorability ratings among Hispanics and black men that Republicans haven't enjoyed since Eisenhower. He's got more of the immense white working class than any Republican since Reagan.
You better get used to the taste of his backside.
He's lost the popular vote twice, and with his current trajectory, he'll only have the hard-core MAGAs on his side.
His "current trajectory" you say, Rich? He's polling 5 or more points above Biden, which never happened in 2020 or 2016, and the margins are increasing week by week. He's got favorability ratings among Hispanics and black men that Republicans haven't enjoyed since Eisenhower. He's got more of the immense white working class than any Republican since Reagan.
You better get used to the taste of his backside.
Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to former President Donald J. Trump, has reached an agreement with Manhattan prosecutors to plead guilty to perjury charges. . . .
Mr. Weisselberg . . . is now expected to concede that he lied on the witness stand in Mr. Trump’s recent civil fraud trial . . . . He might also admit to misleading investigators from the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the fraud case against Mr. Trump.
Still, Mr. Weisselberg’s plea agreement comes at an inopportune time for the former president, just weeks before he is expected to go to trial on a raft of felony charges accusing him of falsifying business records related to the hush-money deal. It is the first criminal prosecution of a former president, and the trial is scheduled to begin with jury selection on March 25.
This is continued evidence of criminal activity inside the Trump organization that Clarence Thomas will successfully block when he refuses to disqualify himself from the question as to whether Donald Trump can order his opponents to be killed without risk of facing criminal charges. Ginni Thomas is known to have helped plan the January 6 coup.
The concurrences wheeze for More Judicial Power.
Section 5 says “legislation.” That’s the only way to enforce. Legislation. Not a Resolution. Not some Federal Judge in Hawaii.
And appropriate means Congress can’t have a Bill of Attainder picking which candidates it doesn’t like.
There is a generally applicable law for insurrection. Congress can pass a law saying anyone convicted of insurrection is barred from holding office.
This is a good opinion. Textually sound, historically sound, and consistent with the rest of the Constituion.
The Women are flakes. They always want a Judicial Valve. Power Hungry Harridans
Are we witnessing the collapse of eighty years of the American version of Bolshevism?
Only in the judiciary, and only for a while. The Democrats are going to triple the size of the Court the very first time they hold the Presidency and a majority in both houses, and appoint a mob of Egorgons and Letitias and Fanis to fill its seats.
Blogger Rich said...
He's going to bankrupt the RNC and most likely himself
Don't know about the RNC but if he does bankrupt it, fine by me.
As for our President Emeritus, he'll be just fine. He has a $3,000,000,000 payday coming next week for selling his part of Truth.social. On top of the $3-5bn he has left of the 9 he started with in 2015. $500mm for not defrauding anyone and saying he did not rape a woman who never showed he had? Pfffft. He can afford it.
Thanks for your concern, though. Bless your heart, Rich. What would we do without you?
John Henry
Rick67: That struck me as a particularly interesting statement. To what extent are concurring-but-separate opinions part of the established precedent?
I think I'm reading that differently than you are. The main, binding opinion gave several reasons. The concurring opinions said they would have preferred to only use one reason.
So none of the concurring opinions are part of the established precedent, just the main opinion - but the main opinion itself includes "each of these reasons."
Unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible.
>>Say its name: They will kill him if needs be. Who can doubt this?
Two years ago, I would have said that was tinfoil hat lunacy.
Today... it's not out of the question.
You know who ignores Supreme Court decisions and tries to intimidate courts? Authoritarians. Their accusations are almost always confessions.
You know who ignores Supreme Court decisions and tries to intimidate courts? Authoritarians. Their accusations are almost always confessions.
Wibble: "I expect attempts to remove him from the ballot at the last minute later this year. If he wins, but the Dems take Congress, there will be an attempt to refuse to certify the Electoral College."
Certification of the electoral college results of Nov 2024 will be accomplished with the current sitting congress, not the next one.
Rich said...
More importantly, SCOTUS can move fast on an issue when it feels like it. So… if we could get that immunity ruling before June, that would be nice.
Wow, Rich, kudos for the "inability to read the room."
What the 5 vote majority said was "no more lawfare. If you want to beat Trump, do it at the ballot box."
If you think you're going to get ANY cases to a conclusion this year, you are highly delusional.
SCOTUS will hand down a ruling. Their ruling will cause more delay, that will slowly percolate itself back up to SCOTUS.
Which will sit on it until after the election.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
In the 5-4 part of the opinion, the Court doesn’t actually say a §2383 prosecution is the exclusive means currently of enforcing section 3 of the 14th amendment.
The obvious alternative method would be in the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.
Please do try that. it's been too long since America had a real insurrection.
Rick67 said...
That struck me as a particularly interesting statement. To what extent are concurring-but-separate opinions part of the established precedent?
Not at all.
More importantly, absent assassination, the 5 guys who voted "GTFO" are going to be voting on every single other case that comes forward this year.
And if the Dems decide to play the assassination game, they're going to quickly find out which side has the most guns, and are the best shots
Jack Smith could — today — charge Trump with inciting insurrection in response to the SCOTUS ruling on Congressional authority to rule on matters of Federal insurection. It is the one Constitutional means to disqualify him, according to this order.
Congress already passed appropriate legislation on the matter in 1948: See 18 U.S.C. §2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
To what 'other means' might be used to keep a victorious Trump out of the WH (leaving aside the possibility of homicide), didn't the Dems pass legislation that essentially makes the EV count by the VP a formal nullity because they recognized the very real possibility that the way the EC is defined in the Constitution in combination with the Electoral Count Act made it possible to reject sufficient EVs to force a Presidential Election to the House? (Essentially, Eastman was right.) They appear to be in the position that the only 'legal' (in name only) means of keeping Trump out of the WH if he wins enough EVs is to harass EC members into voting against him since the House can no longer reject EV slates under the Electoral Count Act.
Pelosi morphed into Harry Reid so fast I hardly noticed.
Didn't the opinion seem to be leaning toward the view that the President qualifies as an "officer" without making a clear ruling on that part of the issue?
I could use some help here.
Also, I think Barrett was criticizing all the other 8.
Words like "insurrection" never quite mean what one thinks they mean, do they? Insurrection generally has meant a violent uprising against governmental authority. January 6, where the only firearms were brandished by government agents and Trump told people to protest peacefully and patriotically, didn't look like an insurrection. It looked like a protest that led to trespassing(although too many doors were opened by Capitol police to make that stick) that led to a riot. We saw riots nationwide for weeks following the death of George Floyd--were they insurrections? No one thinks so. No one--not Jack Smith, not the DC US Attorney-- wants to go down the insurrection rabbit hole. No one has been charged with insurrection.
Next up for the Dems--an attack on voter ID. With 5 million new illegals wandering around, there is business to be done! Biden calls them "newcomers", bless his heart.
Dave B...
""Yeah, the defendant got off on a technicality; the Constitution." "
heh. That pesky thing - progressives hate it.
Democrats: Curses! Foiled again!
and with his current trajectory, he'll only have the hard-core MAGAs on his side.
Haven't looked at that NYT poll have you? Or Gallup.
You know. The ones where Trump's up 46-40 with Hispanics?
As I predicted the usual suspects show up late and contort themselves to distract us from the actual point.
What's up fellas and gals? Nobody give you talking points?
(sad trombones)
That's the rub, Gadfly. The Democrats are afraid to risk an actual trial. Smoke mirrors misdirection and having activist judges make crappy decisions is much more politically expedient.
The funny thing is, many of the Trump supporters here think that the Supreme Court ruling somehow exonerated the former president from the charges of insurrection sedition treason etc.
At this stage too much time has passed it doesn't make sense to go after him criminally. It's up to the American people to decide in the presidential election serving as a jury of his peons.
SeanF replied: I think I'm reading that differently than you are. The main, binding opinion gave several reasons. The concurring opinions said they would have preferred to only use one reason.
After looking again more carefully at the excerpt from the decision I think you are correct.
Raskin is on it...
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/03/04/raskin-scotus-punted-on-trump-ballot-its-up-to-congress-to-act/
By any means necessary!
"Jack Smith could — today — charge Trump with inciting insurrection in response to the SCOTUS ruling on Congressional authority to rule on matters of Federal insurrection. It is the one Constitutional means to disqualify him, according to this order."
Yes--and then Smith would have to plead facts showing that Trump participated in an insurrection, which no one has been willing or able to specify so far. I don't think Jack "Hurry Up" Smith can get Trump convicted before January 20 with the addition of an insurrection charge--it will bog everything down further. Smith thought about it for two years and couldn't figure out how to charge Trump with insurrection. It is not going to happen.
"Former President Donald Trump escaped ballot exile in Colorado on Monday thanks to the Supreme Court — but Rep. Jamie Raskin wants Congress to step in and dump the former president.
Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, is hatching plans to revive legislation he crafted that could jettison Trump from the ballot due to his actions revolving around Jan. 6, 2021.
“In any event, the Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” Raskin told CNN Monday after the high court’s ruling.
“I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” ~ NY Post, 3/3/24
Trying for a double violation of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder and an Ex Post Facto law. The legislators swear an oath of the Constitution. Deliberant attempts to go against its strictures is ipso facto an act of insurrection.
Regarding the NYT poll, this is from the accompanying article (via Powerline):
"Women are 20 percentage points more likely to say that Mr. Trump’s policies have helped them than Mr. Biden’s have, despite the fact that Mr. Trump installed Supreme Court justices who ultimately overturned the right to an abortion and that about two-thirds of women in America think that abortion should be legal in all or most instances."
In other words, the NYT Biden corpse reanimators are astonished by their ineffective propaganda.
"Bless your heart, Rich. What would we do without you?"
Large numbers confound some people.
"Certification of the electoral college results of Nov 2024 will be accomplished with the current sitting congress, not the next one."
This is wrong, Drago- the new Congress is always the one that meets to count the electoral ballots on January 6th. The new Congress is sworn in on January 3rd, I think.
The U.S. Supreme Court issues a unanimous opinion: "Knock it off!"
Will the lefties listen? Not bloody likely.
many of the Trump supporters here think that the Supreme Court ruling somehow exonerated the former president from the charges of insurrection sedition treason etc.
Find me one comment that says that. Just one.
Gadfly, Rich, and Left Bank, you had better get your ACME catalogue out and buy yourselves some giant rubberbands, anvils, and invisible holes.
But use the Althouse portal, if you can.
@ Hassayamper: Trump has underperformed polls in every 2024 primary contest. In the 2016 primaries, Trump mostly outperformed polling forecasts. This time, he’s underperforming by several percentage points.
Trump's pre-election polling average versus actual winning margin, by state:
Michigan
Polled 56.9%
Result 41.5%
Iowa
Polled 34%
Result 29.8%
South Carolina
Polled 27.76%
Result 20.3%
New Hampshire
Polled 17.6%
Result 11.1%
Sources: FiveThirtyEight
My understanding is that many of the potential Biden voters are women in nominally Republican communities who are becoming genuinely fearful of their ability to access basic reproductive healthcare services, now that Republican ideologues appear to be going after what were once viewed as the most routine of obstetric and gynecological procedures. I'm referencing the recent ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court on in vitro fertilization. It doesn’t take a leap of logic to understand why a large number of Republican women may decide to vote for Biden without admitting it to pollsters — or their families.
Jan 6 was not an insurrection. Saying it is - just proves how easily the left have sway over their loyal hiveminders.
Howard having delusional visions: The funny thing is, many of the Trump supporters here think that the Supreme Court ruling somehow exonerated the former president from the charges of insurrection sedition treason etc.
No one claimed the SCOTUS decision exonerates, because the Senate already did the exoneration.
It was an earnest decision, not an unanimous one.
Earnest(n.,adj.) being halfway between animus(n.) and unanimous(adj.)
I didn't think the court wanted to find itself in the position of deciding who political parties could have as their candidates.
Jack Smith could — today
That is why others are comparing him to Wile E. Coyote, who was equally foolish.
Howitzer Howie said...
That's the rub, Gadfly. The Democrats are afraid to risk an actual trial. Smoke mirrors misdirection and having activist judges make crappy decisions is much more politically expedient.
I don't think you are so stupid that you don't know the answer to why they are doing it this way (the 'fly is just another DNC shill) rather than actually charging him, and the American people are giving you their answer whether you like it or not.
Not-Nearly-as-much-of-a-Gadfly- as he fancies himself to be said:
"Ginni Thomas is known to have helped plan the January 6 coup."
***********
Then why hasn't she been charged with insurrection? Why hasn't ANYONE?
And what better way to drive that Uppity Clarence Thomas off the Court than to have millions see his wife doing a perpwalk?
The funny thing is, many of the Trump supporters here think that the Supreme Court ruling somehow exonerated the former president from the charges of insurrection sedition treason etc.
What charges? If you are talking about the impeachment, Trump was acquitted. By the U.S. Senate. Pursuant to the rules set forth in the United States Constitution.
If you are talking about whatever it is that the lefty judge did in Colorado, that is officially over and done with.
And as your fellow bitter end never-say-die anti-Trumper Gadfly has helpfully pointed out, Jack Smith hasn't even made those charges.
But Keep Hope Alive!
gadfly said...
Jack Smith could — today — charge Trump with inciting insurrection in response to the SCOTUS ruling on Congressional authority to rule on matters of Federal insurection. It is the one Constitutional means to disqualify him, according to this order.
Yep. He, or someone else at teh Biden DoJ, could have charged Trump with that back in 2021.
But no one ever has.
Are you just too stupid to have wondered why that was?
@Howard: The funny thing is, many of the Trump supporters here think that the Supreme Court ruling somehow exonerated the former president from the charges of insurrection sedition treason etc.
Bollocks.
Name one. And use direct quotes to prove your point.
Never mind that you have proven this beyond a shadow of doubt: Charges? We don't need no steeeeenking charges!
Sec. 3 served its purpose. It may have prevented some Confederates who participated in the Civil War from holding federal office. Fine, although many exceptions were granted by Congress, I have read. Does the concept of "textualism" in interpreting the Constitution mean that words can be used out of context to affect situations that are completely different from those contemplated by the authors of Sec. 3?
Supreme Court delivers the decision that the USA is a constitutional republic.
Rachel Madcow hardest hit.
The concurring opinions said they would have preferred to only use one reason.
============
is The concurring opinions unamimously say which of several they would have preferred to cite as only useful one reason.
Poor stupid Rich.
Those primary polls poll self-identified Republican voters. Haley is getting probably half or more of her actual votes from people who will never vote for her in November vs Biden or a dog turd.
But keep hope alive, Rich, that is why we find you so amusing.
@Howard: The funny thing is, many of the Trump supporters here think that the Supreme Court ruling somehow exonerated the former president from the charges of insurrection sedition treason etc.
If by "charges" you mean actual, legal indictments (which the deep state has not been shy to employ) for insurrection, sedition, treason, THERE ARE NONE.
Idiot.
Don't mind Howard.
He's Keith Olbermann without the charms or brains.
Low bar...
“In any event, the Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” Raskin told CNN Monday after the high court’s ruling.
“I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” ~ NY Post, 3/3/24
Is Schiff isn't involved, this cannot succeed. (Yes, /sarc)
Virgil Hilts @ 10:06am,
Goo Lord, No! What part of "The Supreme Court is a court, not a legislature" don't you understand?
Okay okay accusations not charges
Okay, okay a dumbass not an imbecile.
“Gadfly, Rich, and Left Bank, you had better get your ACME catalogue out and buy yourselves some giant rubberbands, anvils, and invisible holes.
But use the Althouse portal, if you can.”
More importantly, for chrissakes, buy a fucking clue.
LOL!
Over-compensating Non-combat "vet" Howitzer Howard: "The funny thing is, many of the Trump supporters here think that the Supreme Court ruling somehow exonerated the former president from the charges of insurrection sedition treason etc."
You have to forgive Howard.
Having never been in combat he doesn't understand that weaponless "insurrections" are not insurrections at all.
And to think this cat claims to be a former Marine!
“Jack Smith could — today — charge Trump with inciting insurrection in response to the SCOTUS ruling on Congressional authority to rule on matters of Federal insurection. It is the one Constitutional means to disqualify him, according to this order.”
He just couldn’t get a conviction, even in DC. The CO district court utilized the findings of Nancy Pelosi’s hyper partisan kangaroo court J6 committee hearing report. The committee that didn’t allow the Republican House leadership to appoint any members. which means that they couldn’t cross examine any of the Dems’ witnesses, call their own, etc. And then, it turned out that the Dems encrypted then deleted the actual transcripts before turning control of the House over to the Republicans 14 months ago. Oh, and then the 14k hours of video that the J6 committee cherry picked from. The CO SC found this all to be a legitimate exception to the Hearsay rules. Of course, that Court controls the CRE. SO that’s their prerogative. But Smith is bound by the FRE, and the J6 committee report would be slam dunk inadmissible hearsay. Which leaves proving his case from scratch AND allowing Trump to defend himself, including cross examining the govt’s witnesses, putting his own on the standard, etc.
And, of course, he probably couldn’t get the case to trial before 2025, and by then Smith is likely to have been fired, and maybe even under prosecution for illegally funding his investigations and trials off budget.
The thing that bothers me is just how much of our legal system and practices (you know, the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing?) they're willing to jettison in order to 'Get Trump'. And how many institutions have gone along with it.
NYC: Let's change the law and find a crime where there's no victim, where the purported victims say there was no crime, where Trump took out loans and paid them back - but we think he (essentially) lied on the loan application so we'll discard the 8th Amendment and try and bankrupt him through lawfare.
Media: He's guilty of insurrection, despite never being charged with it and being on record as trying to make sure the handover was peaceful. Sure, we know about groups like BLM and Antifa, but THEY'D never cosplay being the bad guys on J6 - it's all the others, those MAGA types who think this country should be great.
FBI: Sure, someone (ahem) made up the Russian Collusion story out of thick air, and we ran with it for years. And all the other stuff - we knew it was false, but... y'know that Trump? Shouldn't have been there. Should've stayed in NYC, as a nominal Dem Billionaire. He hadn't run, we wouldn't have had to ruin him.
DC Political Elite: There's a way things are done, and he didn't do 'em. He didn't work up through the ranks, he didn't kowtow to the right people, didn't kiss the right rings - he definitely showed he was NOT one of 'our kind', you know? Why, we couldn't control him, so we helped a senile jerk get elected any way we could.
CDC: Sorry, what was that? We've got some gain of function research going on that may be needed around April so we can go back into lockdown for the election.
I'm looking at everything going on - and just shaking my head.
How do you walk back from the edge we seem to be careening towards?
It's interesting to see the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in favor of Trump regarding Section 3 enforcement. The emphasis on Congress's role in enforcing this provision, as outlined in the per curiam opinion, sheds light on the complexity of constitutional interpretation. The concurring opinion by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson raises important points about the limitations imposed on federal enforcement and the need for clarity in legislation. The reference to the lack of charges against Trump under §2383 raises questions about the interpretation of his actions on January 6th. Overall, this case highlights the intricacies of legal interpretation and the ongoing debates surrounding executive accountability.
I think silvan is A.I.
If that's actually a person, I'd like you to explain yourself.
That comment was submitted 4 times, btw, and the account was opened in March 2024, but it's the actual content that makes me think it's not a person. Look how it just took material from the post and restated it and just added noncommittal words: interesting... sheds light... raises important points... raises questions... highlights the intricacies....
If that's how actual people are going to start writing, it will be terrible!
Per the CNN website, the SCOTUS decision was 5-4 since the 3 liberal justices and ACB wrote their own opinions. They say so in 2 different articles. This will be the new approved talking point by the MSM.
“Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
- Justice Barrett
“Get a grip.”
- Speaker Johnson
The more the progressives choose the legal battlefield, the faster their coalition will dwindle. They seem to believe their purpose is opaque, once again presuming we were all born yesterday.
As Trump noted, why doesn’t Joe fight his own fight? Why lean on prosecutors and judges? That’s not the way we choose our leaders around here.
How to lie using ellipses:
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse....
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”
The first sentence is on page 1. The second sentence is on page 13. As the 4 concurrences do not agree with the reasoning of the first sentence, what do they agree on? I think it is only this, the preceding sentence on page 13:
“The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.”
But even there, the per curiam is disingenuous, as the concurring Justices don’t agree with the “therefore.”
I always wonder what campaigns are paying for comment posting like silvan and others. They are pretty obvious, because they don't engage in any other posts and comments that are not political.
Silvan - looks like AI to me, too.
He we go, folks.
the google madness.
There is nothing false in those two statements. Pages 1-13 are the Per Curiam decision, and all nine members agreed with the per curiam decision or it would not be per curiam. Don't be a lying lefty. There was nothing at all disingenuous or misleading about that truncation unlike your blatant falsehood above. Page 13, first few lines (including header) that includes the concluding line of the section started on page 12 (emphasis mine):
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 13
Per Curiam
[...]Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.
Then under this the Per Curiam section ends with (emphasis in original), "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed. The mandate shall issue forthwith. It is so ordered."
Only after this do the separate concurrences, the argument sections, begin. That means in direct contradiction to Left Bank's lies above, ALL NINE MEMBERS AGREED TO THE UNSIGNED SECTION ABOVE. Which includes every single thing I quoted. The ellipses, which hid nothing, changed nothing. Just accept your unanimous defeat. You deserved it.
Like the GOP and DNC, Christianity, boomers, etc, SCOTUS is a corrupt relic of the past with zero actual power of enforcement.
In the next 10 years when the youngest boomers are 70 and cleansed from earth, so will American being controlled by 9 corrupt politicians in robes.
To republicans and boomers.
How does it feel knowing in 10 years, every single solitary thing that you have spent your entire lives believing in will no longer exist because middle aged people like me will deliberately reverse it all?
Speaking of the Wise Latina Justice: I was an assistant district attorney for the Philadelphia DA's office for decades---I left shortly after Uber-progressive Soros-backed Larry Krasner was elected DA. The office building has a large meeting room that can hold a few hundred people and it was named the Ray Harley Conference Center after an incredibly wise and dedicated attorney who was the guiding hand and institutional memory of the Office for his entire career, through many administrations. Krasner took down his pictures from the wall right away; I guess it took a while longer to figure out how to get the custom metal lettering off the wood paneling. It's now the Sotomayor Center, because of course it is. No matter who is elected DA in the future, I can't imagine them having the political ability to remove the Sotomayor name.
Just got here. Agree that Silvan isn't human.
Everyone needs to deploy AIdar.
I had the impression > did not Lincoln pardon all erstwhile Confederates?
does not pardon unsmirch?
asking with unsmirth seriousity
But even there, the per curiam is disingenuous, as the concurring Justices don’t agree with the “therefore.”
Heh... "concurring Justices" "don't agree". Even Left Bank Chuck's sentence structure betrays his claims. Which is it? Are they concurring or do they "don't agree", because it is not both. Considering they claim to be concurring and only Left Bank Chuck claim they "don't agree", I think we all know the answer. Alas, as Kevin noted, these fools suffer nothing from claiming such lies, so their bullshit will continue.
Lincoln didn't pardon any Confederates. They never gave him the chance.
Andrew Johnson, a real piece of work, did pardon a lot of them.
silvan is not AI. silvan is a human posting AI generated content.
Because AI could not possibly solve the stairs, crosswalks and motorcycles puzzle as required to access Blogger comments, which is a complex puzzle with many factors to consider and with no right or wrong answer.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
How to lie using ellipses:
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse....
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”
The first sentence is on page 1. The second sentence is on page 13. As the 4 concurrences do not agree with the reasoning of the first sentence, what do they agree on? I think it is only this, the preceding sentence on page 13:
“The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.”
But even there, the per curiam is disingenuous, as the concurring Justices don’t agree with the “therefore.”
You are such a moron, Leftie, in addition to being a liar.
I answered your question in my first post on this:
To all the TDS afflicted loonies who "thought" they had a case here, some words from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson:
Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency
"What do they agree on?" All nine agree that teh States have NO ROLE in deciding who gets excluded from Federal office / ballot because of being an "insurrectionist". No to CO. Not to IL. No to Maine. No to every single other Democrat lunatic, anywhere in the Country, who thinks he / she / it /they / Xe can exclude Trump from the ballot.
9-0
5-3 (probably 6-3 if it comes up to an actual case), either try and convict a candidate for violating the Insurrection Act, or else 14:3 doesn't apply.
3 would like other ways than that, but they're not going to get them.
Everything you said pushing the CO decision was complete and utter crap, so stupid and worthless that Sotomayor wrote a concurrence so she could tell you your position "defies logic".
The post by "Silvan" is absolutely LLM-generated crap. These kinds of accounts are bots in one way or another. They are infesting every online space. The idea seems to be for them to build "trust," either algorithmically or personally, so that they get white-listed or at least not immediately flagged for spam, presumably so that they can be used for something else later.
In video game chats and discord channels that something is usually posting scammy links purporting to be to either adult content or 'free' movies--I assume that these are spyware of some kind.
I think Rustyshackleford is on crack.
I WISH I could get that high.
Yeah, I knew I shouldn't publish it, but I wanted to make fun of it. In the future, I'm going to treat stuff like that the same as a troll... not that I see everything. But if I read it.
Post a Comment