Trump stays on the ballot. 9-0 that States don’t have the right to enforce the 14th amendment on Presidential races. 5 say only Congress can do that, and that that applies to all federal elections. The 3 liberals plus ACB felt that goes too far (with two distinct concurring opinions).
I wonder how SCOTUS envisions enforcing this.
Asking for a friend.
In all likelihood I foresee CO actually complying with the law. Regardless what you thought of the original exclusion from the ballot, I’d be surprised to see CO brazenly defy SCOTUS.
As opposed to Alabama which said, “We recognize that SCOTUS said these voting maps were based on racist gerrymandering and therefore we must change them, but we gerrymandered them precisely with racism in mind, so we’re going to keep them.”
3 Likes
I think the CO ballots were printed with trump on them
To be fair, the high correlation of race and voting preference gives strong argument to “we’re not motivated by being racist, we just like to stay in power”.
Personally, if pre-clearance is good for some, it should be good for all. Why hasn’t that been floated as an option?
Surprised that the SCOTUS decision about CO was 9-0.
1 Like
Nikki won a primary. Trump is not pleased.
4 Likes
So you’re saying there’s a chance!
5 Likes
Consider the following quote from the CNN article:
Considering what Congress is like these days, SCOTUS has essentially said that Trump won’t be disqualified on Section 3 grounds.
SCOTUS has a prior ruling where states are not permitted to impose constraints beyond those prescribed by the Constitution on individuals running for federal office.
Presumably if a state attempted to do so anyway, the candidate(s) impacted would sue and a federal circuit court would issue the necessary orders.
1 Like
I keep forgetting 4v5 is the new 5v4.
It’s depressing to think how the narrow wins (eg. gay marriage) will now be narrow losses. I know that was already obvious with Roe, but it’s hard to think it’s just the norm now.
I’m not surprised. This was an obvious decision to overturn, hence it was 9-0 when unanimous rulings are somewhat rare.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
End of story. This isn’t complicated. In fact, it’s so obvious that I question exactly how CO judges could have made their ruling (disclaimer: I haven’t read their ruling), and wonder whether professional sanctions are warranted for wasting everyone’s time with this nonsense.
Just read the Mueller Report, it exonerates Trump!.. No, I haven’t read the Mueller Report…
3 Likes
This follows something that crossed my mind this weekend: the real power of criminals isn’t that they break the law and don’t care. It’s that everyone else respects the law and cares about that, and they do that to the point of “I don’t want to do anything to push back that might cause me to run afoul of the law.” Which is great - we need more law-abiding people, not less - but then when criminals break the law with impunity, it only emboldens them to do it more in more egregious ways and encourages others to do the same because they no longer fear punishment.
Which brings me back to a longstanding comment: rules without enforcement are merely suggestions that will be ignored by some, to the detriment of all.
1 Like
A better analogy would be if SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the Mueller Report exonerates Trump. Nice try, though.
Not much different than how particularly the recent GOP/MAGA Party/Parties have overthrown a lot of political norms that didn’t require laws in the past, as we generally agreed on how to govern. Refusing Congressional subpoenas, reducing the filibuster to “merely the threat to filibuster”, ignoring requests from GAO, refusing to hear SCOTUS nominees to run out the clock on Merrick Garland.
We’re learning that a system built on decorum and mutual respect can be quickly torn down by a brazen criminal and his toadies who lack shame.
2 Likes
Sorry, I shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions whilst completely uninformed.
2 Likes
Just to be clear, what you say here was not 9-0.
2 Likes
What I said was correct. They agree unanimously that Section 5 precludes Colorado from making this decision. This was always the obvious outcome.
They do not. They do agree unanimously that Colorado does not have the power to make this decision. But they disagree on why.
The dissent argues that, despite section 5, the 14th amendment has been ruled as “self-executing”.
They also note that it would be illogical to require a (majority) act of congress, but also give congress a super-majority veto.
1 Like
I think it is. My post was a reference to President Andrew Jackson’s response to the (then) SCOTUS ruling on the national bank issue. He was against a national bank, his response when asked about “losing” his case:
“They’ve made their decision. Now let’s see them enforce it.”
SCOTUS really doesn’t have any capacity to enforce. That lies with the DoJ, and that means the President. Congress’s enforcement capabilities are pretty limited, witness the circus regarding subpoenas injustice the past couple of years. Even Congressmen routinely ignore those silly writs.
AFAIK, it’s pretty tough to bring the DoJ to heel simply because you think the prosecutors are dragging their feet or failing to bring indictments. Lots leeway for prosecutors. And that means the enforcement necessarily involves the AG/POTUS.
So, what happens if Biden just says…“let this slide”? Or any other President for that matter. Trump is on record saying he will only behave that way for a day or two…but?
2 Likes
Jumping to what conclusions? I said “I question.” Maybe work on your reading comprehension a bit, ok?