The "unanimously" part of this really should have been in the headline, that feels like way bigger news than the rejection itself.
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
49 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2243 readers
17 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Honestly, it was the right call. Otherwise, states like Kentucky, Arkansas, and Alabama would kick Democratic candidates off the ballot non-stop.
If you don't want Trump, you'll have to do your part come election day.
Otherwise, states like Kentucky, Arkansas, and Alabama would kick Democratic candidates off the ballot non-stop.
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where Democratic candidates incited an insurrection against the Capitol?
What part of that do you think Kentucky or Tennessee will care about when they kick all Democrats off the ballot?
I don't think you understand the implications if the Supreme Court voted to uphold the ruling.
Is Trump a treasonous piece.of shit? Yes. Do I want theocratic white Christian nationalist courts from MAGA states to have the ability to block any candidate from the federal ballot that doesn't bow down to their demands? Hell fucking no!
Unlike sane people, regressive leaders do not need or care about reality in order to get people removed from the ballot. It absolutely does not matter that progressives have not invited insurrections. They'll be removed anyway if that precedent is set simply because they are an alternative option, and the voting population is sufficiently decieved or deluded to support it.
If the power rests with the states, it's the state supreme courts who make the final determination, so it couldn't be appealed up to federal courts if a bunch of MAGA judges in Red states decided that "that darn Liberalism brainrot is a Commie insurrection against America, hyuck hyuck!" and kick all Dems off the ballots.
Yep, right up there with 5G being set up to control us using the COVID-19 vaccine as a delivery medium. Also, COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility and it's the Democrats who are controlling it.
I mean, whatever people believe must be true, right? Can't let an objective fact get in the way of a good ole echo chamber of morons.
I feel like this 100% should have been upheld. The reason being that trump engaged in an insurrection, which, according to the 14th amendment, means he cannot run for public office. We have laws for a reason, right? republicans can try to kick (D)s off the ballot, but I would hope they have a damn good reason for it. If not, that is when our court system is supposed to step in.
The court didn’t answer the question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. The question is whether or not a state can kick candidates off the ballet under section 3 of the 14th amendment and the court found that they could not.
Well that's even worse!
Complicated feelings on this.
It does certainly seem like allowing this would have been damaging to democracy in the long run (could Texas just boot off Biden because he's the democratic candidate and some made up charges relating to the border?), especially since he has not been tried and convincted, but so damaging in the short term to allow someone who is such a clear and present danger to democracy to remain eligible.
You might be underestimating the supreme court's pension for changing their opinion once it suits them politically.
I was thinking in the abstract, without complicating it in the context of a corrupt Supreme Court.
The ruling in the affirmative would have been troubling from many viewpoints.
Should States bar people from ballots without a trial and conviction? What would be the limitations of that?
It's a can of worms I don't think we have good answers for, however much we want Trump to be held accountable for his actions.
All the more reason to hate the Supreme Court, I say. They're a corrupt, miserable institution that rarely accurately reflects the American consciousness. Their only saving grace is the few times they have.
Also Supreme Court precedent will be the death of us all.
They're cowards is what they are.
Daily reminder that the constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the right of judicial review, they gave them selves the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional by “interpreting implied powers” from the constitution.
Help me understand this.
SCOTUS is saying states cannot determine who is and who is not insurrectionist enough to be off their ballots. Rather, it is Congress (the same Congress that acquitted a known insurrectionist) who is the sole judge of that.
???
Obvious answers seem to be corruption and regulatory capture. But I'm trying to make sure I'm reading their opinion correctly. Is it not essentially, "States conduct elections as they see fit. No, wait, not like that!"
The case was about wether he could be removed from the ballot (having not actually been convicted for treason yet) but some of the judges used it as an opportunity to state that only congress could do that for federal elections. The case was pretty open and shut on the first part, not so much on the second.
Didn't the Jan 6 Select Committee already recommend the DoJ should pursue criminal charges against 45 for his role in the insurrection? Now SCOTUS wants Congress to decide again?
Recommending that he be investigated for treason is not the same as him going to court and being convicted of it. That’s kind of the rub of the whole situation, removing a candidate from a ballot because they’ve been accused of treason is a really bad precedent to set.
I say we take this to the Xtreme Court
Presided by former President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho
The court held that states may bar candidates from state office. “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the court wrote.
While all nine justices agreed that Trump should be on the ballot, there was sharp disagreement from the three liberal members of the court and a milder disagreement from conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett that their colleagues went too far in determining what Congress must do to disqualify someone from federal office.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.
The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states, without action from Congress first, cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.
The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.
Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.
They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.
Saved 76% of original text.