Supreme Court reverses CO
- Thread starter St. Louis Hawk
- Start date
I knew there was no way they'd let each state make this determination. No way.
A win for common sense!
A loss for SCOTUS’s workload.
A loss for SCOTUS’s workload.
9-0 …. a huge defeat for fascists. Let the people decide elections.
Of couse this was the decision, everybody saw that coming. Im glad... one more excuse off the board when Lying Donnie Sexual Abuser gets landslided again in November. What will his excuse be now? Voter fraud... again for the third time? 🤣
So, why expedite this case but not the immunity case?
So one conservative justice broke and went with the three liberal justices? And your take away is that conservatives carry the water for Trump?
You obviously didn't read the opinion. It was far from a rubber stamp.
The decision wasn't that candidates couldn't be kept of ballots, the decision ruled that Congress, not states, has the power to remove candidates from federal elections.
What's there to read? The Supreme Court is heavily compromised and lacks even a basic ethics code. This country is f'd.
It's a different type of issue. This case involves states and their individual part in determining an election.
Trump's criminal case is about Trump, and potentially subsequent Presidents. It's also being expedited by SCOTUS standards, but the Court felt that it needed to go through the lower courts first, because it's an individual matter more than a national matter.
They can move fast when they choose to, and the trial judge and the DC circuit have both ruled. They didn’t have to take the case, and given its importance if they wanted to take it they could have taken it months ago when Jack Smith asked them to.
Why slow walk this case?
Last edited:
The following HROTers laughed at the above statement on December 28, 2023.
Enjoy your humble pie.
@FlickShagwell
@HawkMD
@sdhawkeye
@Torg
@GOHOX69
The following HROTers laughed at the above statement on January 5, 2024.
More humble pie.
@TC Nole OX
@Torg
@HawkMD
@Menace Sockeyes
You don't like the decision, so the SC is heavily compromised and the country is f'd. 🤣
You are right about the country being f'd......but not for the reasons you think.
Bush v Gore was about a national election issue, as is the Colorado ballot issue. Trump's criminal immunity issue is about Trump.
Please do not destroy my opinion of your intelligence which I have always thought was at a high level.
SCOTUS ruled unanimously and the individual states were on shaky ground from the start.
Yay...you finally got something right.
I agree.
But that matter is not being expedited by Supreme Court standards when they have shown they can do something in 5 days.
OK, just had a chance to review.
Per curiam opinion, so no lead author. not uncommon where the court concurs in the result, but doesn't want to necessarily put a lot into one specific rationale. Sort of consistent with what I described above.
On the whole, the unanimous basis of the opinion is simply that states can't exclude candidates from a federal office ballot by invoking section 3, as it's inconsistent with the federalism scheme. The per curiam goes a little further and notes that one reason is because section 3 requires congressional enabling legislation under section 5.
The three liberals, joined separately by Barrett, argue that it was not necessary to get into the enabling legislation issue. I suspect their "real" underlying concern is that they don't want an opinion that could be cited in the future to the effect that other parts of the 14th amendment (eg, the due process and equal protection clauses) can only be enforced via congressional legislation (eg, 1983, 1988, etc.). Barrett's opinion sort of sounds like Rodney king saying "cant we all just get along?"
Note: This is sort of consistent with my earlier predictions to the effect that the presidency is simply different as a sole national elected office, though I suspected they'd take the "officer" route. Oone prediction that did come true was that the court made no comment on the question of insurrection, "officer," "oath", etc. other than to say we can't have the possibility of 50 different states applying 50 different standards or processes to federal office.
Per curiam opinion, so no lead author. not uncommon where the court concurs in the result, but doesn't want to necessarily put a lot into one specific rationale. Sort of consistent with what I described above.
On the whole, the unanimous basis of the opinion is simply that states can't exclude candidates from a federal office ballot by invoking section 3, as it's inconsistent with the federalism scheme. The per curiam goes a little further and notes that one reason is because section 3 requires congressional enabling legislation under section 5.
The three liberals, joined separately by Barrett, argue that it was not necessary to get into the enabling legislation issue. I suspect their "real" underlying concern is that they don't want an opinion that could be cited in the future to the effect that other parts of the 14th amendment (eg, the due process and equal protection clauses) can only be enforced via congressional legislation (eg, 1983, 1988, etc.). Barrett's opinion sort of sounds like Rodney king saying "cant we all just get along?"
Note: This is sort of consistent with my earlier predictions to the effect that the presidency is simply different as a sole national elected office, though I suspected they'd take the "officer" route. Oone prediction that did come true was that the court made no comment on the question of insurrection, "officer," "oath", etc. other than to say we can't have the possibility of 50 different states applying 50 different standards or processes to federal office.
An absolutely unhinged take given how obvious this conclusion was from the get go. This was a major blow to fascism.
The exact list you'd expect. Will they admit they were wrong, or is the Supreme Court just corrupt and wrong? We know what gohox thinks at least lmfao
And the other 8?
Best bet is you stfu and take the L.
If so, she should have been charged. In fact, nobody has yet been convicted of insurrection for the 1/6 event.
Lots of unlawful parading charges out there. That doesn't have quite the same marketability though..
