The further context of one of the most published Court decisions in a decade that you could read about in the article of you were still out of the loop?
Oh they'll build something else to take its place, but there's no way SCotUS will survive the Trump takeover. Too long a tradition of people who can tell him "no" and he can't do anything about it. They'll be wiped and replaced illegally.
Yeah. People don't seem to understand that once the fascists have stacked the highest court, it's game over for the justice system and any semblance of due process. The rule of law is dead. They succeeded in killing it.
Once the fascists have seized control of all 3 branches of government? No amount of voting, protesting, or peaceful demonstration is likely to improve the situation — at that point the only way to restore democracy is through armed revolution and civil war.
Or wait for the dictator to die like Salazar in Portugal. But 1) that would really suck and I don’t want to live thru all those oppressive years, and 2) Salazar was actually competent and could achieve beneficial things for his country.
Why so incensed? They are describing exactly what must happen to restore democracy once it has been corrupted into something else. What would you do under a fascist regime to bring about democracy, instead?
I read recently a comment that said "The only people who think favorably about SCOTUS are people who remember the Warren Court."
Now I'm not that old, but I think there's a lot of truth in that. SCOTUS got a lot of goodwill from the Warren Court for making progressive, popular, and legally sound rulings. Now people are surprised that under Roberts, the Court has returned to its more-often-than-not pro-business, pro-Christofascist, anti-everything-that-isn't-rich-white-men leanings.
Which is why this was dumb. My statement was saying it could have been a good thing. But we live in the timeline where Wonka doesn't make fucken Wonka bars and everything is shit so the traitor stays on the ballot.
They didn't say that it's not in the Constitution they said the states can't enforce it.
If we want to enforce it as a country it should come from Congress. If you give the states leeway to take people off the ballot, States can do stupid things I agree he deserves to be off the ballot but I do not love giving swing states that tool.
It seems people might not believe that Congress would abide by the constitution, seeing as last time around a whole bunch of them straight-up voted to not abide by the election results.
States can enforce the constitutional age limit, it's incoherent garbage nonsense to pretend states can not enforce the constitutional treason restriction
Only if you equate an openly obvious case of Insurrection and attempting to overthrow an election to the GOP going 'lol ban Dems' with no actual charges.
they could have easily put road blocks on it such as "must be under federal prosecution for or convicted of specific crimes or actively battling federal troops under lawful orders."
Another twinge in the gears is that even if Biden pardoned Trump, Trump should still be unable to run for president under the constitution.
the states all already have disparate requirements regarding how to get on the ballot: filing deadlines, petition signatures, write in eligibility… How is “verifying against constitutional requirements” any different?
By the logic of that decision, states must allow young candidates to run on the ballot, even if they would not be 35 by the inauguration date, because that is a constitutional requirement that can only be enforced at the federal level.
You don't though, because the case will still rise to the Supreme Court and be shot down for being bullshit. If they get on board with disqualifying candidates for trumped up charges, then we have a constitutional crisis, but just because one state court's opinion is validated doesn't mean other courts just get the ability to disqualify at will.
If disqualifying candidates based on false pretences is a "constitutional crisis", why isn't THIS inverse — restoring an insurrectionist to the ballot — a "constitutional crisis"?
At this point "constitutional crisis" just sounds like another fantasy guard rail "check" or "balance" that people view as a turning point or line in the sand, but in reality everyone will just accept the fascist takeover and act like things aren't bad enough to do anything about it yet...
I swear, if they shit all over our freedoms 13 or 14 more times, they're gonna regret the numerous times they shat all over us and we did nothing!
Because someone somewhere would have to make insurrection charges stick. They've completely failed at that. This whole thing is political theatre like you read about 70s USSR. Idk is gonna win but it's a knives out battle like Kruschkev n Gorbachev won.
Al lot of charges have "stuck" hence why Trumple has offered to pardon everyone when he wins.
You don't need to go to another country for an example when you can just look at the US. McCarthyism is the political theatre you are talking about. The Red Scare and ruining countless peoples lives over made up bullshit.
This ain't made up. The sexual assaulter did not concede willingly and fomented an insurrection however dumb or ineffective it was.
The states have always had that choice, with due process, to disqualify candidates. Colorado disqualified a candidate in 2012, and Gorsuch was one of the judges that ruled in favor of Colorado.
Hassan v Colorado, 2012
as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. See generallyMunro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193-95 (1986); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant’s motion for publication is denied.
Entered for the Court
Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge
You know, I was under the impression that refusing to do the right thing because you're scared of the consequences was the definition of cowardice.
The fact that SCOTUS decided that letting a literal insurrectionist stay in the ballot, rather than make the legally and morally correct decision, only because it would mean they'd have to smack down Texas, Florida, et al, later, makes them cowards.
Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig issued a searing rebuke of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that Colorado could not disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban, preserving his ability to seek a second term.
Voters and advocacy groups had filed dozens of challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility in states across the country, claiming his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack triggered his disqualification.
The high court sided with Trump by ruling Congress has exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates.
Luttig, who had been vocal in support of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar Trump from the ballot, described Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as the Constitution’s “safety net for America’s democracy, promising to automatically disqualify from public office all oath-breaking insurrectionists against the Constitution, deeming them too dangerous to entrust with power unless supermajorities of both houses of Congress formally remove their disability.”
The Supreme Court has now rendered that safety net a dead letter, effectively rescinding it as if it had never been enacted,” Luttig wrote.
He continued, “That the disqualification clause has not previously been invoked to keep traitors against the Constitution from having a second opportunity to fracture the framework of our republic reflects not its declining relevance but its success at deterring the most dangerous assaults on our government until now.”
The original article contains 462 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
