SCOTUS

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-be-kicked-off-colorado-ballot/ar-BB1jj4qD?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=8a0091fcf7db402fa38def90c4b5fa9e&ei=10

Hmmm?  Not  self executing?

[Ohio Elite]

 

 

[Bigbrog]

Very interesting it was unanimous

[Husker_Du]

interesting only if you believe the justices would ignore the law and vote on their biases. 

a few years ago i wouldn't have found it 'interesting'.

but everything is so polarized now, and one of the judges refused to define 'woman'.

at least they all had integrity in this case. 

[mspart]

47 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said:

 

 

I don't think this is stated correctly.   SCOTUS did not address this to Trump, it was a general decision made necessary by a very particular issue.   The decision says states don't have the prerogative to keep Presidential and other federal candidates off their ballots.   That is a federal issue that Congress has the prerogative to deal with.   They pretty much took this issue away from States.   CO and MN have it in their faces.   But we hadn't had such a decision so it is good that we have this clarification.   And it was unanimous.   Although there was a dissent of sorts. 

mspart

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Very interesting it was unanimous

When I watched the supreme court justices during the hearing it looked like it would go 9 to 0. The liberal justices had some of the toughest questions against the Colorado  Attorney during the hearing . I was little surprised. Even when the judges in Colorado Supreme Court voted on the measure I think it was 4 to 3  and they were all liberal judges. That was interesting.

[Offthemat]

What I find interesting is that in the language they use, saying that the states cannot remove any  federal candidates, especially  for the presidency, they leave a pathway to later rule that section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidential candidates.  Like if Joe Manchin formed an army and tried to overthrow the government and failed, that he could still run for, and be elected, president, if enough people vote for him. 

[ionel]

32 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

What I find interesting is that in the language they use, saying that the states cannot remove any  federal candidates, especially  for the presidency, they leave a pathway to later rule that section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidential candidates.  Like if Joe Manchin formed an army and tried to overthrow the government and failed, that he could still run for, and be elected, president, if enough people vote for him. 

But not if congress says he can't due to the 14th.  Think thats the point, states can not do their own thing in this its the job of congress.   

Edited March 4 by ionel

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, ionel said:

But not if congress says he can't due to the 14th.  Think thats the point, states can do their own thing in this its the job of congress.   

Can congress say that the amendment applies to the presidency without a decision by the court, given that it’s not one of the positions listed in the amendment?

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Can congress say that the amendment applies to the presidency without a decision by the court, given that it’s not one of the positions listed in the amendment?

Thats a good point.   But in this case at least the court is saying individual states can't say it applies.  

[mspart]

The text of Section 3 of Amendment 14. 

Section 3.  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.

Interesting that it is particular in the electors of President or VP, but both of those offices are not to be found in this section.  

From the SCOTUS decision:

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.

So SCOTUS did not aim this decision at Presidential candidates.  But it did state that a state has no responsibility for enforcing Amendment 14 section 3, it rests with Congress.    But in doing so, it implies that President and VP positions are included in Section 3 because this ruling, strictly speaking, applies to the situation with Trump.   So that would be new doctrine for the US.   So in view of that, this is a momentous decision. 

mspart