Blue State Ignorance
2024-03-05 05:54:12 UTC
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win
to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot
kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan.
6 attack on the Capitol bringing a swift end to a case with
huge implications for the 2024 election.
In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the
Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could
not serve again as president under Section 3 of the
Constitution's 14th Amendment.
The provision prohibits those who previously held government
positions but later engaged in insurrection from running for
various offices.
The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed
that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or
other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set
rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced
against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to
all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar
people running for state office from appearing on the ballot
under Section 3.
"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the
states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal
officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided
any analysis or determination of whether Trump's actions
constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-
capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, "Big win
for America!!!"
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24454892/trump-v-
anderson.pdf
In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in
Colorado, the decision will end similar cases that have arisen.
So far, only two other states, Maine and Illinois, followed
Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions
were put on hold.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold registered
"disappointment" with the decision in an interview with NBC
News' Katy Tur on MSNBC.
"Ultimately, this decision ... leaves open the door for Congress
to act to pass authorizing legislation. But we know that
Congress is a nearly non-functioning body, so ultimately, it
will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in
November," she said.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows was quick to act after
the ruling,
"I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trumps primary
petition is invalid," she said in a statement, citing her
obligation to follow the law.
The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump
accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election
results, including his exhortation that his supporters should
march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to
formalize Joe Bidens win.
Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The
Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on his broad
claim of presidential immunity.
The ruling warned of the dangers of a patchwork of decisions
around the country that could send elections into chaos if state
officials had the freedom to determine who could appear on the
ballot for president.
"The result could well be that a single candidate would be
declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the
same conduct," the ruling said.
Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some
divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority,
as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson
complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the
court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how
Section 3 could be enforced by Congress.
They said the decision could "insulate" Trump from "future
controversy," adding that the ruling "shuts the door on other
potential means of federal enforcement" of section 3.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court
went further than required, although she did not join the
liberal justices opinion.
Barrett said although she had some disagreements with the
rationale, the liberals should not amplify disagreement in
such a politically charged case.
All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is
the message Americans should take home," she added.
The Colorado court based its Dec. 19 ruling on Section 3, which
was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates
from returning to power in the U.S. government.
The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether
the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to
decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.
The state high courts decision reversed a lower courts ruling
in which a judge said that Trump had engaged in insurrection by
inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to
the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are
not an officer of the United States.
Trump and his allies raised that point, as well as other
arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also
argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.
Republicans, including Trumps primary opponents, broadly
supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot
is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats
including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed
unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a
partisan weapon.
The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters
by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.
They alleged in court papers that Trump intentionally organized
and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in
a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes
cast against him.
Noah Bookbinder, CREW's president, focused on the silver lining
after the ruling, saying that the court "had the opportunity to
exonerate Donald Trump for engaging in insurrection, and they
did not do that."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-
rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291
Thank you liberals for demonstrating your ignorance again.
It is not up to the Supreme Court to do the job of Congress.
to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot
kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan.
6 attack on the Capitol bringing a swift end to a case with
huge implications for the 2024 election.
In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the
Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could
not serve again as president under Section 3 of the
Constitution's 14th Amendment.
The provision prohibits those who previously held government
positions but later engaged in insurrection from running for
various offices.
The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed
that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or
other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set
rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced
against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to
all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar
people running for state office from appearing on the ballot
under Section 3.
"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the
states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal
officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided
any analysis or determination of whether Trump's actions
constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-
capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, "Big win
for America!!!"
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24454892/trump-v-
anderson.pdf
In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in
Colorado, the decision will end similar cases that have arisen.
So far, only two other states, Maine and Illinois, followed
Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions
were put on hold.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold registered
"disappointment" with the decision in an interview with NBC
News' Katy Tur on MSNBC.
"Ultimately, this decision ... leaves open the door for Congress
to act to pass authorizing legislation. But we know that
Congress is a nearly non-functioning body, so ultimately, it
will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in
November," she said.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows was quick to act after
the ruling,
"I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trumps primary
petition is invalid," she said in a statement, citing her
obligation to follow the law.
The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump
accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election
results, including his exhortation that his supporters should
march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to
formalize Joe Bidens win.
Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The
Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on his broad
claim of presidential immunity.
The ruling warned of the dangers of a patchwork of decisions
around the country that could send elections into chaos if state
officials had the freedom to determine who could appear on the
ballot for president.
"The result could well be that a single candidate would be
declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the
same conduct," the ruling said.
Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some
divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority,
as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson
complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the
court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how
Section 3 could be enforced by Congress.
They said the decision could "insulate" Trump from "future
controversy," adding that the ruling "shuts the door on other
potential means of federal enforcement" of section 3.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court
went further than required, although she did not join the
liberal justices opinion.
Barrett said although she had some disagreements with the
rationale, the liberals should not amplify disagreement in
such a politically charged case.
All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is
the message Americans should take home," she added.
The Colorado court based its Dec. 19 ruling on Section 3, which
was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates
from returning to power in the U.S. government.
The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether
the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to
decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.
The state high courts decision reversed a lower courts ruling
in which a judge said that Trump had engaged in insurrection by
inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to
the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are
not an officer of the United States.
Trump and his allies raised that point, as well as other
arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also
argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.
Republicans, including Trumps primary opponents, broadly
supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot
is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats
including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed
unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a
partisan weapon.
The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters
by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.
They alleged in court papers that Trump intentionally organized
and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in
a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes
cast against him.
Noah Bookbinder, CREW's president, focused on the silver lining
after the ruling, saying that the court "had the opportunity to
exonerate Donald Trump for engaging in insurrection, and they
did not do that."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-
rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291
Thank you liberals for demonstrating your ignorance again.
It is not up to the Supreme Court to do the job of Congress.