Do voters adjudicate candidate's age, birthplace or residence?

If not, who does?

Donald Trump 'fears Supreme Court could BACK Colorado's decision to take him off the ballot and that three conservative justices he appointed won't want to be seen as political' | Daily Mail Online


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12912337/Donald-Trump-fears-Supreme-Court-Colorado-decision-remove-ballot.html

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

---

It's good the Supreme Court is taking this up. I think they should have taken it up regardless of which way Colorado decided as they have to be the ultimate arbiter of this legitimate question. But obviously, for political reasons, SCOTUS is going to side with Traitor Trump. I mean, one of the justices is married to an insurrectionist.

All the same it is in the interest of the state to protect the integrity of the political process by excluding ineligible candidates. Colorado did what is right.

---

Holy **** did the Supreme Court make you and every other person who thought that was a good decision look like horse's asses. 9-0. Didn't even break on party lines. Just a flat out rebuke of Colorado.

CNN has a more funereal tone than even on Election Night in 2016.

Dana Bash's voice is quivering, on the verge of tears, discussing the fact that Donald Trump will be able to remain on the ballot and thus American voters -- not DC elites -- will choose the next President.😢 https://t.co/hMCJLvfED9

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 4, 2024

The Father of MSNBC, calling on the Supreme Court to be dissolved since they "betrayed democracy" -- including Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.

MSNBC is every bit as deranged as Olbermann is. They're just a little more behaviorally subtle about it, but they're 100% his spawn. https://t.co/F62IIirvHE

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 4, 2024

I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.

— Jena Griswold (@JenaGriswold) March 4, 2024

"There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy," Newsom said, "but in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction."

His remarks threw cold water on numerous attempts by elected officials to seize on the Colorado decision."

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/22/newsom-pans-efforts-to-block-trump-from-california-ballot-00133152

Genocide Joe said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

---

It's good the Supreme Court is taking this up. I think they should have taken it up regardless of which way Colorado decided as they have to be the ultimate arbiter of this legitimate question. But obviously, for political reasons, SCOTUS is going to side with Traitor Trump. I mean, one of the justices is married to an insurrectionist.

All the same it is in the interest of the state to protect the integrity of the political process by excluding ineligible candidates. Colorado did what is right.

---

Holy **** did the Supreme Court make you and every other person who thought that was a good decision look like horse's asses. 9-0. Didn't even break on party lines. Just a flat out rebuke of Colorado.

CNN has a more funereal tone than even on Election Night in 2016.

Dana Bash's voice is quivering, on the verge of tears, discussing the fact that Donald Trump will be able to remain on the ballot and thus American voters -- not DC elites -- will choose the next President.😢 https://t.co/hMCJLvfED9

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 4, 2024

The Father of MSNBC, calling on the Supreme Court to be dissolved since they "betrayed democracy" -- including Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.

MSNBC is every bit as deranged as Olbermann is. They're just a little more behaviorally subtle about it, but they're 100% his spawn. https://t.co/F62IIirvHE

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 4, 2024

I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.

— Jena Griswold (@JenaGriswold) March 4, 2024

---

I think if you read the first page of this thread, the lawyers stated unequivocally that there was no way in hell the Supreme Court would remove Trump. Zero chance. The Supreme Court allows political process to be political and would not allow the court or a state to pre-determine an election.

Interesting academic discussion but no way in hell anyone with familiarity with the Supreme Court would have expected anything else.

9-0 just confirmed.

Quite a few hilarious posts on this page. Just about everybody - Democratic or not, including me predicted the Supreme Court would put Traitor Trump on the ballot.

There was some disagreement about the ruling which I find interesting. 5 justices said it would require Congressional action to bar someone from Federal office based on the 14th amendment. 4 Justices disagreed.

The 14th amendment specifically says the Insurrection "disability" can be removed by a Congressional supermajority. Obviously they could have written in Congressional action for disqualification but they chose not to. The Supreme Court flipped Section 3 on its head by a 5-4 majority.

Post Civil War Congress didn't pass legislation to disqualify the Confederates. Congress passed fines for those who served knowing they were ineligible. The disqualification itself would be self evident.

The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution on a 5-4 basis.

Genocide Joe said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Quite a few hilarious posts on this page. Just about everybody - Democratic or not, including me predicted the Supreme Court would put Traitor Trump on the ballot.

---

Your side got its ass kicked on legal and Constitutional grounds, not the political grounds you predicted. The conservatives knew that the Colorado decision had no legal basis, which you did not. Per usual, you spoke authoritatively on subjects you were ignorant on.

You weren't even in the remotist way right about anything here.

---

Calbear93 said that Traitor Trump provided support for the January 6 insurrectionists but no way would the Supreme Court interfere in the political process. We pretty much all agreed.

But you have fun with your fantasies.

dajo9 said:

---

There was some disagreement about the ruling which I find interesting. 5 justices said it would require Congressional action to bar someone from Federal office based on the 14th amendment. 4 Justices disagreed.

The 14th amendment specifically says the Insurrection "disability" can be removed by a Congressional supermajority. Obviously they could have written in Congressional action for disqualification but they chose not to. The Supreme Court flipped Section 3 on its head by a 5-4 majority.

Post Civil War Congress didn't pass legislation to disqualify the Confederates. Congress passed fines for those who served knowing they were ineligible. The disqualification itself would be self evident.

The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution on a 5-4 basis.

---

I only read the opinion once so I could be mistaken. But I recall references to Congress removing disabilities to certain to people, allowing them to serve, as justification for the conclusion Congressional action is required. I read the dissent as not disagreeing with that conclusion, just that it was an extraneous legal question not before the court.

This is an obscure area of Constitutional law. I doubt 10 minutes is spent on this specific topic in any law school, at least before this case. My instincts tell me SCOTUS got it right. The decision is about sound judicial reasoning (as evidenced by the fact the 3 liberal justices agreed), not political maneuvering.

Liberal lunacy is a threat to democracy.

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

There was some disagreement about the ruling which I find interesting. 5 justices said it would require Congressional action to bar someone from Federal office based on the 14th amendment. 4 Justices disagreed.

The 14th amendment specifically says the Insurrection "disability" can be removed by a Congressional supermajority. Obviously they could have written in Congressional action for disqualification but they chose not to. The Supreme Court flipped Section 3 on its head by a 5-4 majority.

Post Civil War Congress didn't pass legislation to disqualify the Confederates. Congress passed fines for those who served knowing they were ineligible. The disqualification itself would be self evident.

The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution on a 5-4 basis.

---

I only read the opinion once so I could be mistaken. But I recall references to Congress removing disabilities to certain to people, allowing them to serve, as justification for the conclusion Congressional action is required. I read the dissent as not disagreeing with that conclusion, just that it was an extraneous legal question not before the court.

This is an obscure area of Constitutional law. I doubt 10 minutes is spent on this specific topic in any law school, at least before this case. My instincts tell me SCOTUS got it right. The decision is about sound judicial reasoning (as evidenced by the fact the 3 liberal justices agreed), not political maneuvering.

---

You are only remembering Justice Coney-Barrett's semi-dissent. The 3 liberal Justices disagreed about Congressional action being required to disqualify in specific terms. The liberal Justices seem to be the only ones remembering the history of how the amendment was used by those who wrote it.

The conservative Justices took the occasion to rewrite the Constitution. The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

There was some disagreement about the ruling which I find interesting. 5 justices said it would require Congressional action to bar someone from Federal office based on the 14th amendment. 4 Justices disagreed.

The 14th amendment specifically says the Insurrection "disability" can be removed by a Congressional supermajority. Obviously they could have written in Congressional action for disqualification but they chose not to. The Supreme Court flipped Section 3 on its head by a 5-4 majority.

Post Civil War Congress didn't pass legislation to disqualify the Confederates. Congress passed fines for those who served knowing they were ineligible. The disqualification itself would be self evident.

The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution on a 5-4 basis.

---

I only read the opinion once so I could be mistaken. But I recall references to Congress removing disabilities to certain to people, allowing them to serve, as justification for the conclusion Congressional action is required. I read the dissent as not disagreeing with that conclusion, just that it was an extraneous legal question not before the court.

This is an obscure area of Constitutional law. I doubt 10 minutes is spent on this specific topic in any law school, at least before this case. My instincts tell me SCOTUS got it right. The decision is about sound judicial reasoning (as evidenced by the fact the 3 liberal justices agreed), not political maneuvering.

---

You are only remembering Justice Coney-Barrett's semi-dissent. The 3 liberal Justices disagreed about Congressional action being required to disqualify in specific terms. The liberal Justices seem to be the only ones remembering the history of how the amendment was used by those who wrote it.

The conservative Justices took the occasion to rewrite the Constitution. The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says.

---

Pretty much. As I understand it their main argument is that Sec. 3 doesn't allow states to make the determination. Sec. 3 does state pretty clearly that 2/3 of both houses are required to "remove such disability" but doesn't say that federal action is required to disqualify someone.

For that matter, the House voted to impeach Trump for insurrection and the Senate voted 57 to 43 in favor of it.

More than anything, this opinion reminds us again that the notion of originalism or textualism is hollow. The justices decide what they want and then craft their argument for it.

One more thing about Trump v. Anderson: Section 3 says Congress can “remove the disability” of ballot-removal by a 2/3 vote, which logically entails the ANTECEDENT EXISTENCE of said disability WITHOUT CONGRESS HAVING TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL pic.twitter.com/IdoAUm4Xzi

— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) March 5, 2024

As ever @AdamSerwer nails it https://t.co/PeeC6kySfF pic.twitter.com/fMTVEKvaH7

— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) March 4, 2024

---

This all comes down to separation of power.

All 9 justices agreed that the states, whether the legislative body or judicial, could only remove under the 14th amendment those running for state office. No state can make that determination unilaterally for a federal office.

Where the disagreement arose is whether, for federal offices, only congress or any federal body (judicial or congress) can disqualify someone under the 14th amendment. The constitution is not clear on this, and this was not a question that was at issue. The slim majority held that only congress can disqualify someone for federal office under the 14th amendment, and not the federal courts. Not a strong precedent in my mind, and as such, will not be given that much weight.