Mr. Trump back on the ballot.

[Copper]

States cannot use their control over the ballot to “undermine the National Government.”

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/03/SCOTUStrump.pdf

[George K]

Good.

Because our democracy is at stake, right?

[Copper]

JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

[George K]

Someone had to...

[Jolly]

9-0. With a very early release. About as slam-dunk as the court gets.

[George K]

@Jolly said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:

9-0. With a very early release. About as slam-dunk as the court gets.

What other issues wrt Trump are still pending before SCOTUS?

[George K]

[Horace]

So, by what process would an insurrectionist be barred from federal office? If a state can't take it upon itself to remove an insurrectionist from a federal election ballot, at what point in the process is an insurrectionist blocked from the presidency?

[Copper]

@Horace said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:

at what point in the process is an insurrectionist blocked

At the point when the US congress blocks him/her.

[89th]

Basically.

@Horace if you had taken the time to actually read the decision like a dedicated American, you would've clearly seen on Page 18, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson said:

Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of twothirds of each House, remove such disability.”

[89th]

(I skimmed the doc and found that part... it wasn't very clear, but I haven't read Section 3 because I'm not a dedicated American either)

[Copper]

I read the whole thing, spell-checked it, and verified the cross-references before I posted the link.

[Horace]

@89th said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:

Basically.

@Horace if you had taken the time to actually read the decision like a dedicated American, you would've clearly seen on Page 18, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson said:

Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of twothirds of each House, remove such disability.”

I’m sorry my friend but your reading comprehension in this case is regrettable. That describes a process by which an insurrectionist can be allowed to be president. It does not describe the process by which one can be blocked from the presidency.

[Horace]

Anyway I’ll read it. My answer is probably somewhere there. To the extent an answer exists beyond various legal opinions about what the answer is.

[Horace]

I guess it’s the same process by which a 5 year old would be barred from the presidency. Which is…

[Copper]

@Horace said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:

I guess it’s the same process by which a 5 year old would be barred from the presidency. Which is…

The Hawaiian Birth Certificate for people who have a Kenyan Birth Certificate.

[Axtremus]

From SCOTUS' opinion:

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.

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:

From SCOTUS' opinion:

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.

still not exactly clear. Congress would pass a law barring a specific insurrectionist from holding office? I know they can impeach, but that would be after the insurrectionist takes office.

[Horace]

it is therefore necessary o “‘ascertain[] what particular individuals are insurrectionists".

“[t]o accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable.”

For its part, the Colorado Supreme Court also concluded that there must be some kind of “determination” that Section 3 applies to a particular person “before the disqualification holds meaning.”

The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course
to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment.

So there you have it, congress has to pass legislation barring certain individuals or groups, who have been found to be insurrectionists by some formal process. Congressional hearings and whatnot. Maybe the Jan 6 committee and its excellently formal proceedings would come into play here.

Anyway, anybody on the "he's an insurrectionist" bandwagon is bound to conclude that congress must do its job here, and keep him from the presidency. Most of those who enjoy calling him an insurrectionist would gladly conclude that, but some incoherent few would not.

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Mr. Trump back on the ballot.:

Evidently, he is so upset about this, he’s lost control of his bladder.