Today's Dastardly Ruling by the Supreme Court

signalmankenneth

Verified User
Even though Trump clearly engaged in an insurrection and even though the Constitution clearly bars insurrections from holding elected office, the Supreme Court today ruled that Trump will remain on the ballot anyway.

With the Super Tuesday primaries looming tomorrow, all nine justices agreed that states (in this case, Colorado) cannot decide to keep Trump off the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment – which bars anyone who has sworn an oath to the Constitution and yet participated in an insurrection against the United States from holding office. They agreed that allowing states to make such decisions would lead to a patchwork of ballots, undercutting federal authority.

But this may not be the most troubling aspect of their decision over the long term. The five justices in the majority went further, ruling that Section 3 could only be enforced by Congress. They rested their argument on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that Congress shall pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment — such as, for example, procedures to identify which individuals should be disqualified under Section 3. And Congress has not done so.

But requiring that Congress first pass such legislation would prevent the federal government’s own Justice Department from bringing a suit alleging that someone should not be allowed on a ballot because they participated in an insurrection.

It would in effect shield any future insurrectionist candidate, whose party controls at least one chamber of commerce and therefore would not enact such legislation.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were also rightfully concerned that the majority’s decision could be used to prevent the Justice Department or any aggrieved plaintiff from enforcing other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment – such as Section 1, which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or deny them “equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/109612/todays-dastardly-ruling-by-the-supreme-court

trump-above-14th-amendment.png

 
Even though Trump clearly engaged in an insurrection and even though the Constitution clearly bars insurrections from holding elected office, the Supreme Court today ruled that Trump will remain on the ballot anyway.

With the Super Tuesday primaries looming tomorrow, all nine justices agreed that states (in this case, Colorado) cannot decide to keep Trump off the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment – which bars anyone who has sworn an oath to the Constitution and yet participated in an insurrection against the United States from holding office. They agreed that allowing states to make such decisions would lead to a patchwork of ballots, undercutting federal authority.

But this may not be the most troubling aspect of their decision over the long term. The five justices in the majority went further, ruling that Section 3 could only be enforced by Congress. They rested their argument on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that Congress shall pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment — such as, for example, procedures to identify which individuals should be disqualified under Section 3. And Congress has not done so.

But requiring that Congress first pass such legislation would prevent the federal government’s own Justice Department from bringing a suit alleging that someone should not be allowed on a ballot because they participated in an insurrection.

It would in effect shield any future insurrectionist candidate, whose party controls at least one chamber of commerce and therefore would not enact such legislation.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were also rightfully concerned that the majority’s decision could be used to prevent the Justice Department or any aggrieved plaintiff from enforcing other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment – such as Section 1, which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or deny them “equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/109612/todays-dastardly-ruling-by-the-supreme-court

trump-above-14th-amendment.png


If he "clearly" engaged in insurrection why haven't criminal charges been filed against him? It should be a home run right? Be "clearly" did it according to you. Want to know why it hasn't happened? It hasn't happened because even the fruitiest leftist knows there was no fucking insurrection. Id say stop being stupid but telling a leftist to stop being stupid is like telling a pig to stop oinking. You may want to get someone to explain that to you. Preferably someone not educated in public school.
 
Dastardly how they unanimously agreed. Truly. Evil and stuff. Totally must be witches... I think they once turned me into a newt...


..

..


..

..

I got better.

5uy3if.jpg
 
it's amazing after all these years of telling liberal fucksticks that they DO NOT KNOW THE CONSTITUTION, they always seem to think they know it better than me.
 
If he "clearly" engaged in insurrection why haven't criminal charges been filed against him? It should be a home run right? Be "clearly" did it according to you. Want to know why it hasn't happened? It hasn't happened because even the fruitiest leftist knows there was no fucking insurrection. Id say stop being stupid but telling a leftist to stop being stupid is like telling a pig to stop oinking. You may want to get someone to explain that to you. Preferably someone not educated in public school.

You are a hoot. Perhaps more therapy?
 
Even though Trump clearly engaged in an insurrection. ...
Many leftists have insisted this, but none have shown any involvement on Trump's part in any insurrection, nor have they even shown any insurrection.

For the latter, they can only point to a peaceful protest in which Trump didn't even participate. For the former, they can only point to Trump's 1st Amendment rights.

@ signalmankenneth, your confusion likely stems from the fact that the Supreme Court knows what an insurrection is and you do not.

There is nothing special about DC (a capitol) that makes protesting there an insurrection. Leftists never mention Democrat politicians who were actually arrested for actual involvement in violent protests in DC, yet they are lightning fast to reach for the hyperbole when a political opponent exercises his 1st Amendment rights.

Leftists are the problem ... always.
 
Even though Trump clearly engaged in an insurrection and even though the Constitution clearly bars insurrections from holding elected office, the Supreme Court today ruled that Trump will remain on the ballot anyway.

With the Super Tuesday primaries looming tomorrow, all nine justices agreed that states (in this case, Colorado) cannot decide to keep Trump off the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment – which bars anyone who has sworn an oath to the Constitution and yet participated in an insurrection against the United States from holding office. They agreed that allowing states to make such decisions would lead to a patchwork of ballots, undercutting federal authority.

But this may not be the most troubling aspect of their decision over the long term. The five justices in the majority went further, ruling that Section 3 could only be enforced by Congress. They rested their argument on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that Congress shall pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment — such as, for example, procedures to identify which individuals should be disqualified under Section 3. And Congress has not done so.

But requiring that Congress first pass such legislation would prevent the federal government’s own Justice Department from bringing a suit alleging that someone should not be allowed on a ballot because they participated in an insurrection.

It would in effect shield any future insurrectionist candidate, whose party controls at least one chamber of commerce and therefore would not enact such legislation.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were also rightfully concerned that the majority’s decision could be used to prevent the Justice Department or any aggrieved plaintiff from enforcing other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment – such as Section 1, which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or deny them “equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/109612/todays-dastardly-ruling-by-the-supreme-court

trump-above-14th-amendment.png


As much as I despise #TRE45ON and see him as a clear and present danger to the nation, I have to agree with SCOTUS on this one. If nothing else, we don't want states to be able to find an excuse to keep an otherwise Constitutionally-qualified candidate off the ballot. You know the (R)s would come up with specious reasons to keep (D)s off.
 
Dastardly how they unanimously agreed. Truly. Evil and stuff. Totally must be witches... I think they once turned me into a newt...

it has to be an act of God......the only other explanation is that we managed to find the three rational demmycrats in the world and got them on the bench.......that beggars belief.......
 
As much as I despise #TRE45ON and see him as a clear and present danger to the nation, I have to agree with SCOTUS on this one. If nothing else, we don't want states to be able to find an excuse to keep an otherwise Constitutionally-qualified candidate off the ballot. You know the (R)s would come up with specious reasons to keep (D)s off.

You mean like how you stupid turds tried with trump? I love agreement.
 
Dastardly how they unanimously agreed. Truly. Evil and stuff. Totally must be witches... I think they once turned me into a newt...


..

..


..

..

I got better.

]

Interesting when cultist jump in without understanding the content

Again, “the majority’s decision could be used to prevent the Justice Department or any aggrieved plaintiff from enforcing other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment – such as Section 1, which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or deny them “equal protection of the laws..”

In other words, the Trump Court was in such a hurry to aid their man, which seems to be their pattern, that they sophomoricly left the door open for another step into authoritarianism
 
Interesting when cultist jump in without understanding the content

Again, “the majority’s decision could be used to prevent the Justice Department or any aggrieved plaintiff from enforcing other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment – such as Section 1, which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or deny them “equal protection of the laws..”

In other words, the Trump Court was in such a hurry to aid their man, which seems to be their pattern, that they sophomoricly left the door open for another step into authoritarianism

you clearly need to go back to english comprehension classes
 
Even though Trump clearly engaged in an insurrection
There was no insurrection.
and even though the Constitution clearly bars insurrections from holding elected office, the Supreme Court today ruled that Trump will remain on the ballot anyway.
There was no insurrection.
With the Super Tuesday primaries looming tomorrow,
They completed. Trump won the GOP side, and Biden won the Democrat side.
all nine justices agreed that states (in this case, Colorado) cannot decide to keep Trump off the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment – which bars anyone who has sworn an oath to the Constitution and yet participated in an insurrection against the United States from holding office. They agreed that allowing states to make such decisions would lead to a patchwork of ballots, undercutting federal authority.
Congress has no authority to change the Constitution, Sock.
But this may not be the most troubling aspect of their decision over the long term. The five justices in the majority went further, ruling that Section 3 could only be enforced by Congress. They rested their argument on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that Congress shall pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment — such as, for example, procedures to identify which individuals should be disqualified under Section 3. And Congress has not done so.
Congress has no authority to change the Constitution, Sock.
But requiring that Congress first pass such legislation would prevent the federal government’s own Justice Department from bringing a suit alleging that someone should not be allowed on a ballot because they participated in an insurrection.
There was no insurrection, Sock.
It would in effect shield any future insurrectionist candidate, whose party controls at least one chamber of commerce and therefore would not enact such legislation.
You are ignoring the 5th amendment again, Sock.
 
The fact that the present SCOTUS hasn't be rounded up and held in custody is a testament
to Joe Biden's weakness.

He should have unilaterally installed his own court by now.
The presidency, after all, is not subject to external control.
That seems to be the current point of view, and Biden is not exploiting it.

The six Republican-appointed justices should be lethally injected--humanely; we're not savages--
and the other three should simply be sent home for not holding up the standards of the sainted RBG.
 
Back
Top