SCOTUS says Trump can be on the ballot in Colorado and all other states, 9-0 decision

[Kennah]

[ColinC]

1. My question is

Why does this take so much precedence over his immunity claim?

[Kennah]

3. Same reason there are two windows at the drive thru

Creates the appearance of something happening when really it's slowing things down

[Cuthbert Allgood]

8. Because one is about elections happening now, and the other

is about a pending court case that has nothing to do with the election.

[AllaN01Bear]

2. they trashed the constitituiton again for their butt buddy.

[ITAL]

4. All three liberal justices too?

[AllaN01Bear]

6. 9- 0 and si.

[ITAL]

9. What I was getting at

Isn't questioning whether the 3 liberal justices went with it - I KNEW it was 9-0. The point was, it can't be considered a totally partisan decision if it went down 9-0.

[AllaN01Bear]

10. i dont know . would be fascinating to find out the discenters were .

[Renew Deal]

18. There are no dissenters

[AllaN01Bear]

30. here you go. see below. omg, did i just rhyme ??!!!?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218742526

[Zeitghost]

31. They wrote a concurrence

Not a dissent. The ruling for Trump ws 9-0.

[bdamomma]

15. Did the 3 liberals

all rule the same? Why???? Is it because of the State clause. So now what?????

[FBaggins]

26. Yes and no

Their concurring opinion doesn't really say much more than "there's no reason to rule broader than that CO lacked the power to do this". It was pretty clear during oral arguments that at least two of them had reasons to overrule SCOCO and that the three were not all of the same mind. This concurrency allows that disagreement to stay below the surface.

[CrispyQ]

5. Next up: Immunity.

I half think they'll give it to him knowing Biden's such a boy scout he'd never do anything like Trump would.

[AllaN01Bear]

7. remember , they stole the 2000 election in favour for shrub instead of gore and that hanging chadd nonsense .

[bucolic_frolic]

11. Are they being wary of tainting the jury pool in other court cases?

[FBaggins]

27. What jury pool?

They've effectively ruled that there will be no jury pools.

[Johonny]

12. The bar is set so high to enforce laws and rules

That essentially it will never be enforced. Trump gets off free on trying to overthrow the United States. Amazing!

[Hugin]

13. The MSM will start screaming it's a bipartisan acquittal of TSF in 3.. 2.. 1..

Brace yourselves.

[bdamomma]

16. Oh crap

smh.

[riversedge]

14. Well, it is up to us--the Democrats to vote Democratic down ticket come November. We MUST do it!

[bdamomma]

17. Exactly it is up to us

We did it in 2020, no matter what this SOB cannot get in again. He will destroy our way of life, we got to turn this around it is not Minority Rule. Fuck that.

[C_U_L8R]

19. What would happen if Colorado pulled a Texas?

And just did not put Trump on the ballot or count his votes? Essentially the 'you're not the boss of me' states-rights approach?

[LeftInTX]

20. Well, he's already on the ballot, so there's that. Election is tomorrow. They're already counting the mail ballots.

Colorado primarily votes by mail.

[C_U_L8R]

22. They could not certify... if they wanna be punks about it.

But that would end in a humongous pie fight.

[LeftInTX]

24. Or they could have removed him from the ballot and not provided a stay.

[FBaggins]

28. Not really

Had they done so, the federal courts would have forced one.

[Polybius]

25. Let's take it a bit further:

Let's say it's a close election in November, and Biden wins by 3 points and 7 Electoral Votes. Colorado did not even put him on the ballot.

December 3, 2024: Supreme Court rules that Colorado broke the law by not putting him on, awarding all 10 of its EV's to Trump. This puts him on top, and he wins the election.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

21. The Supreme Court made it clear that....

Those running for State offices can be ruled ineligible for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but not Federal offices. The Office of President is Federal. States have their procedures in determining who committed insurrection against their said state government.

Also by keeping HIM on the ballot in the states, TAKES AWAY the argument that Biden is not qualified to be on the ballot in states dominated by Republican Legislatures. So this is a ruling in favor of Joe Biden as well.

[LeftInTX]

23. I don't know if they made that particular ruling. States already have their own rules and laws for state candidates.

Texas is fairly strict. Convicted felons are not allowed, even if they are no longer on parole and have full voting rights. Congress does not have that law.
Texas has one year residency requirements, congress has no residency requirements.

[Think. Again.]

29. Biden hasn't committed a disqualifying offense though.

[Zeitghost]

32. If all it took was one conservative judge or Sec. of State to declare that he did

I'm sure they could find one.

Which is why I and a few others around here have been saying that a criminal conviction of insurrection is needed if you want to declare someone has engaged in insurrection.

[ripcord]

33. They could just claim he is guilty of insurrection for allowing the invasion at the border

If they don't need a conviction all they need to a friendly state supreme court and I can think of several of those.

[standingtall]

35. They edited section 3 of the 14th amendment

The clause already said Congress had the authority remove such a disability. There would be no reason for it to have read that way if it were intended for Congress to have the sole authority to also issue the disability in the first place. The Liberal Justices let's us down today.

[Initech]

34. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!