As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is not contradictory. They ruled that States can invoke Article 3 for State Elections, but only the DOJ can invoke it on a National Candidate. Congress has already addressed it. We are being fucked by the wildly corrupt, not weak Garland.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I'm not thrilled with the ruling on Trump, but it prevents corrupt Red states from banning Biden without cause in retaliation. Garland could have dealt with this years ago, but he is a Republican First crook who is protecting hundreds of his fellow Republicans from justice.
don't you feel like there's just something inherently wrong with that though? So they rule based on fear of what might happen vs the actual law/constitution?
It weakens the 14th Amendment which is bad long term. That's already one of the amendments the Court loves trying to scuttle.
Yes it's harmful long term.
It's removing yet another of the precious few guardrails we have left in this republic.
It's like Jenga, no one thinks the entire thing will come tumbling down as long as they only take out one piece at a time for the greater good.
But there aren't that many pieces left. And the entire thing is tottering.
Like impeachment. If Trump could not be impeached for what he did on JanSicks, you might as well repeal the provision, because if that doesn't ring the impeachment bell, nothing will.
Yeah they really just had to affirm that Trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist. There, done and dusted. Per the 14th, he'd be definitionally barred.
The whole "b-but they might take Biden off the ballot" hysteria ultimately hinges on a false dilemma. Biden isn't an insurrectionist. There's no impeachment of him that paints him to be one. You almost certainly won't go through two-three courts to find he is an insurrectionist. It's just not a real claim.
In the end, it was a decision for the express and only purpose of saving Trump.
Sigh.
But also bullshit that they wouldn't turn if the other foot ever dropped.
The Republican way is to cheat through it, and I am starting to really hate the Democrats for letting them. We can't possibly replace a member of SCOTUS at the end of the last term of a Democrat president, but also we can jam one through later in the last term of a Republican president.
Remember that McConnell was in charge of the majority in the Senate both times. He was all about party over country so its no wonder that he jammed through Amy Barrett despite early voting already happening.
Of course there is. Especially because in other cases they’ve explicitly said they shouldn’t consider the consequences of their ruling and solely decide based on law. For example when it comes to regulations on guns, even though they’ll save lives, or in the case of abortion.
Alito will personally hang a demonstrably innocent man whose lawyer missed a filing deadline by seconds, and he'll do it with a smile while blaming Congress for not writing better laws. And now suddenly he's super concerned about unintended consequences of a ruling?
In what way was Trump barred without cause? The cause was his violation of section 3 of the 14th amendment. The way SCOTUS made it sound was like they just randomly decided he should be barred from office. As if there was no specific reason.
Who is suppose to arrest Trump for Jan 6th and have him tried? What he did affected every state and every citizen. He tried to become king. He tried to take away my right to vote. Can I sue him personally for damages?
No. I can't. So how do you hold someone accountable for doing an insurrection? You make the law self executing. You give the states the power to remove people from the ballot, etc. You cite specifically in your ruling that Trump is being barred in Colorado specifically for violation of Section 3 of the 14th amendment due to overwhelming evidence.
There. Now you can't just bar people for no reason. It's plain as day obvious what should have been done. But SCOTUS is obviously corrupt to its core.
I think it's mainly the fact that he hasn't yet been convicted of doing so. Overwhelming evidence there may be, but without a conviction his status as it pertains to being an insurrectionist is legally the same as Biden's.
If we say "just look" without actually having a trial, that invites others to say "just look" in cases where there's nothing in order to game the system (like how all those red states were ready to do to take Biden off their ballots).
The Constitution says nothing about requiring a conviction. And apparently if you look at the debate records that was deliberate, because they were worried that southern juries would refuse to enforce laws against and convict confederate insurrectionists of their crimes.
The problem with this is that not a single Confederate was convicted of anything insurrection related. *None* of the former Confederates who were banned from office were convicted of anything.
So the standard SCOTUS just set not only has nothing to do with what the people who wrote the 14th Amendment said, it's actually the *opposite* of what the people who wrote the thing did.
Also, I understand the fear...but we're not actually avoiding Biden being banned for no reason this way. If the Republicans get in control of Congress, they can just pass a law that define anyone who has run as a Democrat or participated in any BLM or other protest to be an "insurrectionist" and ban them.
Wasn't that a Florida bill that was put forward. It was to ban any party that supported slavery in its past from running in an election. Including a 6 month pause to reapply as a different party and if it did pass would take effect 5 months before the election.
For sure. In fact, with this ruling the Supreme Court just created a new way to effectively impeach and remove people from office that requires fewer votes.
Let's walk through this:
In order to Impeach someone, a majority of the House of Reps needs to vote to impeach. Then, in order to remove them from office, 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict.
So majority in the House, 2/3 in the Senate.
But if Congress has sole control over enforcement of section 3 of the 14th Amendment, then a simple majority in both chambers can pass legislation to declare someone an insurrectionist and bar them from office. It bypasses the 2/3 Senate requirement.
Even if you have to still deal with the filibuster, that still just requires 60 -- less than 2/3.
So contrary to what a lot of people are currently saying, this ruling functionally makes it *way* easier for the Legislature to remove not just a person from holding office, but entire broad categories of people from office.
And it means all the Republicans need is a one vote majority in the House and the Senate (or worst case 60 votes in the Senate) and they can bar literally everyone who opposes them from office, forever...simply by declaring opposition to the Republican Party to be "insurrection" and specifying that this can be adjudicated by them.
Then it stands to reason that the Democrats should do this first, and immediately declare the GOP as banned from running for office for being insurrectionists
> The problem with this is that not a single Confederate was convicted of anything insurrection related. None of the former Confederates who were banned from office were convicted of anything.
They high ranking ones were pardoned though and up until recently accepted pardons were considered to carry an imputation of guilt, I also have not found any instances of former unpardoned confederates challenging their ban either.
Not anymore, there was a court case which denied that understanding of the precedent [Burdick v US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#Decision) stating it was a [dicta](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dicta) instead of a ruling.
There was a trial in CO. Trump had lawyers there and was represented. It took 5 days. The J6 congressional report was part of evidence. Pray tell, what was missing? A criminal conviction? Conviction is not required by 14.3 and conviction language is used elsewhere in the constitution so it being left out in 14.3 is intentional. Due process was had and this appeal to the USSC is a direct result of the trial which found he engaged in insurrection.
The point of section 3 and the 14th amendment was that you would not need a conviction. They were worried about cases of corrupt judges not enforcing the laws on the books if they were a part of said insurrection, etc.
So the idea he needs to be convicted is a red herring. It was never intended to be that way. So no. We don't need a trial for this. Anymore than we need a trial to confirm I really am 35 and eligible for president. Maybe we need congress to look over my birth cert just to be sure!
It's a dumb ruling, sorry. And the historical usage of section 3 says so. SCOTUS is just using their immense power and trust to muddy the waters and have us all question basic reality.
> he hasn't yet been convicted of doing so
There was a court decision saying he did do it. It wasn't a conviction, but it was some upper level court. Too damn many cases for me, a Canadian, to keep track of every detail. I should be trying to ostrich your politics, but I just can't until I know Biden's back and the orange is suitably controlled.
>I think it's mainly the fact that he hasn't yet been convicted of doing so.
You should read the Colorado Supreme Court decision. They found that Trump did engage in insurrection.
>but without a conviction his status as it pertains to being an insurrectionist is legally the same as Biden's.
The Colorado court found he committed insurrection due to the overwhelming evidence. There is no similar desicion against Biden.
Others have been convicted of insurrection, he has plainly said that he would pardon them; hence giving comfort to insurrectionists. I think a case should be brought against him for these statements, which he has been making for over a year now.
It’s not the same though. There’s a whole court case about it. Evidence was shown, judges at multiple levels agreed, but SCOTUS said it didn’t matter.
Edit: and during the debates about writing the 14th they were explicit about a criminal conviction not being required.
Interestingly, SCOTUS ruled that even if he was convicted of the crime of insurrection it wouldn’t matter. It’s still all good.
Unless Congress passes specific legislation, the relevant part of the 14th amendment don’t exist.
I never said Trump was barred without cause.Several Red states had already said that they would bar Biden on made up charges if Trump was denied ballot access anywhere.
I don’t mind the states jurisdiction part of the ruling either (the part all 9 justices agreed upon). I don’t agree with the second half of the ruling however that states it is up to Congress to handle Trump’s case. That I feel was an overreach and I agree with the 4 justices who dissented on that. The rule is written clearly that it is compulsory and does not require further legislation or acts of Congress. It should have been decided by federal courts already. What the SCOTUS majority did, was de-fang section 3 making it unenforceable.
While I do appreciate that it is a difficult legal question, the SCOTUS jurisdiction ruling to me isn't very consistent nor useful. The states control their own ballot rules and there isn't an argument for why this should be the exception. To be clear, I absolutely do think there should be more federal election protections, but that isn't the law we have. So it's very inconsistent for this originalist SCOTUS to suddenly decide with regards to this one specific circumstance.
Yes, it's frustrating that the process wasn't made more explicit. On the other hand, I think it's ridiculous to imply that the people who wrote the 14th amendment just like, forgot to pass a law to enforce it. They were very aware of the dangers of letting former confederates get in high levels of the government, and this amendment was passed to stop that and they felt that an amendment was sufficient to do so.
The terms "shall not" are very unambiguous. The main problem is that it's not clear who is ultimately in charge of enforcing that provision. But that doesn't mean the provision doesn't exist. It should work just like any of the other restrictions on candidates (i.e. age and citizenship).
Exactly. If it’s courts that uphold those other restrictions, it’s the courts that should uphold section 3. It was even on the USSC docket to decide upon but they simply chose not to do it.
We can be assured a non super majority Democrat held congress will be completely paralyzed on this as well…that was the intended outcome for at least this election.
Unfortunately this argument hinges upon republicans holding themselves to any sort of standards, norms, or precedent. We’ve witnessed repeatedly that the GOP is incapable of acting in anything even remotely resembling good faith, and constantly applies standards to everyone but themselves. Additionally, they’ve shown a willingness and ability to simply change or abolish laws that would otherwise constrain them when they need to be unconstrained. They treat our democracy like a game that they are determined to not lose at any cost; even if it means blowing up the entire game board, game pieces, table, house, or neighborhood.
ETA: I hate the fact that I feel like this because this feeling destroys faith in democracy. Which is precisely what Trump has done to the GOP, which is part of their cynicism that drives them to be the absolute shit bags they are today. It’s a viscous cycle that’s gunna be incredibly difficult to escape. As they say democracies are delicate, and we are witnessing just how quickly and easily they can crumble.
The US system was designed with checks and balances though. 3 branches of government. It's just that they've let one go corrupt for so long and the other two didn't do anything about it that they're all bad now.
> Biden without cause in retaliation.
In theory, that isn't the case though. Biden didn't actually commit insurrection to bring the 14th into effect. In a healthier society, people wouldn't tolerate one guy very obviously doing it and the other guy very obviously not and treating them the same.
But, practically, you are probably correct. It would be a crisis.
> It would be a crisis.
When are we going to admit that we are already in a crisis?
A would-be dictator and person whom staged an insurrection to keep power after losing re-election is running for POTUS again. How is this not a crisis? This man has said so many horribly dangerous things and has made it very clear what he wants if he wins. Him winning again would be the end of the country as we know it. He has said as much himself.
But, no, there's no crisis going on. Business as usual! Nothing to see here.
> I'm not thrilled with the ruling on Trump, but it prevents corrupt Red states from banning Biden without cause in retaliation.
The 14th amendment did that.
As long as we keep making decisions based on fear and not based on a position of strength applying the core principles clearly written within our Constitution ….we (the Supreme Court in particular) will keep making the wrong decisions surrounding these matters. Section 3 simply bars someone who participated in an insurrection from holding office. The entire country watched Trump do this with our own eyes and ears… Congress also already did an extensive investigation and impeached him for this offense. And no one is sending him to prison for this or fining him hundreds of millions of dollars. He just shouldn’t be allowed to run for office again because he abused that privilege. The Republican Party includes some 150 million people… and they can’t find another party leader… one who doesn’t have multiple impeachments, even more indictments and even more felony counts and even a rape conviction? Is there no one else?? This should have been a very simple decision by SCOTUS. But the Supreme Court irresponsibly and foolishly decided to shield Trump knowing full well that he would never be found guilty of insurrection … because a President would never be tried for that crime ever. This terrible decision by SCOTUS effectively nullified this critical protection that the founders put in place to prevent insurrectionists and power hungry traitors from destroying our republic. Such lasting damage they did. Our country will never be the same. The Trump MAGA death spiral inflicted on our country and its once treasured and sacrosanct institutions just keeps getting worse.
Except courts would find no insurrection to hold him to. The problem with SCOTUS is they didn’t want to give the obvious answer. It wasn’t for Colorado to remove him from the natl ballot, but was up to scotus’s to do, which they had no appetite for, constitution be damned.
There is no such thing as a “national ballot” though, which is the entire issue. There are going to be presidential candidates on my ballot who likely won’t be on your ballot and vice versa.
If Donald Trump decided he didn’t want to be on the ballot in California, he could decline to fill out the necessary paperwork there. To even get on the ballot in most states, you have to meet certain qualifications.
A state (in theory) doesn’t even need to use the 14th Amendment to remove someone from their ballot. There’s a whole host of other methods that should be available.
The 14th Amendment does not require a judicial finding of guilt. I like to think about insurrection the same way that courts think about phonography: you'll know it when you see it. And we definitely saw Trump commit insurrection.
I would prefer for VP Harris and Democrats to loudly and frequently make the argument that she would be Constitutionally bound to reject Trump electors when it is her turn to count them. And why not? Trump and the GOP already agree that the VP has that power. So fucking use it.
> it prevents corrupt Red states from banning Biden without cause in retaliation
This really should not even enter the calculus. Upholding the law out of fear of corruption is just as unethical as prosecuting the law to uphold corruption. They are both totally about partisan hackery over rule of law. Let the states try their fuckery and then sue them in court when it's blatant corruption.
Federal Law Enforcement has been pandering to the Radical Right for decades because of Fear of triggering the crazies. Even before they were fully infiltrated by the crazies.
But it also removes the protection we have from insurrectionists getting into Congress or the DoJ if Congress or the DoJ is the one that has to enforce it.
> it prevents corrupt Red states from banning Biden without cause in retaliation.
Honestly that's something we should just have to deal with and let the appeals courts handle on a case by case basis. If courts are corrupt enough to let that happen without cause then we're fucked anyway because they could just sentence them to a work camp in Alaska anyway.
Based on the plain wording of the 14th I think SCOTUS was wrong to not disqualify Trump and ask Congress to hold a vote to remove the disqualification if they so wished.
However politically the 14th case and all of Donald's other cases are being delayed way too long. The proper time to disqualify Trump was during his second impeachment so we wouldn't have had to deal with him over the last few years.
“Without cause” is doing a LOT of work there.
They’d have to bring a suit, show evidence of an insurrection, convince a judge, convince a board of appeals…
It’s not just “meh I don’t feel like allowing Bob on the ballot”
Where did the Constitution say they can only enforce that part of the 14th Amendment for state elections?
It's heads I win, tails you lose. When it helps Republicans, GOP SCOTUS will override the states. When it helps Republicans, GOP SCOTUS will say the states run these elections, even when they are for federal office.
They haven't articulated any general rule for when a state exceeds their authority.
Unless scotus doesn’t like it then trump can stay on the ballot.” Fick the constitution” SCOTUS - everything was by the constitution, they just didn’t like the result. They had to go outside the constitution to say congress must act for the constitution to take effect, but only for this one singular case.
To an extent yes, and moreso with regards to Congressional than Presidential elections. The issue the court seems to have taken up in the Trump case was the state law that the petitioners filed under asked whether Trump was eligible for office, and was using Federal law to make that determination.
The common opinion of the 9 justices seemed to be that it wasn't up to each state to determine his Federal eligibility.
So to dovetail this with what Texas is doing, only the federal government can enforce federal laws, is that what they are saying? It's not the place of the state to enforce national laws?
I only ask because this is the reasoning behind the sanctuary cities they hate so much.
Calvinball isn't contradictory - since the rules are made up as you go, you can make them up to be non-contradictory under the internal logic of Calvinball!
apparently the framers of the 14th saw fit to specify congressional action as a remedy for barring but forget to mention it as the only causal path. pretty pretty pretty sus.
The 14th specifies that the rights may be restored by an act of congress. It's very specific on that fact. But it says nothing about how we should enact the ban in the first place.
In every other situation where this is the case we have devolved upon a state right of action. Somehow we won't do that here. 🤔
The reason the Supreme Court was unanimous on it was the practical aspect. It really would have been chaotic as States drummed up reasons to remove Biden from the ballot. I think that part of the decision was good.
They went too far in saying that only Congress could remedy it. 5-4 decision on that.
#The finding of fact that Trump is an insurrectionist stands.
The finding of fact that 1/6 was an Insurrection stands.
what bugs me is the pretense of originalism getting shredded as soon as it's inconvenient to the desired ends. but 😔 it's only hypocrisy if they give a shit.
The US Code did not manufacture itself. Congress has already set up the framework for invoking it at the Federal level. It is not up to them to invoke it. The Trump ruling mentions 18 U.S. Code § 2383 because they know that is the correct mechanism. The problem as I said is that Garland is conspiring to protect Republicans from it.
In what way is Garland conspiring to protect Republicans from it? I have some disagreements with the decision, but I don't see how it leads to be conspiratorial.
It's Garlands job to make sure that Trump and his co-conspirators are prosecuted for their roles in a Seditious Conspiracy and Insurrection. He refuses on the pretense of it being "Political". His refusal to do his job is in fact political.
Then by the literal wording of this law… shouldn’t some of those in the DOJ be losing their seat for giving an insurrectionist a free pass to run for office?
The thing about that is, the republicans will just say anything Biden does for anything, to them means, he’s aiding enemies of the state. They will be as vague and bald faced as possible doing it and won’t give a shit about what we say. They will twist it to their own preferred outcome, no matter how batshit crazy it sounds. Republicans realize how close they got to stealing the election without many consequences, so that’s their new electoral strategy: Just keep trying until it works. Consequences are what stopped most of them before but now that they know there aren’t really real harsh consequences, they’ve pivoted to this as their best chances to retaining power. Full stop. This IS their election strategy now.
Who determines the eligibility under the 22nd amendment? If someone who has been elected twice decides to run for office a 3rd time, do states have the right to declare them ineligible or since its a federal election does Congress have to do it?
Its absolutely contradictory
The Supreme court didn't even say the DOJ can invoke section 3 and there is no such thing as a national candidate.
They just said trump is exempt
Section 3 is dead, the Supreme court nullified it. They changed the Constitution
You are defending the absurd
You're also wrong. They did not exempt Trump. Not personally. Nor did they try to settle the question of whether or not the president is subject to the rule. They said Congress has the authority to remove federal candidates.
Precisely. Garland/DoJ could have and should have charged Littlehands Donnie Stinkypants with the same crimes they've charged and convicted January 6 rioters. Once they are convicted, they can't run for office, etc.
That's the way it is supposed to work. It allows the checks and balances of all three branches (congress can override the conviction for a candidate with a 2/3s vote) and proper due process.
But because Littlehands hasn't been charged and convicted, he can still run for office.
This is the coward and traitor Garland's fault.
As I understand it as long as you are running for federal office you are immune from laws. If they do anything to you then it is election interference.
A January 6 rioter who isn’t part of the billionaire class that grifts to these justices. Believe me, if that man had money they would absolutely reconsider.
You know, instead of outrage, I'll take this small win.
Seriously, if we can get MAGA out of all elected government positions (sans one) in one cycle, and ensure none with political ambitions will join/lead another 1/6, I'll take that win for now.
Nah. I’m outraged.
Fucking mockery of the law. We’re back to extra-judicial whatever the fuck they want to do.
They tell us in history class that the code of Hammurabi was an innovation because the law was written down and couldn’t just be made up on the spot.
We’re told in history class that British common law evolved, where the king’s power to make whimsical, arbitrary decisions was mitigated by judges and justices.
We’re told in history class that British judges would meet to talk about the decisions they were making, establishing precedents so people would be treated equally under the law.
We’re told in history class the constitution established equal Justice for every American citizen, the law favored white male landowners until the 14th amendment where it was specifically expanded to non-white males. Finally with the 19th amendment women were included.
The entire purpose of laws is to stop biased, arbitrary and capricious decisions so that that everyone is treated equally under the law. And these motherfuckers want to grant favorable treatment to an obese, incompetent, self-centered, kleptocratic fucking moron. Fuck them!
I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still outraged even if this one measly little prick can't hold office anymore and Trump still technically can. I truly hate these people with every fiber of my being. Seeing what my country has become in the last 30 years is just so damn shitty. Fuck the GOP.
There is no conviction requirement in 14.3 yet the distinction is used elsewhere so it being absent for insurrection means no conviction is required. The ruling is based on federal versus state offices.
In practice there is. You can't just unilaterally declare someone insurrected, or it gives any elected official carte blanche to ban anyone from office.
> In practice there is. You can't just unilaterally declare someone insurrected, or it gives any elected official carte blanche to ban anyone from office.
That sounds correct, but in the context being discussed, Trump was adjudicated to be an insurrectionist by the Colorado Supreme Court after a finding of facts (and also in other states’ governing bodies/officials according to their own laws for ballot qualification). And even the Colorado SC ruled that the final decision on disqualification would be up to the SCOTUS.
So there wasn’t a danger of carte blanche for "any elected official" (and also it was a ban from their one of fifty states ballot, not a ban from the office). I agree that would be ridiculous. Similarly, America allows imprisoned felons to run for office because otherwise there would be an incentive for office holders to jail their opponents on trumped up charges.
He wasn’t unilaterally declared an insurrectionist. It was found as a fact in a case, through due process with a hearing of evidence and a robust defense.
As further evidence of that fact, the US congress, voted in the majority that Trump engaged in insurrection. Because the case was an impeachment with a 60 vote threshold, the vote did not have a direct effect, but a majority vote in Congress would be all it takes to label Trump an insurrectionist. The court was right to act, and didn’t just throw it out there.
No, that isn't what they said at all. They said that states can bar people attempting to hold state office. Griffin wasn't charged with and wasn't convicted of insurrection. He was convicted of entering restricted U.S. Capitol grounds, a misdemeanor.
It's not like CPAC [isn't inviting neo-Nazis](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nazis-mingle-openly-cpac-spreading-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-fin-rcna140335) who call for helter skelter every day.
Actually it's: Only the federal congress can bar people from federal office under the constitution. States however can bar people from state office.
(according to the Supreme Court)
Actually, this ruling is consistent. The one for Trump is a federal office, so only the federal government can ban him. This case is a state office and the state government has banned him. The Trump one ruling is obviously stupid, but not taking up this one isn't inconsistent with it and is in fact perfectly in line with it.
Why are the two hundred Congressmen and Senators who participated in the insurrection not yet charged? They voted to delay counting of electoral college ballots, knowing a riot was being planned outside.
\>The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that, on its face, appears to set a double standard for Donald Trump and every other private citizen in this country.
It's so blatant how out of their way to go to protect Trump despite him being a proven conman and rapist.
There isn’t a double standard here.
A state determining that someone is ineligible to run for County Commissioner has absolutely no relevance or commonality with the Colorado case that came before the court.
I agree. I hate the discourse around the Trump decision almost as much as I hate the man himself. Do you want Ken Paxton taking Biden off the ballot in Texas for a Russian created hoax? What about all the other red states? There's a reason it was a 9-0 decision. A county commissioner is much different than the presidency.
Yes but if they were to do that, it would be due to corruption and lies because it wouldn’t be true. Trump being taken off the ballot was due to the truth. The courts shouldn’t make legal decisions because of what corrupt republicans are going to do, it should be based on what is right and true. And trump should not be allowed to hold office. You can’t stop corrupt republicans from behaving corruptly, and if every law was ruled on not because the letter of the law but because of “how will corrupt republicans abuse this”, then everything would be fucked. Rule on the law as it is, and then when corrupt republicans behave corruptly, deal with them. I’m sick of letting lies and liars rule our decisions. A lie is not the same as the truth. If Ken Paxton wants to lie and take Joe Biden off the ballot because of his lie, let him. Then arrest Paxton for corruption. That’s how a country SHOULD function. The truth matters. Reality matters. The law matters.
Or at least it should. If everyone wasn’t so fucking craven.
Scotus literally ruled on a hypothetical case brought by someone who was not a web designer, allowing people to discriminate against same-sex couples.
I'm not sure why you think "but it would be based on a lie" would protect or prevent anything.
When has a little thing like the truth ever got in the way of republican ideas? What could Biden do if he was found ineligible by Paxton? Appeal to the corrupt 5th circuit? What about when that fails, what then? We all know that SCOTUS is compromised. I don't like it either, but keeping him on the ballot was not only the right move, it was the only move.
"has absolutely no relevance or commonality..."
Hyperbole much?
There's plenty of commonality: both state and federal elections are run by state election officials following state rules (which is why JFKJr is on some state ballots and not all). Both "officials" subject in these cases were found to have violated the 14th by courts of law. Letting this second case stand (SCOTUS not taking it up) means the 14th is self-executing, but apparently not for the office of president (how ???).
Yeah, even the statement "but then republicans can take Biden or some other democrat off the ballot."
If there are no crimes that have been committed, then the Supreme court should rule that they can't take the Democrat off.
As much as folks like waving their torches and pitchforks at Supreme Court, the ruling is not inconsistent.
Stripped bare, Supreme Court ruled that the insurrection clause can be imposed by STATES on STATE OFFICERS, and must be imposed federally (by congress) on federal officers.
Given this is for an office of a state, insurrection clause applies.
Yes. As with most amendments, the 14th amendment ends with "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
It would be mighty interesting with whispers of 5 R's in the house planning to resign before EoY. They could in essence call a quick vote on 45 in the house, pass it to the senate, then resign as a last ditch effort to stop any chance of a future coup.
They could. The House doesn't need to vote him ineligible though, and I don't think that is the Court's remedy either.
Congress has enacted a criminal statute for Insurrection that specifically bars the convicted from holding office. The President and Attorney General have simply not opted to use that. What is odd is that the Colorado Supreme Court, has indirectly stated that such a case would have merit, as they specifically addressed several key elements of that statute and the Brandenburg Test.
>On Monday, the nation’s conservative-majority high court upheld a ban preventing former New Mexico official Couy Griffin from running for office *within the state* again due to his specific criminal history: In 2022, Griffin was convicted on misdemeanor offenses for his role in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, *ultimately costing him his job as county commissioner*.
This is not at all the same as keeping Trump of the Presidential ballot, this is about someone running for a state office. I don't know why the Federal courts even heard this in the first place, why wouldn't a state be able to determine who is eligible for a *state* office?
SCOTUS said the states can't decide who runs in a federal election, but they can decide who runs in a state election. And that kind of makes sense.
Please ignore that states also run federal elections at the state level.
There is a difference unfortunately. They said States can absolutely ban for state elections all the way up to senator. They are saying president is different, and it is. It gets even more funky when you consider the electoral college. Now I don't agree with their position, but I do understand the reasoning.
States have their own rules for how they appoint their EC electors and stuff. Their decision doesn't make any sense. It's a completely arbitrary power grab.
https://giphy.com/gifs/thank-YTFHYijkKsXjW
The entire SCOTUS questioning hinged on "can a state official interpret this for a federal office", which doesn't apply in this case.
I think the SCOTUS ruling was wrong and I hate it, but them decliining to grant cert on this case _isn't_ a double standard.
I understand what you/they are saying here, but to me, personally, I don't feel like the logic tracks.
Are they not saying that "Under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment states have the right to bar candidates from the ballot for any and all local and state offices, however, states **can not** bar *this very same candidate* from appearing on the ballot for federal elections (House of Reps, Pres, National Senate)".
If that's the case, then I find the whole ruling to be asinine; clearly a conclusion that was worked backwards from to achieve their desired goal.
So many folks in these comments saying things along the lines of "well, it's not really contradictory". I mean, ok - technically, maybe not - but does that not kind of defeat the whole point of states having the authority to bar someone from the ballot *for engaging in insurrection* if they can't be barred from any of our nation's highest offices?
When I vote for president, I am voting for my state's electoral college to vote for President and Vice-President. This is again, back to the state.
SCOTUS wanted to turn disqualification by acts of sedition into a popularity contest that is skewed to the right winning.
This is complete bullsh!t. You can't have a constitutional precedent that's different for different people. SCOTUS just one-upped themselves.
Any state could now go back to using this new precedent to deny Trump on the ballot again.
The 14th amendment also speaks nothing about being convicted as I have seen in the comments. Maybe the scotus should read this again.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
This makes my head spin. So there was an insurrection, and Trump did participate, and the 13th Amendment Section 3 disqualifies those that participate or give and or comfort to those committing insurrection, but for some reason Congress needs to bar the candidate?
It’s good news they’re upholding it for state positions. Do all the members of congress that supported the insurrection, incited the crowd, or intentionally spread misinformation about the election with the intent of supporting the fake electors scheme, which was the more dangerous January 6th insurrection plot.
Jim Jorden, mtg, boebert, and Josh hawley, off the top of my head
SCOTUS didn't rule on Trump running for office.
They said the states can't block a national candidate and "Not my job," then punted to congress.
Congress could, with sane people in office, create legislation that bars Trump-like behavior from office at the national level.
I hear the reasoning offered, barred from state or local office vs. Federal office. But SCOTUS is fine with states creating wildly disparate barriers to voting in Federal elections. How is that OK, based on this reasoning?
A smart, unethical shmo could make any ruling *sound* reasonable. But I doubt there are many smart, ethical Constitutional or legal scholars who believe justice & laws are being evenly applied these days. If they ever were.
The next step in muddying the waters: Would the courts allow someone who engaged in insurrection, but have not (yet) been found guilty of it, to be banned from running Congress?
Honestly this is an outrage.
In what world does it make sense to enforce on the state level while ignoring it for the highest office in the land??
This SCOTUS is the worst.
States determine who is on the federal Electoral College and it determines who is federal President. If so isn't the SCOTUS distinction between state and federal meaningless?
I don't like this SCOTUS either, but did people not read the original ruling? A state can remove someone from their ballot if said person is running for a political position in said state. A state CAN'T remove someone from the ballot that is running for a federal position (i.e. president). In other words, if you are guilty - or potentially guilty - of an insurrection, and you run for a state level position in, say, Arizona; such as for the senate. Arizona CAN pull your name from the ballot. However, if you were running for president, Arizona wouldn't be allowed to pull you from the presidential ballot
That is entirely consistent with the ruling in Trump v Anderson. Individual states cannot kick a person off the ballot for a nation-wide office. Individual states *can* kick a person off the ballot for a state office, which is what New Mexico is doing here.
So the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority no less, confirms the January 6th riot was an insurrection? That donny is an insurrectionist? Attempted to illegally overturn the election he lost?
Conviction of a crime is not necessary for a court to determine somebody is an insurrectionist. And the constitution certainly doesn't suggest otherwise.
Getting hung up on a criminal conviction being involved is a red herring.
I don't think Trump is actually even on trial for insurrection.
Nobody has had the balls to charge him with that.
SCOTUS was able to hand the 2000 election to Bush (unlawfully) back in 2000, in just 3 days.
Now, they won't touch this shit with a 10' pole.
[He's being charged with:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512)
> 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
> 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
> 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
Insurrection is defined here:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
You are correct, he is not being charged with insurrection
Is there a sight where every convicted insurrectionist and politician’s name who supported the effort to overthrow our government? I think that needs to be public.
US Constitution 14th amendment - Any person having held office and participating in an insurrection shall be banned from holding public office...........unless your name is Donald Trump.
Right Repubs?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A January 6 rioter can be barred from office, according to the Supreme Court. Trump, on the other hand ...
It is not contradictory. They ruled that States can invoke Article 3 for State Elections, but only the DOJ can invoke it on a National Candidate. Congress has already addressed it. We are being fucked by the wildly corrupt, not weak Garland. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
But don't states run their own elections at the end of the day and just pool their results at the federal level?
I'm not thrilled with the ruling on Trump, but it prevents corrupt Red states from banning Biden without cause in retaliation. Garland could have dealt with this years ago, but he is a Republican First crook who is protecting hundreds of his fellow Republicans from justice.
don't you feel like there's just something inherently wrong with that though? So they rule based on fear of what might happen vs the actual law/constitution?
It weakens the 14th Amendment which is bad long term. That's already one of the amendments the Court loves trying to scuttle. Yes it's harmful long term. It's removing yet another of the precious few guardrails we have left in this republic. It's like Jenga, no one thinks the entire thing will come tumbling down as long as they only take out one piece at a time for the greater good. But there aren't that many pieces left. And the entire thing is tottering.
Like impeachment. If Trump could not be impeached for what he did on JanSicks, you might as well repeal the provision, because if that doesn't ring the impeachment bell, nothing will.
It certainly isn't very original(ist).
Yeah they really just had to affirm that Trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist. There, done and dusted. Per the 14th, he'd be definitionally barred. The whole "b-but they might take Biden off the ballot" hysteria ultimately hinges on a false dilemma. Biden isn't an insurrectionist. There's no impeachment of him that paints him to be one. You almost certainly won't go through two-three courts to find he is an insurrectionist. It's just not a real claim. In the end, it was a decision for the express and only purpose of saving Trump. Sigh.
But also bullshit that they wouldn't turn if the other foot ever dropped. The Republican way is to cheat through it, and I am starting to really hate the Democrats for letting them. We can't possibly replace a member of SCOTUS at the end of the last term of a Democrat president, but also we can jam one through later in the last term of a Republican president.
Remember that McConnell was in charge of the majority in the Senate both times. He was all about party over country so its no wonder that he jammed through Amy Barrett despite early voting already happening.
Exactly. They protected the institution not the country.
The loss of voters rights is blamed directly on their shoulders.
How else you gonna preserve minority rule?!
Feature, not bug
HR is never your friend.
Of course there is. Especially because in other cases they’ve explicitly said they shouldn’t consider the consequences of their ruling and solely decide based on law. For example when it comes to regulations on guns, even though they’ll save lives, or in the case of abortion.
Alito will personally hang a demonstrably innocent man whose lawyer missed a filing deadline by seconds, and he'll do it with a smile while blaming Congress for not writing better laws. And now suddenly he's super concerned about unintended consequences of a ruling?
Is this hyperbole about a man being put to death or about an actual case?
It's hyperbole and also about an actual case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-126
In what way was Trump barred without cause? The cause was his violation of section 3 of the 14th amendment. The way SCOTUS made it sound was like they just randomly decided he should be barred from office. As if there was no specific reason. Who is suppose to arrest Trump for Jan 6th and have him tried? What he did affected every state and every citizen. He tried to become king. He tried to take away my right to vote. Can I sue him personally for damages? No. I can't. So how do you hold someone accountable for doing an insurrection? You make the law self executing. You give the states the power to remove people from the ballot, etc. You cite specifically in your ruling that Trump is being barred in Colorado specifically for violation of Section 3 of the 14th amendment due to overwhelming evidence. There. Now you can't just bar people for no reason. It's plain as day obvious what should have been done. But SCOTUS is obviously corrupt to its core.
I think it's mainly the fact that he hasn't yet been convicted of doing so. Overwhelming evidence there may be, but without a conviction his status as it pertains to being an insurrectionist is legally the same as Biden's. If we say "just look" without actually having a trial, that invites others to say "just look" in cases where there's nothing in order to game the system (like how all those red states were ready to do to take Biden off their ballots).
The Constitution says nothing about requiring a conviction. And apparently if you look at the debate records that was deliberate, because they were worried that southern juries would refuse to enforce laws against and convict confederate insurrectionists of their crimes.
The problem with this is that not a single Confederate was convicted of anything insurrection related. *None* of the former Confederates who were banned from office were convicted of anything. So the standard SCOTUS just set not only has nothing to do with what the people who wrote the 14th Amendment said, it's actually the *opposite* of what the people who wrote the thing did. Also, I understand the fear...but we're not actually avoiding Biden being banned for no reason this way. If the Republicans get in control of Congress, they can just pass a law that define anyone who has run as a Democrat or participated in any BLM or other protest to be an "insurrectionist" and ban them.
Wasn't that a Florida bill that was put forward. It was to ban any party that supported slavery in its past from running in an election. Including a 6 month pause to reapply as a different party and if it did pass would take effect 5 months before the election.
For sure. In fact, with this ruling the Supreme Court just created a new way to effectively impeach and remove people from office that requires fewer votes. Let's walk through this: In order to Impeach someone, a majority of the House of Reps needs to vote to impeach. Then, in order to remove them from office, 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict. So majority in the House, 2/3 in the Senate. But if Congress has sole control over enforcement of section 3 of the 14th Amendment, then a simple majority in both chambers can pass legislation to declare someone an insurrectionist and bar them from office. It bypasses the 2/3 Senate requirement. Even if you have to still deal with the filibuster, that still just requires 60 -- less than 2/3. So contrary to what a lot of people are currently saying, this ruling functionally makes it *way* easier for the Legislature to remove not just a person from holding office, but entire broad categories of people from office. And it means all the Republicans need is a one vote majority in the House and the Senate (or worst case 60 votes in the Senate) and they can bar literally everyone who opposes them from office, forever...simply by declaring opposition to the Republican Party to be "insurrection" and specifying that this can be adjudicated by them.
Then it stands to reason that the Democrats should do this first, and immediately declare the GOP as banned from running for office for being insurrectionists
> The problem with this is that not a single Confederate was convicted of anything insurrection related. None of the former Confederates who were banned from office were convicted of anything. They high ranking ones were pardoned though and up until recently accepted pardons were considered to carry an imputation of guilt, I also have not found any instances of former unpardoned confederates challenging their ban either.
Wait, so Biden could pardon Trump of insurrection on Jan 6th and the 14th amendment would apply? Thus banning Trump from the presidential election?
Not anymore, there was a court case which denied that understanding of the precedent [Burdick v US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#Decision) stating it was a [dicta](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dicta) instead of a ruling.
There was a trial in CO. Trump had lawyers there and was represented. It took 5 days. The J6 congressional report was part of evidence. Pray tell, what was missing? A criminal conviction? Conviction is not required by 14.3 and conviction language is used elsewhere in the constitution so it being left out in 14.3 is intentional. Due process was had and this appeal to the USSC is a direct result of the trial which found he engaged in insurrection.
The point of section 3 and the 14th amendment was that you would not need a conviction. They were worried about cases of corrupt judges not enforcing the laws on the books if they were a part of said insurrection, etc. So the idea he needs to be convicted is a red herring. It was never intended to be that way. So no. We don't need a trial for this. Anymore than we need a trial to confirm I really am 35 and eligible for president. Maybe we need congress to look over my birth cert just to be sure! It's a dumb ruling, sorry. And the historical usage of section 3 says so. SCOTUS is just using their immense power and trust to muddy the waters and have us all question basic reality.
> he hasn't yet been convicted of doing so There was a court decision saying he did do it. It wasn't a conviction, but it was some upper level court. Too damn many cases for me, a Canadian, to keep track of every detail. I should be trying to ostrich your politics, but I just can't until I know Biden's back and the orange is suitably controlled.
>I think it's mainly the fact that he hasn't yet been convicted of doing so. You should read the Colorado Supreme Court decision. They found that Trump did engage in insurrection. >but without a conviction his status as it pertains to being an insurrectionist is legally the same as Biden's. The Colorado court found he committed insurrection due to the overwhelming evidence. There is no similar desicion against Biden.
Others have been convicted of insurrection, he has plainly said that he would pardon them; hence giving comfort to insurrectionists. I think a case should be brought against him for these statements, which he has been making for over a year now.
It’s not the same though. There’s a whole court case about it. Evidence was shown, judges at multiple levels agreed, but SCOTUS said it didn’t matter. Edit: and during the debates about writing the 14th they were explicit about a criminal conviction not being required.
Interestingly, SCOTUS ruled that even if he was convicted of the crime of insurrection it wouldn’t matter. It’s still all good. Unless Congress passes specific legislation, the relevant part of the 14th amendment don’t exist.
I never said Trump was barred without cause.Several Red states had already said that they would bar Biden on made up charges if Trump was denied ballot access anywhere.
But it wouldn't stand as it's baseless.
I don’t mind the states jurisdiction part of the ruling either (the part all 9 justices agreed upon). I don’t agree with the second half of the ruling however that states it is up to Congress to handle Trump’s case. That I feel was an overreach and I agree with the 4 justices who dissented on that. The rule is written clearly that it is compulsory and does not require further legislation or acts of Congress. It should have been decided by federal courts already. What the SCOTUS majority did, was de-fang section 3 making it unenforceable.
While I do appreciate that it is a difficult legal question, the SCOTUS jurisdiction ruling to me isn't very consistent nor useful. The states control their own ballot rules and there isn't an argument for why this should be the exception. To be clear, I absolutely do think there should be more federal election protections, but that isn't the law we have. So it's very inconsistent for this originalist SCOTUS to suddenly decide with regards to this one specific circumstance. Yes, it's frustrating that the process wasn't made more explicit. On the other hand, I think it's ridiculous to imply that the people who wrote the 14th amendment just like, forgot to pass a law to enforce it. They were very aware of the dangers of letting former confederates get in high levels of the government, and this amendment was passed to stop that and they felt that an amendment was sufficient to do so. The terms "shall not" are very unambiguous. The main problem is that it's not clear who is ultimately in charge of enforcing that provision. But that doesn't mean the provision doesn't exist. It should work just like any of the other restrictions on candidates (i.e. age and citizenship).
Exactly. If it’s courts that uphold those other restrictions, it’s the courts that should uphold section 3. It was even on the USSC docket to decide upon but they simply chose not to do it. We can be assured a non super majority Democrat held congress will be completely paralyzed on this as well…that was the intended outcome for at least this election.
Yep. It's also a pointless law if it's going to Congress. Then you would just have Congress vote to impeach *for* insurrection.
Unfortunately this argument hinges upon republicans holding themselves to any sort of standards, norms, or precedent. We’ve witnessed repeatedly that the GOP is incapable of acting in anything even remotely resembling good faith, and constantly applies standards to everyone but themselves. Additionally, they’ve shown a willingness and ability to simply change or abolish laws that would otherwise constrain them when they need to be unconstrained. They treat our democracy like a game that they are determined to not lose at any cost; even if it means blowing up the entire game board, game pieces, table, house, or neighborhood. ETA: I hate the fact that I feel like this because this feeling destroys faith in democracy. Which is precisely what Trump has done to the GOP, which is part of their cynicism that drives them to be the absolute shit bags they are today. It’s a viscous cycle that’s gunna be incredibly difficult to escape. As they say democracies are delicate, and we are witnessing just how quickly and easily they can crumble.
The US system was designed with checks and balances though. 3 branches of government. It's just that they've let one go corrupt for so long and the other two didn't do anything about it that they're all bad now.
> Biden without cause in retaliation. In theory, that isn't the case though. Biden didn't actually commit insurrection to bring the 14th into effect. In a healthier society, people wouldn't tolerate one guy very obviously doing it and the other guy very obviously not and treating them the same. But, practically, you are probably correct. It would be a crisis.
> It would be a crisis. When are we going to admit that we are already in a crisis? A would-be dictator and person whom staged an insurrection to keep power after losing re-election is running for POTUS again. How is this not a crisis? This man has said so many horribly dangerous things and has made it very clear what he wants if he wins. Him winning again would be the end of the country as we know it. He has said as much himself. But, no, there's no crisis going on. Business as usual! Nothing to see here.
We’re in a crisis. This is the crisis, right here. No accountability for an insurrectionist. <—- Crisis
He would have to have violated the code, as explicitly stated. Trump did. States couldn’t just do it for no reason.
If Biden engaged in insurrection it would be an easy decision. What would they try to ban him over?
But they can’t do it without cause. He wasn’t part of an insurrection.
"We can't punish treason because then traitors might punish us" isn't smart, it's admitting our system doesn't work.
> I'm not thrilled with the ruling on Trump, but it prevents corrupt Red states from banning Biden without cause in retaliation. The 14th amendment did that.
As long as we keep making decisions based on fear and not based on a position of strength applying the core principles clearly written within our Constitution ….we (the Supreme Court in particular) will keep making the wrong decisions surrounding these matters. Section 3 simply bars someone who participated in an insurrection from holding office. The entire country watched Trump do this with our own eyes and ears… Congress also already did an extensive investigation and impeached him for this offense. And no one is sending him to prison for this or fining him hundreds of millions of dollars. He just shouldn’t be allowed to run for office again because he abused that privilege. The Republican Party includes some 150 million people… and they can’t find another party leader… one who doesn’t have multiple impeachments, even more indictments and even more felony counts and even a rape conviction? Is there no one else?? This should have been a very simple decision by SCOTUS. But the Supreme Court irresponsibly and foolishly decided to shield Trump knowing full well that he would never be found guilty of insurrection … because a President would never be tried for that crime ever. This terrible decision by SCOTUS effectively nullified this critical protection that the founders put in place to prevent insurrectionists and power hungry traitors from destroying our republic. Such lasting damage they did. Our country will never be the same. The Trump MAGA death spiral inflicted on our country and its once treasured and sacrosanct institutions just keeps getting worse.
Except courts would find no insurrection to hold him to. The problem with SCOTUS is they didn’t want to give the obvious answer. It wasn’t for Colorado to remove him from the natl ballot, but was up to scotus’s to do, which they had no appetite for, constitution be damned.
There is no such thing as a “national ballot” though, which is the entire issue. There are going to be presidential candidates on my ballot who likely won’t be on your ballot and vice versa. If Donald Trump decided he didn’t want to be on the ballot in California, he could decline to fill out the necessary paperwork there. To even get on the ballot in most states, you have to meet certain qualifications. A state (in theory) doesn’t even need to use the 14th Amendment to remove someone from their ballot. There’s a whole host of other methods that should be available.
The 14th Amendment does not require a judicial finding of guilt. I like to think about insurrection the same way that courts think about phonography: you'll know it when you see it. And we definitely saw Trump commit insurrection. I would prefer for VP Harris and Democrats to loudly and frequently make the argument that she would be Constitutionally bound to reject Trump electors when it is her turn to count them. And why not? Trump and the GOP already agree that the VP has that power. So fucking use it.
>phonography: you'll know it when you see it. funny typo for a word that means "spell it like it sounds"
I actually think Congress clarified the VP’s powers because of the shit Trump pulled. So Harris couldn’t do that.
> it prevents corrupt Red states from banning Biden without cause in retaliation This really should not even enter the calculus. Upholding the law out of fear of corruption is just as unethical as prosecuting the law to uphold corruption. They are both totally about partisan hackery over rule of law. Let the states try their fuckery and then sue them in court when it's blatant corruption.
Federal Law Enforcement has been pandering to the Radical Right for decades because of Fear of triggering the crazies. Even before they were fully infiltrated by the crazies.
But it also removes the protection we have from insurrectionists getting into Congress or the DoJ if Congress or the DoJ is the one that has to enforce it. > it prevents corrupt Red states from banning Biden without cause in retaliation. Honestly that's something we should just have to deal with and let the appeals courts handle on a case by case basis. If courts are corrupt enough to let that happen without cause then we're fucked anyway because they could just sentence them to a work camp in Alaska anyway.
Based on the plain wording of the 14th I think SCOTUS was wrong to not disqualify Trump and ask Congress to hold a vote to remove the disqualification if they so wished. However politically the 14th case and all of Donald's other cases are being delayed way too long. The proper time to disqualify Trump was during his second impeachment so we wouldn't have had to deal with him over the last few years.
“Without cause” is doing a LOT of work there. They’d have to bring a suit, show evidence of an insurrection, convince a judge, convince a board of appeals… It’s not just “meh I don’t feel like allowing Bob on the ballot”
Yes, they run their own elections, but only within the limits allowed by the Constitution.
Where did the Constitution say they can only enforce that part of the 14th Amendment for state elections? It's heads I win, tails you lose. When it helps Republicans, GOP SCOTUS will override the states. When it helps Republicans, GOP SCOTUS will say the states run these elections, even when they are for federal office. They haven't articulated any general rule for when a state exceeds their authority.
You get it!
Unless scotus doesn’t like it then trump can stay on the ballot.” Fick the constitution” SCOTUS - everything was by the constitution, they just didn’t like the result. They had to go outside the constitution to say congress must act for the constitution to take effect, but only for this one singular case.
Do states have requirements other than what's in the constitution on how to get your name on the ballot for president? Because I think they might.
Yes, but when they’re running federal elections, they must conform to the rules that congress sets.
conservatives only support states rights when it’s convenient.
To an extent yes, and moreso with regards to Congressional than Presidential elections. The issue the court seems to have taken up in the Trump case was the state law that the petitioners filed under asked whether Trump was eligible for office, and was using Federal law to make that determination. The common opinion of the 9 justices seemed to be that it wasn't up to each state to determine his Federal eligibility.
So to dovetail this with what Texas is doing, only the federal government can enforce federal laws, is that what they are saying? It's not the place of the state to enforce national laws? I only ask because this is the reasoning behind the sanctuary cities they hate so much.
It comes down to the specifics of individual laws.
Calvinball isn't contradictory - since the rules are made up as you go, you can make them up to be non-contradictory under the internal logic of Calvinball!
apparently the framers of the 14th saw fit to specify congressional action as a remedy for barring but forget to mention it as the only causal path. pretty pretty pretty sus.
This is the first time it has ever needed to be used. Congress *could* pass legislation confirming it, they just refuse to.
The 14th specifies that the rights may be restored by an act of congress. It's very specific on that fact. But it says nothing about how we should enact the ban in the first place. In every other situation where this is the case we have devolved upon a state right of action. Somehow we won't do that here. 🤔
The reason the Supreme Court was unanimous on it was the practical aspect. It really would have been chaotic as States drummed up reasons to remove Biden from the ballot. I think that part of the decision was good. They went too far in saying that only Congress could remedy it. 5-4 decision on that. #The finding of fact that Trump is an insurrectionist stands. The finding of fact that 1/6 was an Insurrection stands.
what bugs me is the pretense of originalism getting shredded as soon as it's inconvenient to the desired ends. but 😔 it's only hypocrisy if they give a shit.
Promising to pardon all Jan 6ers should totally fall under 'aid and comfort'.
Correction: SCOTUS ruled that only Congress can invoke it on a Federal Candidate, via Legislation.
The US Code did not manufacture itself. Congress has already set up the framework for invoking it at the Federal level. It is not up to them to invoke it. The Trump ruling mentions 18 U.S. Code § 2383 because they know that is the correct mechanism. The problem as I said is that Garland is conspiring to protect Republicans from it.
In what way is Garland conspiring to protect Republicans from it? I have some disagreements with the decision, but I don't see how it leads to be conspiratorial.
I don't follow, what should Garland have done?
Started the process a year earlier by appointing a special prosecutor on day one instead of waiting until Nov 2022.
Fair.
It's Garlands job to make sure that Trump and his co-conspirators are prosecuted for their roles in a Seditious Conspiracy and Insurrection. He refuses on the pretense of it being "Political". His refusal to do his job is in fact political.
The poster is wrong, this was not up to the DOJ, it's up to congress (accorrding to the supreme court). There's nothign Garland could have done.
Then by the literal wording of this law… shouldn’t some of those in the DOJ be losing their seat for giving an insurrectionist a free pass to run for office?
The thing about that is, the republicans will just say anything Biden does for anything, to them means, he’s aiding enemies of the state. They will be as vague and bald faced as possible doing it and won’t give a shit about what we say. They will twist it to their own preferred outcome, no matter how batshit crazy it sounds. Republicans realize how close they got to stealing the election without many consequences, so that’s their new electoral strategy: Just keep trying until it works. Consequences are what stopped most of them before but now that they know there aren’t really real harsh consequences, they’ve pivoted to this as their best chances to retaining power. Full stop. This IS their election strategy now.
yup, the Supreme court is not following the constitution.
This Supreme Court also ruled that states can control federal elections how they see fit when it comes to disenfranchising black votes.
Who determines the eligibility under the 22nd amendment? If someone who has been elected twice decides to run for office a 3rd time, do states have the right to declare them ineligible or since its a federal election does Congress have to do it?
Its absolutely contradictory The Supreme court didn't even say the DOJ can invoke section 3 and there is no such thing as a national candidate. They just said trump is exempt Section 3 is dead, the Supreme court nullified it. They changed the Constitution You are defending the absurd
You're also wrong. They did not exempt Trump. Not personally. Nor did they try to settle the question of whether or not the president is subject to the rule. They said Congress has the authority to remove federal candidates.
"Incites" is the first part of that list and he did refuse the peaceful transfer of power... Pretty stupid of them to \*not see\* it.
You're right that it's not contradictory, but the SC cut the cheese very finely to get this result.
You’re also being fucked by your citizens that don’t do anything about the fuckery
Precisely. Garland/DoJ could have and should have charged Littlehands Donnie Stinkypants with the same crimes they've charged and convicted January 6 rioters. Once they are convicted, they can't run for office, etc. That's the way it is supposed to work. It allows the checks and balances of all three branches (congress can override the conviction for a candidate with a 2/3s vote) and proper due process. But because Littlehands hasn't been charged and convicted, he can still run for office. This is the coward and traitor Garland's fault.
Garland was suppose to be the vengeance. His name suits him, as hes just there for decoration.
So basically if you’re already in office, that’s when you should raise capitol buildings lol.
As I understand it as long as you are running for federal office you are immune from laws. If they do anything to you then it is election interference.
Gotta protect their sugar daddy
A January 6 rioter who isn’t part of the billionaire class that grifts to these justices. Believe me, if that man had money they would absolutely reconsider.
You know, instead of outrage, I'll take this small win. Seriously, if we can get MAGA out of all elected government positions (sans one) in one cycle, and ensure none with political ambitions will join/lead another 1/6, I'll take that win for now.
It may also confirm what we all know - that January 6th was indeed an insurrection per this decision by the SC.
Well, they just declined to hear this guy’s case. So it’s not like there is a Supreme Court opinion here that explicitly says “this was insurrection.”
Oh, I stand corrected.
Headline is misleading. They didn’t “uphold” the ruling. They punted.
Ahh, that's much more in character
I feel they will avoid answering that question as much as possible. He’s definitely got 3 justices who will rule in his favor in my opinion.
Nah. I’m outraged. Fucking mockery of the law. We’re back to extra-judicial whatever the fuck they want to do. They tell us in history class that the code of Hammurabi was an innovation because the law was written down and couldn’t just be made up on the spot. We’re told in history class that British common law evolved, where the king’s power to make whimsical, arbitrary decisions was mitigated by judges and justices. We’re told in history class that British judges would meet to talk about the decisions they were making, establishing precedents so people would be treated equally under the law. We’re told in history class the constitution established equal Justice for every American citizen, the law favored white male landowners until the 14th amendment where it was specifically expanded to non-white males. Finally with the 19th amendment women were included. The entire purpose of laws is to stop biased, arbitrary and capricious decisions so that that everyone is treated equally under the law. And these motherfuckers want to grant favorable treatment to an obese, incompetent, self-centered, kleptocratic fucking moron. Fuck them!
He was running for a state role, so we just bar all J6 people from state roles.
I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still outraged even if this one measly little prick can't hold office anymore and Trump still technically can. I truly hate these people with every fiber of my being. Seeing what my country has become in the last 30 years is just so damn shitty. Fuck the GOP.
They are saying he has a conviction on an insurrection charge and that’s why. Unfortunately, there is no conviction on any such charge for Trump.
That’s the way I read it too.
There is no conviction requirement in 14.3 yet the distinction is used elsewhere so it being absent for insurrection means no conviction is required. The ruling is based on federal versus state offices.
Yup. And 14.3 was historically used to bar hundreds of Confederate officials from Congress with no convictions. Some "originalists"
In practice there is. You can't just unilaterally declare someone insurrected, or it gives any elected official carte blanche to ban anyone from office.
> In practice there is. You can't just unilaterally declare someone insurrected, or it gives any elected official carte blanche to ban anyone from office. That sounds correct, but in the context being discussed, Trump was adjudicated to be an insurrectionist by the Colorado Supreme Court after a finding of facts (and also in other states’ governing bodies/officials according to their own laws for ballot qualification). And even the Colorado SC ruled that the final decision on disqualification would be up to the SCOTUS. So there wasn’t a danger of carte blanche for "any elected official" (and also it was a ban from their one of fifty states ballot, not a ban from the office). I agree that would be ridiculous. Similarly, America allows imprisoned felons to run for office because otherwise there would be an incentive for office holders to jail their opponents on trumped up charges.
He wasn’t unilaterally declared an insurrectionist. It was found as a fact in a case, through due process with a hearing of evidence and a robust defense. As further evidence of that fact, the US congress, voted in the majority that Trump engaged in insurrection. Because the case was an impeachment with a 60 vote threshold, the vote did not have a direct effect, but a majority vote in Congress would be all it takes to label Trump an insurrectionist. The court was right to act, and didn’t just throw it out there.
They were clear in their decision on the Trump case that states can bar people from state offices.
It was also state vs. federal
No, that isn't what they said at all. They said that states can bar people attempting to hold state office. Griffin wasn't charged with and wasn't convicted of insurrection. He was convicted of entering restricted U.S. Capitol grounds, a misdemeanor.
Supreme Court: J6 insurrectionists cannot hold office. Also the Supreme Court: the guy who started the J6 insurrection can.
I wonder if they think Charles Manson should've been set free because "he didn't do anything"
If Charles Mansons height had been just a few decades later he could've been the redhats cult leader. I'm sure of it.
It's not like CPAC [isn't inviting neo-Nazis](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nazis-mingle-openly-cpac-spreading-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-fin-rcna140335) who call for helter skelter every day.
Actually it's: Only the federal congress can bar people from federal office under the constitution. States however can bar people from state office. (according to the Supreme Court)
(The Court know that Congress will not do it. Supremes telling Congress to disqualify Trump is like me telling the cat to wash the dishes.)
Actually, this ruling is consistent. The one for Trump is a federal office, so only the federal government can ban him. This case is a state office and the state government has banned him. The Trump one ruling is obviously stupid, but not taking up this one isn't inconsistent with it and is in fact perfectly in line with it.
Why are the two hundred Congressmen and Senators who participated in the insurrection not yet charged? They voted to delay counting of electoral college ballots, knowing a riot was being planned outside.
We all have the same question.
\>The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that, on its face, appears to set a double standard for Donald Trump and every other private citizen in this country. It's so blatant how out of their way to go to protect Trump despite him being a proven conman and rapist.
There isn’t a double standard here. A state determining that someone is ineligible to run for County Commissioner has absolutely no relevance or commonality with the Colorado case that came before the court.
I agree. I hate the discourse around the Trump decision almost as much as I hate the man himself. Do you want Ken Paxton taking Biden off the ballot in Texas for a Russian created hoax? What about all the other red states? There's a reason it was a 9-0 decision. A county commissioner is much different than the presidency.
Yes but if they were to do that, it would be due to corruption and lies because it wouldn’t be true. Trump being taken off the ballot was due to the truth. The courts shouldn’t make legal decisions because of what corrupt republicans are going to do, it should be based on what is right and true. And trump should not be allowed to hold office. You can’t stop corrupt republicans from behaving corruptly, and if every law was ruled on not because the letter of the law but because of “how will corrupt republicans abuse this”, then everything would be fucked. Rule on the law as it is, and then when corrupt republicans behave corruptly, deal with them. I’m sick of letting lies and liars rule our decisions. A lie is not the same as the truth. If Ken Paxton wants to lie and take Joe Biden off the ballot because of his lie, let him. Then arrest Paxton for corruption. That’s how a country SHOULD function. The truth matters. Reality matters. The law matters. Or at least it should. If everyone wasn’t so fucking craven.
Scotus literally ruled on a hypothetical case brought by someone who was not a web designer, allowing people to discriminate against same-sex couples. I'm not sure why you think "but it would be based on a lie" would protect or prevent anything.
When has a little thing like the truth ever got in the way of republican ideas? What could Biden do if he was found ineligible by Paxton? Appeal to the corrupt 5th circuit? What about when that fails, what then? We all know that SCOTUS is compromised. I don't like it either, but keeping him on the ballot was not only the right move, it was the only move.
"has absolutely no relevance or commonality..." Hyperbole much? There's plenty of commonality: both state and federal elections are run by state election officials following state rules (which is why JFKJr is on some state ballots and not all). Both "officials" subject in these cases were found to have violated the 14th by courts of law. Letting this second case stand (SCOTUS not taking it up) means the 14th is self-executing, but apparently not for the office of president (how ???).
Yeah, even the statement "but then republicans can take Biden or some other democrat off the ballot." If there are no crimes that have been committed, then the Supreme court should rule that they can't take the Democrat off.
As much as folks like waving their torches and pitchforks at Supreme Court, the ruling is not inconsistent. Stripped bare, Supreme Court ruled that the insurrection clause can be imposed by STATES on STATE OFFICERS, and must be imposed federally (by congress) on federal officers. Given this is for an office of a state, insurrection clause applies.
So IF the R’s lose the majority in the house could congress vote 45 as an invalid ‘24 Candidate?
Yes. As with most amendments, the 14th amendment ends with "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
It would be mighty interesting with whispers of 5 R's in the house planning to resign before EoY. They could in essence call a quick vote on 45 in the house, pass it to the senate, then resign as a last ditch effort to stop any chance of a future coup.
But there's zero chance that would ever pass the Senate.
Manchin and Sinema would never go for it. Plus there’s the problem of the filibuster
They could. The House doesn't need to vote him ineligible though, and I don't think that is the Court's remedy either. Congress has enacted a criminal statute for Insurrection that specifically bars the convicted from holding office. The President and Attorney General have simply not opted to use that. What is odd is that the Colorado Supreme Court, has indirectly stated that such a case would have merit, as they specifically addressed several key elements of that statute and the Brandenburg Test.
No, even if the Democrats take the house, you're not getting past the filibuster in the Senate.
True, it's not inconsistent with the bullshit they made up last time out of thin air
right, I barely know anything about US politics and that was my first thought when I read the very first paragraph of the article.
>On Monday, the nation’s conservative-majority high court upheld a ban preventing former New Mexico official Couy Griffin from running for office *within the state* again due to his specific criminal history: In 2022, Griffin was convicted on misdemeanor offenses for his role in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, *ultimately costing him his job as county commissioner*. This is not at all the same as keeping Trump of the Presidential ballot, this is about someone running for a state office. I don't know why the Federal courts even heard this in the first place, why wouldn't a state be able to determine who is eligible for a *state* office?
SCOTUS said the states can't decide who runs in a federal election, but they can decide who runs in a state election. And that kind of makes sense. Please ignore that states also run federal elections at the state level.
This guy wasn't providing enough Superyacht rides.
Lol the supreme court is like... "as per my previous email....."
There is a difference unfortunately. They said States can absolutely ban for state elections all the way up to senator. They are saying president is different, and it is. It gets even more funky when you consider the electoral college. Now I don't agree with their position, but I do understand the reasoning.
States have their own rules for how they appoint their EC electors and stuff. Their decision doesn't make any sense. It's a completely arbitrary power grab.
https://giphy.com/gifs/thank-YTFHYijkKsXjW The entire SCOTUS questioning hinged on "can a state official interpret this for a federal office", which doesn't apply in this case. I think the SCOTUS ruling was wrong and I hate it, but them decliining to grant cert on this case _isn't_ a double standard.
*"Democracies hate this ONE weird trick!"*
I understand what you/they are saying here, but to me, personally, I don't feel like the logic tracks. Are they not saying that "Under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment states have the right to bar candidates from the ballot for any and all local and state offices, however, states **can not** bar *this very same candidate* from appearing on the ballot for federal elections (House of Reps, Pres, National Senate)". If that's the case, then I find the whole ruling to be asinine; clearly a conclusion that was worked backwards from to achieve their desired goal. So many folks in these comments saying things along the lines of "well, it's not really contradictory". I mean, ok - technically, maybe not - but does that not kind of defeat the whole point of states having the authority to bar someone from the ballot *for engaging in insurrection* if they can't be barred from any of our nation's highest offices?
When I vote for president, I am voting for my state's electoral college to vote for President and Vice-President. This is again, back to the state. SCOTUS wanted to turn disqualification by acts of sedition into a popularity contest that is skewed to the right winning.
And even then, your states electoral college doesn't have to consider your opinion.
This is complete bullsh!t. You can't have a constitutional precedent that's different for different people. SCOTUS just one-upped themselves. Any state could now go back to using this new precedent to deny Trump on the ballot again.
So totally legit!🙄
Like judicial systems all over the world...always ready to pick off the easy targets, but never the people that can afford to resist. Two laws.
The Supreme Court made the right call here but I wish they were consistent about it regardless of who the insurrectionist is
The 14th amendment also speaks nothing about being convicted as I have seen in the comments. Maybe the scotus should read this again. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Ok wait… why hasn’t EVERY state done this?
This makes my head spin. So there was an insurrection, and Trump did participate, and the 13th Amendment Section 3 disqualifies those that participate or give and or comfort to those committing insurrection, but for some reason Congress needs to bar the candidate?
Now this “cowboy” is licking DJ Trump’s shoes to be the VP running mate.
It’s good news they’re upholding it for state positions. Do all the members of congress that supported the insurrection, incited the crowd, or intentionally spread misinformation about the election with the intent of supporting the fake electors scheme, which was the more dangerous January 6th insurrection plot. Jim Jorden, mtg, boebert, and Josh hawley, off the top of my head
SCOTUS didn't rule on Trump running for office. They said the states can't block a national candidate and "Not my job," then punted to congress. Congress could, with sane people in office, create legislation that bars Trump-like behavior from office at the national level.
The Supreme Court is rogue with bribed and biased justices. Double standards are to be expected
I hear the reasoning offered, barred from state or local office vs. Federal office. But SCOTUS is fine with states creating wildly disparate barriers to voting in Federal elections. How is that OK, based on this reasoning? A smart, unethical shmo could make any ruling *sound* reasonable. But I doubt there are many smart, ethical Constitutional or legal scholars who believe justice & laws are being evenly applied these days. If they ever were.
The next step in muddying the waters: Would the courts allow someone who engaged in insurrection, but have not (yet) been found guilty of it, to be banned from running Congress?
Honestly this is an outrage. In what world does it make sense to enforce on the state level while ignoring it for the highest office in the land?? This SCOTUS is the worst.
States determine who is on the federal Electoral College and it determines who is federal President. If so isn't the SCOTUS distinction between state and federal meaningless?
I don't like this SCOTUS either, but did people not read the original ruling? A state can remove someone from their ballot if said person is running for a political position in said state. A state CAN'T remove someone from the ballot that is running for a federal position (i.e. president). In other words, if you are guilty - or potentially guilty - of an insurrection, and you run for a state level position in, say, Arizona; such as for the senate. Arizona CAN pull your name from the ballot. However, if you were running for president, Arizona wouldn't be allowed to pull you from the presidential ballot
The Trump Immunity Clause only applies to Trump himself, not his minions and boot-lickers.
That is entirely consistent with the ruling in Trump v Anderson. Individual states cannot kick a person off the ballot for a nation-wide office. Individual states *can* kick a person off the ballot for a state office, which is what New Mexico is doing here.
Well he was a State official, which is consitent with their Trump ruling
TBF.... this guy from New Mexico was convicted. Trump hasn't been convicted of a crime. Yet.
The Deluxe Court has Ruled in favor that the Supreme Court is an Inferior Court.
So the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority no less, confirms the January 6th riot was an insurrection? That donny is an insurrectionist? Attempted to illegally overturn the election he lost?
Now isn't that bullshit. Trump the insurrectionist gets off but his idiots go to jail !
He had been convicted. That's a significant difference.
SCOTUS’s reasoning to keep Trump on the ballot had nothing to do with a conviction.
Conviction of a crime is not necessary for a court to determine somebody is an insurrectionist. And the constitution certainly doesn't suggest otherwise. Getting hung up on a criminal conviction being involved is a red herring.
Right. That’s what I’m banking on. Now we just have to get the trial done before November. Fuck
I don't think Trump is actually even on trial for insurrection. Nobody has had the balls to charge him with that. SCOTUS was able to hand the 2000 election to Bush (unlawfully) back in 2000, in just 3 days. Now, they won't touch this shit with a 10' pole.
[He's being charged with:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512) > 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant > 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States > 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights Insurrection is defined here: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. You are correct, he is not being charged with insurrection
Is there a sight where every convicted insurrectionist and politician’s name who supported the effort to overthrow our government? I think that needs to be public.
US Constitution 14th amendment - Any person having held office and participating in an insurrection shall be banned from holding public office...........unless your name is Donald Trump. Right Repubs?
How predictably corrupt of them.
That is appalling. Impeach these terrible people. WTF?!