The states explicitly have that determining power according to the constitution, specifically for insurrection.
Fuuuck the Supreme Cowards.
Unanimous? How?
Because the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings, while the conservatives justices all of a sudden forgot that they think these things should be deferred to the states.
Or, alternatively:
The liberals are also part of the problem.
See: the Citizens United ruling.
What are you talking about? Citizens United was a 5-4 decision as to the parts everyone is mad about. The 4 dissents were Ginsberg, Kagan, Stevens, and Sotomayor. The liberals concurred with the conservatives as to a disclosure requirement, which, why wouldn't they? They dissented as to the rest of the opinion. Unsurprisingly with the benefit of hindsight, the only justice who disagreed with the reporting requirements was Thomas.
If the liberals actually gave a fuck about stopping the blatant corruption of the Court they'd have told Obama his primary responsibility in office was filling Court seats, including RBG's, and expanding it when they had the chance for the express goal of overturning a bought and paid for decision.
They knew from the moment those five voted yes to Citizens United what they were dealing with, and buried their heads in the sand instead. There is a direct quote from Stevens outright stating "Democracy can not function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
Instead, they sit and smile at their "colleagues" and murmur quietly about "the reputation of the Court" instead of using their position to call out corruption.
Now, why do you think they aren't screaming about being in the same room with a travesty like Thomas?
Do you think it's because they actually respect his legal opinions?
Or are they worried their own finances can't stand up to scrutiny?
How do you mean the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings?
The conservatives are being very consistent by pursuing their political agenda regardless of states rights or the rights of the electorate.
Yep and they just handwaive it. They assert the other sections are held against the states so this must be too. They also assert that only Congress has enforcement power for it despite nothing in the amendment saying so. It says "Congress shall have power...", not sole power, not the power. There is no exclusionary language to preclude a state's normal constitutional right to run it's elections. Instead this adds Congress to the list of bodies that can enforce this.
The remedy for a state running an improper election is also not the supreme court. It is Congress, as laid out in the Constitution they supposedly are experts at enforcing. And yet they keep giving themselves major powers not in Constitution.
You have the most interesting take that I’ve read: Congress shall also have a way to enforce this and not just the States. I kind of wish you had argued that in front of SCOTUS.
Sometimes I wonder if our constitutional interpretation is so twisted because we've been going at for so many years. But getting a new one is going to require decades of catch up work by the Democrats. Republicans have been practicing for a Constitutional Convention and actively seek one.
Yes, why?
They explain in the ruling why it doesn’t make sense in the context of when this law was made to have states decide.
Should a confederate state decide who is eligible to run? No, it should be the federal government
…or so they argue
So we can just ignore the Constitution when the laws are outdated and don't make sense anymore? Cool. Let's do gun control.
The Constitution says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." SCOTUS isn't ignoring the Constitution for once.
Noteably, SCOTUS doesn't legislate, nor are they "Congress". If there is a law saying as much (states can't control primary ballots), though, sure.
Yeah, SCOTUS can't remove a candidate for insurrection. The only way is if Congress passes a law describing who is.
Of course not. Not when it suits them.
Where did I say that we can just ignore the constitution? Hell, I’ve been downvoted to hell on Reddit for suggesting that rights to firearms is restricted for militias…
I couldn't find a single legitimate reason in that decision to arbitrarily remove the power of the states or the democratic voters to remove a candidate based on very clear strictures in the Constitution, except for the implication that the conservatives would try to use this measure by claiming every valid candidate had somehow committed insurrection.
But conservatives already basically tried to do that with Biden with their "documents" case for more than 2 years now and it didn't work, they couldn't make even that relatively insignificant charge stick.
In this case, we have a judgment of a candidate liabile of an insurrection that directly violates the presidential oath of office thay previously took.
Notice I said confederate not conservative
It is hereby noted that 17 hours ago hddsx said confederate not conservative.
Someone give you shit about it?
You ignored the context of the civil war. It wasn’t about liberals or conservatives. It was about the federal government not allowing former confederate states to elect confederates into federal office. In other words, as determined by SCOTUS, this is the constitution explicitly taking power away from states and delegating it to the federal government. Thereby it is NOT a reserved right of the states and the people
I haven't talked about the civil war at all, I think you're trying to respond to a different commenter.
The states explicitly have that determining power according to the constitution, specifically for insurrection.
Fuuuck the Supreme Cowards.
Unanimous? How?
Because the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings, while the conservatives justices all of a sudden forgot that they think these things should be deferred to the states.
Or, alternatively:
The liberals are also part of the problem.
See: the Citizens United ruling.
What are you talking about? Citizens United was a 5-4 decision as to the parts everyone is mad about. The 4 dissents were Ginsberg, Kagan, Stevens, and Sotomayor. The liberals concurred with the conservatives as to a disclosure requirement, which, why wouldn't they? They dissented as to the rest of the opinion. Unsurprisingly with the benefit of hindsight, the only justice who disagreed with the reporting requirements was Thomas.
If the liberals actually gave a fuck about stopping the blatant corruption of the Court they'd have told Obama his primary responsibility in office was filling Court seats, including RBG's, and expanding it when they had the chance for the express goal of overturning a bought and paid for decision.
They knew from the moment those five voted yes to Citizens United what they were dealing with, and buried their heads in the sand instead. There is a direct quote from Stevens outright stating "Democracy can not function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
Instead, they sit and smile at their "colleagues" and murmur quietly about "the reputation of the Court" instead of using their position to call out corruption.
Now, why do you think they aren't screaming about being in the same room with a travesty like Thomas?
Do you think it's because they actually respect his legal opinions?
Or are they worried their own finances can't stand up to scrutiny?
How do you mean the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings?
The conservatives are being very consistent by pursuing their political agenda regardless of states rights or the rights of the electorate.
Did you read the actual ruling?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Yep and they just handwaive it. They assert the other sections are held against the states so this must be too. They also assert that only Congress has enforcement power for it despite nothing in the amendment saying so. It says "Congress shall have power...", not sole power, not the power. There is no exclusionary language to preclude a state's normal constitutional right to run it's elections. Instead this adds Congress to the list of bodies that can enforce this.
The remedy for a state running an improper election is also not the supreme court. It is Congress, as laid out in the Constitution they supposedly are experts at enforcing. And yet they keep giving themselves major powers not in Constitution.
You have the most interesting take that I’ve read: Congress shall also have a way to enforce this and not just the States. I kind of wish you had argued that in front of SCOTUS.
Sometimes I wonder if our constitutional interpretation is so twisted because we've been going at for so many years. But getting a new one is going to require decades of catch up work by the Democrats. Republicans have been practicing for a Constitutional Convention and actively seek one.
Yes, why?
They explain in the ruling why it doesn’t make sense in the context of when this law was made to have states decide.
Should a confederate state decide who is eligible to run? No, it should be the federal government
…or so they argue
So we can just ignore the Constitution when the laws are outdated and don't make sense anymore? Cool. Let's do gun control.
The Constitution says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." SCOTUS isn't ignoring the Constitution for once.
Noteably, SCOTUS doesn't legislate, nor are they "Congress". If there is a law saying as much (states can't control primary ballots), though, sure.
Yeah, SCOTUS can't remove a candidate for insurrection. The only way is if Congress passes a law describing who is.
Of course not. Not when it suits them.
Where did I say that we can just ignore the constitution? Hell, I’ve been downvoted to hell on Reddit for suggesting that rights to firearms is restricted for militias…
My comment is on the opinion, not on you.
I couldn't find a single legitimate reason in that decision to arbitrarily remove the power of the states or the democratic voters to remove a candidate based on very clear strictures in the Constitution, except for the implication that the conservatives would try to use this measure by claiming every valid candidate had somehow committed insurrection.
But conservatives already basically tried to do that with Biden with their "documents" case for more than 2 years now and it didn't work, they couldn't make even that relatively insignificant charge stick.
In this case, we have a judgment of a candidate liabile of an insurrection that directly violates the presidential oath of office thay previously took.
Notice I said confederate not conservative
It is hereby noted that 17 hours ago hddsx said confederate not conservative.
Someone give you shit about it?
You ignored the context of the civil war. It wasn’t about liberals or conservatives. It was about the federal government not allowing former confederate states to elect confederates into federal office. In other words, as determined by SCOTUS, this is the constitution explicitly taking power away from states and delegating it to the federal government. Thereby it is NOT a reserved right of the states and the people
I haven't talked about the civil war at all, I think you're trying to respond to a different commenter.
Fascism.