Opinions of the Court - 2023
![](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/b3f6089b-4bf3-42fc-beaf-4494b0ae134e.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
supremecourt.gov
This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
The decided on Congress alone part of that opinion is the stupid part of it. They're pre-emptively barring federal courts from disqualifing as well. It's absolute nonsense and the dissenting opinion is scathing.
From the SCOTUS document ...
edited a bunch of times to take out annoying unneccessary hyphens.
Which makes zero sense. Why include a provision that congress can undo it with a 2/3rds vote if congress had to block them with a mere majority to start with?
And if the feds get to decide who is on the ballot, why is history filled with candidates not on the ballot in some states? Their ruling was based on what they thought the law should be, not what it is.
Unanimous. Fucking unanimous. Even Jackson.
Yeah. Because he didn't do any thing to be booted that even 'Jackson' Knows that. Some how it's the insane petri dish of foaming at the mouth, odd dregs, who refuse reality.
He clearly whipped up an angry mob to attack the Capitol, he just hasn’t been convicted of doing so.
SCOTUS denies Colorado's state court to decide whether or not a person seeking to hold a federal office can be blocked. It must be decided by Congress alone.
And, of course, they'll keep Trump on the ballot. Even if it's deemed he committed insurrection.
November is looking gloomier by the minute. :(
I wonder if this decision will convince Nikki Haley to drop out or if she's determined to stay in it until the RNC?
I honestly thought she was simply sticking around until SCOTUS ruled, so she'd have a chance at being the last one standing ... and, by default, the GOP nominee.
By that measure, there are still court cases in progress that could, theoretically, leave her the lone remaining viable candidate.
It's unlikely, but possible.
Then again, she may simply be preparing to be the highest profile candidate for 2028.
You're right. So maybe she will continue then.
If one more person (looking at you Roberts) had sided with the liberals, he'd be off the ballot nationwide. The only thing that's unanimous is that it's not up to the states.
I suppose this is a ruling based purely on constitutional merits - saying the federal government is in charge of enforcing that clause, not states. In principle though, it seems like bullshit if we’re still going with the idea that states are independent entities joined in a republic. States should be in charge of elections they hold. Could they say the same thing if a state had their own law that a candidate for federal office could be disqualified from the state ballot?
I also wonder what the court would have to say about this anti-democratic atrocity some states have concocted lately (republicans, of course) where they want the state legislature to be able to discard election results and pick a candidate if they claim an election was corrupted.
That's the thing. Like, I get it, it would probably cause some chaos. But now it's really muddled what states control and what they don't control. They control voters, by denying felons rights and things like that, but not candidates? But they can also change election results based on those state laws you mentioned?
Maybe I'm just not cut out for law, but the philosophical inconsistency annoys me, even if I don't completely disagree with the decision itself lol. I don't want Trump to be able to run, but there's probably some fear among the liberal justices about red states removing candidates.
That is exactly what Sotomayor, I believe, was saying a few weeks ago - that they didn’t want to create a chaotic situation where Republican-led states started “retaliating” (and of course they would) by removing Biden from the ballot.
A problem with making the decision with considerations like that in mind, though, is they’re basically coming up with the conclusion and then inventing a legal basis to justify it.
It's this little blurb that I question ...
It's like SCOTUS is talking out of both sides of their mouth. Only Congress can decide but we have to review and OK it as well.
Bah.
That is how any law works though, isn't it? The Supreme Court can determine whether it's constitutional?