|
Disappointing but not surprising https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Not a surprise. Even the liberal justices clearly did not like the idea of the lower court decision
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
The only issue I have with the ruling is that a state should absolutely be allowed to bar someone from running for Congress if they engaged in insurrection. Though on the upside this ruling, inadvertently or not, means that the Independent Legislature theory is dead for good because if states can't bar insurrectionist candidates from the ballot then state legislatures are not the only/final authority on a state's elections. This also raises the question of who has standing to remove a person from the ballot for President and how. Congress can't pass a law targeting someone because that'd be a Bill of Attainder. Does someone have to sue in Federal court to block an insurrectionist candidate from the ballot in all 50 states? I suspect the actual answer is going to be "nobody will ever try to meaningfully enforce the 14th amendment's insurrectionist clause ever." Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Mar 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
I've seen some law profs basically say this makes it so the only way to stop Trump for 14th amendment reasons at this point is for Congress to refuse to certify his electoral votes. You know, the very same thing Trump tried to riot his way into doing!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
I glanced through some stuff and it sounds like scotus does expect a congressional act to disqualify under 14. In one part they imply 2/3, but they never spell anything out. So, section 14 is now a preemptive impeachment? E: I particularly love one senator's statement that scotus took the decision out of politician's hands. No, it did the opposite
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I've seen some law profs basically say this makes it so the only way to stop Trump for 14th amendment reasons at this point is for Congress to refuse to certify his electoral votes. You know, the very same thing Trump tried to riot his way into doing! I mean, it was always up to congress at the end of the day? quote: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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Several Justices have said that oral arguments are a waste of time. he's been speaking up in the last year a bit more, particularly when the opportunity to chip in with a thinly-veiled "sieg heil" shows up
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
The "... Remove such disability" language implies that the bar to office is self-executing without needing Congress to intervene except to undo the bar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I mean, it was always up to congress at the end of the day? no it's always up to Congress to remove the disqualification, which applies automatically without them doing anything at all because the United States of America amended its Constitution to make it so. or we did, until the Gang Of Six cancelled the plain meaning of the clause via fiat this morning
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
Given the current court ideology and Kavanaugh and Barrett being the main lawyers for Bush v Gore, I guess we can at least be happy they're still allowing an election instead of just appointing him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I mean, it was always up to congress at the end of the day? I don't think that the same people who fastidiously ignore the plain-as-day state militia context for 2A will pay any attention to the due process delineated in 14A.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Given the current court ideology and Kavanaugh and Barrett being the main lawyers for Bush v Gore, I guess we can at least be happy they're still allowing an election instead of just appointing him. they will absolutely have their opportunity to appoint him once the former Confederacy states and Ohio sue preemptively regarding their "actually, the vote results themselves aren't stipulated as necessary in selecting our state's presidential electors" policies already being proposed and passed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This also raises the question of who has standing to remove a person from the ballot for President and how. Congress can't pass a law targeting someone because that'd be a Bill of Attainder. Does someone have to sue in Federal court to block an insurrectionist candidate from the ballot in all 50 states? I suspect the actual answer is going to be "nobody will ever try to meaningfully enforce the 14th amendment's insurrectionist clause ever." What they seem to suggest is that Congress should pass a law explicitly granting the the removal power to whoever they think is appropriate, laying out procedures and conditions for removal. Similar to the Enforcement Act of 1870, which specified who should initiate removal proceedings and how the removal proceedings should go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
they also suggest whatever Congress does must follow City of Boerne congruence and proportionality requirements, which is separate judge-made law designed primarily to undermine the 14th. which wouldn't apply to the states, but they've just removed the states entirely from the process they're rewriting the fourteenth amendment wholesale without even a case or controversy. it's shelby county 2.0 with even less of a pretense of normalcy
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I've seen some law profs basically say this makes it so the only way to stop Trump for 14th amendment reasons at this point is for Congress to refuse to certify his electoral votes. You know, the very same thing Trump tried to riot his way into doing! It also means that the 14th is no longer self-executing even though it very clearly was at the time of it's passage, hence Congress acting to give an exception to the Confederates. hobbesmaster posted:I mean, it was always up to congress at the end of the day? Reread what you're quoting. It's saying it takes a 2/3 vote to allow the insurrectionist to run for office again. That bolded section is what reinforces the notion that the 14th is self-executing for disbarment the same that the 13th is self-executing for abolishing slavery. Again, the proper response to a SCOTUS ruling would be "you are factually wrong and nakedly politicking from the bench, gently caress you and your ruling" but what will happen is the same as always: Politicians will just nod and go along with it at the end of the day. Main Paineframe posted:What they seem to suggest is that Congress should pass a law explicitly granting the the removal power to whoever they think is appropriate, laying out procedures and conditions for removal. Similar to the Enforcement Act of 1870, which specified who should initiate removal proceedings and how the removal proceedings should go. And this suggestion would be a fundamental change to the 14th and its application since inception. Trump engaged in insurrection and was Impeached (but not removed from office) for doing so. The idea that Congress has to act, again, in this case is a loving farce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This also raises the question of who has standing to remove a person from the ballot for President and how. Congress can't pass a law targeting someone because that'd be a Bill of Attainder. Does someone have to sue in Federal court to block an insurrectionist candidate from the ballot in all 50 states? I suspect the actual answer is going to be "nobody will ever try to meaningfully enforce the 14th amendment's insurrectionist clause ever." My read is that Congress can enact a law stating that, under the 14th, anyone who is convicted of x by a federal court is automatically barred from the ballot. Then, Congress can still overturn this bar via a 2/3 majority vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:My read is that Congress can enact a law stating that, under the 14th, anyone who is convicted of x by a federal court is automatically barred from the ballot. Then, Congress can still overturn this bar via a 2/3 majority vote. This literally cannot be the right reading. Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederacy. He was never convicted of a crime. Your reading therefore does not bar him from holding office. A reading that lets the Arch Traitor into office is a reading that can't be right
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It also means that the 14th is no longer self-executing even though it very clearly was at the time of it's passage, hence Congress acting to give an exception to the Confederates. More than that, a clear majority of Senators voted to remove him from office. The only reason he wasn't removed was due to partisan bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
What exactly is the point of the 14th ammendent if it can't used? It just seems like laws really don't mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:What exactly is the point of the 14th ammendent if it can't used? It just seems like laws really don't mean anything. Well, only the _right_ people should be using it. :p
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:What exactly is the point of the 14th ammendent if it can't used? It just seems like laws really don't mean anything. We're making America great again, what part of "usher the Rapture asap" are you not on board with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
Is there some Trump thread hate-reading this thread, chiming in every time someone suggests that maybe the establishment clause doesn't grant wholesale permission to discriminate, or are uncertain about whether 620,000 dead Americans provide enough cause to read the plain text of the Civil War amendment specifically where it talks about traitors being disbarred from federal officership until Congress lifts disqualification?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
Slaan posted:This literally cannot be the right reading. Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederacy. He was never convicted of a crime. Your reading therefore does not bar him from holding office. A reading that lets the Arch Traitor into office is a reading that can't be right If Jefferson Davis had run for the presidency, then his disqualification from the presidency definitely wouldn't have been enforced through states unilaterally removing him from their ballots. There would definitely, absolutely be some kind of federal government action to officially declare him disqualified and make that disqualification absolutely clear and official to the many ex-Confederate states that wouldn't remove him from their ballots. In fact, even in the aftermath of the Civil War, many states openly ignored the 14th amendment and routinely appointed or elected ex-Confederates to positions that insurrectionists were definitely barred from holding under the Insurrection Clause. John Yossarian posted:What exactly is the point of the 14th ammendent if it can't used? It just seems like laws really don't mean anything. The point of the 14th Amendment was to grant Congress substantial powers to pass laws covering things that it was formerly unable to legislate about. It was meant to give them free rein to pass whatever laws they thought might be needed to enforce Reconstruction, even if those laws would have been deemed blatantly unconstitutional in 1858. In particular, it was meant to give Congress considerable power to force their policies on ex-Confederate states by ensuring that Congress clearly had the constitutional authority to pass those laws. That's why the 14th amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article". The Supreme Court is saying that the 14th can be used, it just has to be used by passing appropriate legislation to enforce it, rather than relying on judicial calvinball or unilateral actions by other bodies to make up an enforcement procedure from scratch on the fly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is there some Trump thread hate-reading this thread, chiming in every time someone suggests that maybe the establishment clause doesn't grant wholesale permission to discriminate, or are uncertain about whether 620,000 dead Americans provide enough cause to read the plain text of the Civil War amendment specifically where it talks about traitors being disbarred from federal officership until Congress lifts disqualification? Sotomayor is a goon and she's a MAGA CHUD yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Jefferson Davis had run for the presidency, then his disqualification from the presidency definitely wouldn't have been enforced through states unilaterally removing him from their ballots. There would definitely, absolutely be some kind of federal government action to officially declare him disqualified and make that disqualification absolutely clear and official to the many ex-Confederate states that wouldn't remove him from their ballots. Would there have been massive action by Congress to stop Davis from running and make sure literally everyone in the world knew it was because he was stopped by the 14th? Probably! Would it have been required though? No! The amendment only requires action to undo a disqualification, not affirm/create one. The fact that lovely states were being lovely and Andrew Johnson was being lovely doesn't mean the amendment doesn't exist or clearly says what it says, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Sotomayor is a goon and she's a MAGA CHUD yes. Friend, we nearly unanimously saw the 9-0 unity vote coming months ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Friend, we nearly unanimously saw the 9-0 unity vote coming months ago. FWIW, i remember everyone being all doomy when the lawyers were loving up oral arguments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Cimber posted:FWIW, i remember everyone being all doomy when the lawyers were loving up oral arguments. It was more just super clear from the questions being asked that we were headed for at absolute best 7-2, most likely 9-0. I still don’t know from the decision when or how they think Congress is supposed to decide someone can’t be President.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Would there have been massive action by Congress to stop Davis from running and make sure literally everyone in the world knew it was because he was stopped by the 14th? Probably! Would it have been required though? No! The amendment only requires action to undo a disqualification, not affirm/create one. Somebody, at some point, has to take action to decide whether or not someone is disqualified and officially make that determination for the entire nation. This court decision is entirely about who that someone should be. Who possesses the power and responsibility to make that call? The Supreme Court ruled that "It sure isn't the individual states acting on their own" (which makes perfect sense) and "the rest of the 14th Amendment says that that enforcement power belongs with Congress, who can pass appropriate legislation to enforce it" (which is unfortunate, but legally reasonable enough). This issue was visible very early on, which is why Congress soon passed the Enforcement Act of 1870 for the express purpose of enforcing various clauses of the 14th Amendment, including the Insurrection Clause. It clearly laid out who has the power to enforce Insurrection Clause violations (federal prosecutors), how much responsibility they have to do so (they were tasked with actively seeking out violations to enforce it against), what the exact enforcement mechanism was (a specific kind of legal filing, with a special fast-track process created to speed it along and reduce judicial obstruction), and even established punishments for violations (aside from removal from office, it also made Insurrection Clause violations a federal crime punished by fines or jail time). As the Supreme Court pointed out: quote:Indeed, during a debate on enforcement legislation less than a year after ratification, Sen. Trumbull noted that “notwithstanding [Section 3] . . . hundreds of men [were] holding office” in violation of its terms. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626. The Constitution, Trumbull noted, “provide[d] no means for enforcing” the disqualification, necessitating a “bill to give effect to the fundamental law embraced in the Constitution.” Ibid. The enforcement mechanism Trumbull championed was later enacted as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870, “pursuant to the power conferred by §5 of the [Fourteenth] Amendment.” Unfortunately, those clauses of the Enforcement Act were later repealed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Would there have been massive action by Congress to stop Davis from running and make sure literally everyone in the world knew it was because he was stopped by the 14th? Probably! Would it have been required though? No! The amendment only requires action to undo a disqualification, not affirm/create one. Sure, but either way, the *states* are not the correct actors here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
Imagine the conversation we would be having if someone anywhere to the left of Ronald Reagan attempted the J6 insurrection and coup. We'd be asking questions like, "was 75 years without parole too harsh for the J6 attendees?" or "was it appropriate for the state to foot the funerary bill after the execution?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
I'm joking, we'd have been asking those questions in February 2021. Kidding aside, and with dead seriousness: as usual, the constitutional republic that slew 620,000 mostly-working-clsss men in the latter half of the nineteenth century over the question of each state's rights (to hold popular vote for or against chattel slavery, after decades of escalation mostly aggravated by fears over new free states being admitted by popular vote  ) -- and couldn't even deign to grant full civil rights to former slaves' descendants for a full century -- has found a way for a wealthy conservative white Christian man to get away with obvious, violent treason.Recalling the last few weeks and months of the prevailing winds itt, this is an unsurprising outcome. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h24D87SqaLQ&t=231s
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Imagine the conversation we would be having if someone anywhere to the left of Ronald Reagan attempted the J6 insurrection and coup. People were getting loving black bagged and committing "suicide" in burning cars for Black Lives Matter protests that broke windows. They'd still be washing the blood off the steps of the capitol building to this day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
Slaan posted:This literally cannot be the right reading. Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederacy. He was never convicted of a crime. Your reading therefore does not bar him from holding office. A reading that lets the Arch Traitor into office is a reading that can't be right That was my reading of the SC's decision, not the Amendment itself. I get that the amendment is self-executing, but of course, who decides when the criteria have been met for it to be self-executing? The amendment just isn't written in a way that it can be self-executing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:07
|
|
|
Could Congress not still pass a bill saying "all participants in x event on y date are declared insurrectionists under the 14th and barred from z class of offices"? In reality they won't, but that seems like the means of executing the amendment in this instance if anything is
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could Congress not still pass a bill saying "all participants in x event on y date are declared insurrectionists under the 14th and barred from z class of offices"? In a 6-3 decision this is found to be an ex post facto law and it is determined that Congress must pass laws making people ineligible for specific insurrections before they happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
If the Republicans on the SC didn’t like it, they’d simply call that sort of thing a bill of attainder. It would just depend on the political context. The legacy of the Robert’s Court has been that they can do whatever they want, for whatever reason, and it doesn’t have to be internally coherent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
In 2021, Congress should have introduced a bill to rehabilitate Trump and have it fail to reach a 2/3 majority. (Narrow window to get it to the floor in both houses) Is there anything in the opinion that doesn't conclude that Elon could run and only be taken off ballots for not being a natural born citizen by and act of congress?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Kaal posted:If the Republicans on the SC didn’t like it, they’d simply call that sort of thing a bill of attainder. It would just depend on the political context. The legacy of the Robert’s Court has been that they can do whatever they want, for whatever reason, and it doesn’t have to be internally coherent. Yep. There's no situation where the Roberts court allows a ruling that the party doesn't want. The Dobbs decision is probably the closest thing because the True Believers wanted to eliminate abortion access while the wing Roberts belongs to wanted to keep the death by a thousand cuts because things like overturning abortion or LGBT rights are surefire ways to lose otherwise winnable elections but ultimately they are what the insane Talibangelical base they've created wants and that base is taking over the party and driving out people who aren't openly Christofascist like them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:39
|
|