Unanimous. Something we are missing?
They were probably all afraid that banning Trump on the ballot would tear so violently at the fabric of the country that it could end in a civil war with armed members of Trump’s base roaming the streets creating chaos.
This ruling is very unsurprising to me. I’d been very surprised if they had gone the other way.
The US is a very unhealthy country.
Edit: Spelling
So they’ve traded almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as a direct result of their decision, for…
checks notes
…almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as an indirect result of their decision, and also get a fascist government.
Sec 5 of the 14th clearly says only Congress can remove him
That’s if he’s in office. He’s not in office.
Sec 5 is the means of enforcing sec 3
If Congress must act to re instate a candidate but almost must act to bar a candidate, why was the amendment written the way it was? Pretty stupid they want Congress to make the determination.
No one read beyond the insurrection clause, sec 5 of the 14th says only Congress can remove him
I told everyone for months that sec 5 clearly says ONLY Congress can remove him. I wish I had bookmarked everyone that old me I was a bot or Russian that doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Please point out the word “only” in Section 5 to me. I must be blind: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
It’s right there The Congress shall have the power to enforce
I guess that must’ve been on your other account then?
On Reddit
Anyone here remember this?
The Guardian: Kavanaugh will ‘step up’ to keep Trump on ballots, ex-president’s lawyer says
Looks like Boofin’ Brett kept his word after all.
It was unanimous. Against constitutional precedent from the people who wrote the Amendment, btw.
So much for Originalism.
Yeah, I know. And I get the feeling they were internally strong-armed into unanimity, given the strong objections the liberal justices included in their concurring opinion, as though anything less than unanimity would leave it open to debate. But all they did was punt it back to the legislature.
Today is a dark day in American jurisprudence, IMO.
EDITED TO ADD: Turns out, according to The Guardian today, the decision was formally issued by the court as “per curiam” which is not default for a unanimous SCOTUS decision, but must be specifically designated by the court. So it wasn’t just my feeling, the court really is driving home the point of “unanimity” beyond the norm.
As much as I hate Trump, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to allow a state to remove a candidate from the ballot pre-conviction. I hope he does get convicted and thus removed from the ballot however
Oh look another illegal power grab by the supreme dipshits. 14th amendment section 3 states only Congress may remove an insurrectionist’s inability to hold office, not SCOTUS.
That’s not how the opinion works. The Supremes said states can’t remove candidates from the federal ballot under the insurrection clause. They can remove state candidates. It doesn’t rule on anything else.
The rest of their reasoning was basically “Congress can’t do this shit, it’d be a mess, so we’ll step up and reverse that clause.”
They specifically said they will enforce the constitution as they see fit.
