SCOTUS Throws Out State 14th Amendment Bans on Trump Being on 2024 Ballot

[Webster]

(The Guardian) Supreme court allows Trump to remain on Colorado's presidential ballot
The supreme court has allowed Donald Trump to remain on Colorado’s presidential ballot, rejecting a state supreme court decision barring him from the election because of his involvement in January 6.

---

Ruling set to allow Trump to stay on ballots nationwide
The US supreme court’s unanimous ruling overturning a decision by Colorado’s top court that barred Donald Trump from the ballot for his involvement in January 6 will resolve the question of the former president’s ability to run for office nationwide.

At issue was whether states could enforce section three of the 14th amendment to disqualify someone from running for federal office, such as the presidency. That part of the constitution has been cited by state-level judges, including in Colorado, who removed Trump from ballots in lawsuits brought by pro-democracy groups.

In their decision, the US supreme court writes: 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.

 

[Webster]

(The Guardian) Beneath the supreme court’s unanimous opinion on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president were deep fractures over how far the decision should go.

We’ll start off with the majority’s view, which was signed onto by five of the court’s conservative justices – chief justice John Roberts and associate justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Fearing that allowing states to enforce the constitution’s disqualification clause would upend presidential elections, the opinion reads: An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute —and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result – if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos - arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.

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.

 

[Webster]

(The Guardian) No justices dissented from the opinion, but two concurrences were filed.

The first is by Amy Coney Barrett, a Donald Trump-appointed conservative. She criticizes the majority’s opinion for, essentially, overreaching on a sensitive subject at a sensitive time, by deciding Congress must enforce the constitution’s disqualification clause: This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.

The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

---

While no members of the court’s three-justice liberal minority dissented, they make clear in their concurrence that they aren’t happy with the conclusion reached by the majority.

They open with a quote from the conservative chief justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states to ban abortion, where he writes: “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.”

The liberals argue that the majority weighed in on more issues than were necessary in their ruling keeping Trump on the ballot: Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy … Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

 

[NeoMetallix]

Good! As already mentioned, he hasn't been charged or found guilty of anything. This sets the precedent of guilty before proven innocent so any state can make up a guilt(like they did here) if they don't like who's running and drop him or her.

Don't get me wrong I dislike Republicans as much as Democrats but these Democrats are stupid and only hurting themselves even more! Only the most of incompetent would believe you are saving democracy by not allowing the people to vote for who they want.

That's actually not democracy and reminds me of how we piss off other countries by meddling in their affairs and installing presidents we want instead of who they want. We are dangerously close to Soviet era crap it isn't even funny with all the censorship and push for banning political candidates.

 

[Webster]

Only the most of incompetent would believe you are saving democracy by not allowing the people to vote for who they want.

Go to any Democratic party caucus and you'll see exactly that....

 

[~ True Legend ~]

Good! As already mentioned, he hasn't been charged or found guilty of anything. This sets the precedent of guilty before proven innocent so any state can make up a guilt(like they did here) if they don't like who's running and drop him or her.

Don't get me wrong I dislike Republicans as much as Democrats but these Democrats are stupid and only hurting themselves even more! Only the most of incompetent would believe you are saving democracy by not allowing the people to vote for who they want.

That's actually not democracy and reminds me of how we piss off other countries by meddling in their affairs and installing presidents we want instead of who they want. We are dangerously close to Soviet era crap it isn't even funny with all the censorship and push for banning political candidates.

Well, I for one know any ban just gonna fuel Trump’s agenda that this is a political witch hunt!