Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
SCOTUS Overturns Colorado on Ballot Access 9-0
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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Per curiam with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurring in the judgment. Barrett concurred in part and in the judgement.
Published in Law
Sotomayor et al. object to dicta about how the Constitutional provision would or would not be enforced at the federal level. From their opinion:
Job well done, ctlaw. Article plus supplementary Comment.
How does this apply to the issue at the Texas border?
That is very good news. Thanks.
9-0.
Wow.
I will be honest I did not expect that.
That is because common sense is not as common as it used to be.
I’ve always assumed the Colorado people knew it would happen. That doesn’t mean it won’t accomplish their goals, regardless. It depends in part on how the two sides play it.
Next step would be to assert Trump electors are state officers and will be scrutinized. Are Sotomayor et al. signaling that on p. 2 of their opinion:
It sounds to me more like they are warning against an “end run” around their decision. Most Particularly an ex post facto law or bill of attainder aimed at a particular candidate/circumstance. This approach was used to allow the law suit that Trump recently lost.
here is another win
MOOORE Bad News for Lefties! BREAKING News Out of Texas Hands Biden Administration ANOTHER Huge Loss – Twitchy
We need some of these lawyers doing this crazy stuff to get rid of Trump as a candidate to lose their license to practice law.
The Colorado Secretary of State said she was “disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment…”
I think a 9-0 decision shows that the states never had that authority to begin with.
No kidding
It seems to me that those of us who understand and support the intent of the Founders embodied in the Constitution need to be more active, whenever the US Congress or individual states create legislation that is unconstitutional, in challenging such law in a timely manner. I suspect that some challenge never happens so the laws stand and others the challenges are late after long application of the law has been in effect even if unconstitutional. Actually, perhaps there should be a procedure where there would be a court review for constitutionality if a congressional member or some number of members raises such a challenge, or at least something along those lines.
Finally some good news for a change!
The law Trump was charged on in NY has been on the books since 1956. Care to explain that take?
He may have been referring to the repeal or repeals of the statute of limitations to allow the case(s) involving E. Jean Carroll.
As for Executive Law 63(12), the issue is all of a sudden using it in a way that it has not been used before despite there assuredly having been quite a few instances of people borrowing money for NY real estate deals under more dubious circumstances.
to the extent that Hochul had to come out and effectively tell people this was unique to the extreme crimes of Trump. Hint. Hint.
MSNBC does not care how the Court rules. They are going to push that Insurrection narrative HARD!
Not all roses:
Haste and Acrimony Undermine a Unanimous Supreme Court in Trump-Eligibility Case
The usage of curiam—nine judges speaking as one voice—gives me some small comfort.
I expected a minority concurring opinion to the effect that it would look bad to both rig the election and keep the other side off the ballot altogether. Our DemocracyTM is all about preserving the appearance of legitimacy.
It does not mean unanimity. It effectively means unanimity of those who did not write separately.
So you could have a per curiam opinion with a full dissent by up to 4 judges.
Here they all appear to agree on a narrow dispositive issue and Sotomayor et al. want to leave it at that.
My Leftist friends are wide open on how corrupt the SCOTUS is and needs to be replaced. Look for that to be the next step of this little game. They can not stand a racist SCOTUS that supports the killing of gays and trans and encourages slavery in the South.
Personally I am surprised that SCOTUS did not allow Trump be jailed much less that all of them backed his running for POTUS.
Veissman!!
I have a good friend who grew up in Queens, NY now lives in Italy and has the same accent and semi-raspy voice. He is a great scholar of opera and classical music, he studied at La Scala. It’s hilarious listening to him drill-down into the finer points of artistry in this or that opera, or the more obscure interpretations of Gustave Mahler’s libretto, sounding exactly like Donald Trump without even trying.