After 9-0 SCOTUS rejection, Democrats devise Putinesque new plan to keep Trump off the ballot

[Seymour Flops]

We don't do that? The CIA assassinated JFK.

The FBI tried to assassinate MLK by driving him to suicide.

These are not nice fellas we're dealing with, here.

 

[berg80]

• Joyce Vance: “The phrase ‘oathbreaking insurrectionist’ appears four times in the concurrence. It seems to be a synonym for Donald Trump.”
• Heather Cox Richardson: “There is, perhaps, a larger story behind the majority’s musings on future congressional actions. Its decision to go beyond what was required to decide a specific question and suggest the boundaries of future legislation pushed it from judicial review into the realm of lawmaking.”
• Former Judge Michael Luttig: “[T]he five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause — as the concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explain.”

In The Winter Of Our Trump Discontent, Things Look Bleak

I understand the tiresome need to make the decision about owning the libs. In reality, the harm has been inflicted on all of us. Or at least those who believe the authors of the 14th were on the right track by prohibiting oath breaking insurrectionists from holding a federal office.

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 912905

 

[Weatherman2020]

What's hilarious is that you reject such a notion out of hand, but that what always who was doing this.

Democrats don't want the loser off the ballot. There is nobody easier to beat than Trump, as Democrats have proven over and over again.

Added to which Trump has succeeded in bankrupting the entire GOP, forcing them to fund his ridiculous laws suits claiming he won the 2020 election. Now he's forced Rona McDaniel out because she refuses to pay his legal bills. Now ALL of the RNC's donations will be funelled to pay Trump's legal bills, leaving nothing for Republicans candidates to run on.

Democrats don’t have to do anything to win, elections other than to put their platform out there and wait for people to vote for it.

We must save Democracy by keeping people from voting for the candidates of their choice!!!

 

[berg80]

Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Colorado officials, as well as officials from other states, had challenged Trump’s ability to run for the presidency, noting that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution from holding office.

But the court didn’t stop there. It sidestepped the question of whether the events of January 6, 2021, were an insurrection, declining to reverse Colorado’s finding that Trump was an insurrectionist.

In those decisions, the court was unanimous.

But then five of the justices cast themselves off from the other four. Those five went on to “decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy,” as the three dissenting liberal judges put it. The five described what they believed could disqualify from office someone who had participated in an insurrection: a specific type of legislation.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in one concurrence, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in another, note that the majority went beyond what was necessary in this expansion of its decision. “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote. Seeming to criticize those three of her colleagues as much as the majority, Barrett wrote: “This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency…. [W]ritings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

March 4, 2024

Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Colorado officials, as well as officials from other states, had challenged Trump’s ability to run for the presidency, noting that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment...

heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

note that the majority went beyond what was necessary in this expansion of its decision. “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,”

Just in case another Repub prez decides he knows better than the people.

 

[struth]

What's hilarious is that you reject such a notion out of hand, but that what always who was doing this.

Democrats don't want the loser off the ballot. There is nobody easier to beat than Trump, as Democrats have proven over and over again.

Added to which Trump has succeeded in bankrupting the entire GOP, forcing them to fund his ridiculous laws suits claiming he won the 2020 election. Now he's forced Rona McDaniel out because she refuses to pay his legal bills. Now ALL of the RNC's donations will be funelled to pay Trump's legal bills, leaving nothing for Republicans candidates to run on.

Democrats don’t have to do anything to win, elections other than to put their platform out there and wait for people to vote for it.

your reply is even more comical. You don't live in the real world

 

[Nostra]

• Joyce Vance: “The phrase ‘oathbreaking insurrectionist’ appears four times in the concurrence. It seems to be a synonym for Donald Trump.”
• Heather Cox Richardson: “There is, perhaps, a larger story behind the majority’s musings on future congressional actions. Its decision to go beyond what was required to decide a specific question and suggest the boundaries of future legislation pushed it from judicial review into the realm of lawmaking.”
• Former Judge Michael Luttig: “[T]he five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause — as the concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explain.”

In The Winter Of Our Trump Discontent, Things Look Bleak

I understand the tiresome need to make the decision about owning the libs. In reality, the harm has been inflicted on all of us. Or at least those who believe the authors of the 14th were on the right track by prohibiting oath breaking insurrectionists from holding a federal office.

You lost.

9-0

Deal with it.

 

[el midgetron]

 

[theHawk]

It doesn't sound like the DemoKKKrats are very confident in Poor Memory's ability to win this one without a whole lot of election interference...LOL

Poor lefties….



.

 

[Marener]

The eternal question: Is it worth it to debate the willfully ignorant?

You know there was a court ordered recount going on in Hawaii in 1960, right? You know the Democratic electors met openly and transparently, right? You know the whole thing was coordinated with the governor and lieutenant governor, right?

 

[WEATHER53]

No , cannot disallow just because of allegations. Once convicted that will change everything. Then if involved they have to disallow. Treason conviction endsit all for trump. Trump might appeal it from prison but it won't go anywhere.

Yeah cartoon fantasies of Got Him have gotten you nowhere

 

[WEATHER53]

• Joyce Vance: “The phrase ‘oathbreaking insurrectionist’ appears four times in the concurrence. It seems to be a synonym for Donald Trump.”
• Heather Cox Richardson: “There is, perhaps, a larger story behind the majority’s musings on future congressional actions. Its decision to go beyond what was required to decide a specific question and suggest the boundaries of future legislation pushed it from judicial review into the realm of lawmaking.”
• Former Judge Michael Luttig: “[T]he five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause — as the concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explain.”

In The Winter Of Our Trump Discontent, Things Look Bleak

I understand the tiresome need to make the decision about owning the libs. In reality, the harm has been inflicted on all of us. Or at least those who believe the authors of the 14th were on the right track by prohibiting oath breaking insurrectionists from holding a federal office.as

 

[marvin martian]

Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Colorado officials, as well as officials from other states, had challenged Trump’s ability to run for the presidency, noting that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution from holding office.

But the court didn’t stop there. It sidestepped the question of whether the events of January 6, 2021, were an insurrection, declining to reverse Colorado’s finding that Trump was an insurrectionist.

In those decisions, the court was unanimous.

But then five of the justices cast themselves off from the other four. Those five went on to “decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy,” as the three dissenting liberal judges put it. The five described what they believed could disqualify from office someone who had participated in an insurrection: a specific type of legislation.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in one concurrence, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in another, note that the majority went beyond what was necessary in this expansion of its decision. “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote. Seeming to criticize those three of her colleagues as much as the majority, Barrett wrote: “This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency…. [W]ritings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

March 4, 2024

Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Colorado officials, as well as officials from other states, had challenged Trump’s ability to run for the presidency, noting that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment...

heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

note that the majority went beyond what was necessary in this expansion of its decision. “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,”

Just in case another Repub prez decides he knows better than the people.

^^^The level of impotent, butthurt rage on the left is so high, they turned a 9-0 decision into a 5-4 one.

LOL

 

[WEATHER53]

We must save Democracy by keeping people from voting for the candidates of their choice!!!

Yes
And since you dont know what is good for you as to voting, we will preclude your preference on your behalf
Very very sinister, unprecedented, anti democracy

 

[WEATHER53]

Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Colorado officials, as well as officials from other states, had challenged Trump’s ability to run for the presidency, noting that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution from holding office.

But the court didn’t stop there. It sidestepped the question of whether the events of January 6, 2021, were an insurrection, declining to reverse Colorado’s finding that Trump was an insurrectionist.

In those decisions, the court was unanimous.

But then five of the justices cast themselves off from the other four. Those five went on to “decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy,” as the three dissenting liberal judges put it. The five described what they believed could disqualify from office someone who had participated in an insurrection: a specific type of legislation.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in one concurrence, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in another, note that the majority went beyond what was necessary in this expansion of its decision. “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote. Seeming to criticize those three of her colleagues as much as the majority, Barrett wrote: “This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency…. [W]ritings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

March 4, 2024

Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Colorado officials, as well as officials from other states, had challenged Trump’s ability to run for the presidency, noting that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment...

heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

note that the majority went beyond what was necessary in this expansion of its decision. “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,”

Just in case another Repub prez decides he knows better than the people.

Soon as the word insurrection comes in, reality and credibility go out

 

[WEATHER53]

^^^The level of impotent, butthurt rage on the left is so high, they turned a 9-0 decision into a 5-4 one.

LOL

They said 9.5-0 would have been sufficient to convince them

 

[postman]

We must save Democracy by keeping people from voting for the candidates of their choice!!!

Arnold Schwarzenegger for PRESIDENT 2024 !!!!

And only a non-functional congress could stop him.

Let freedom ring.

 

[Rawley]

View attachment 912905

Man. I gotta getta job as a loon talking head, Simply spread lies as long as they work up the loon base.

 

[Rawley]

• Joyce Vance: “The phrase ‘oathbreaking insurrectionist’ appears four times in the concurrence. It seems to be a synonym for Donald Trump.”
• Heather Cox Richardson: “There is, perhaps, a larger story behind the majority’s musings on future congressional actions. Its decision to go beyond what was required to decide a specific question and suggest the boundaries of future legislation pushed it from judicial review into the realm of lawmaking.”
• Former Judge Michael Luttig: “[T]he five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause — as the concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explain.”

In The Winter Of Our Trump Discontent, Things Look Bleak

I understand the tiresome need to make the decision about owning the libs. In reality, the harm has been inflicted on all of us. Or at least those who believe the authors of the 14th were on the right track by prohibiting oath breaking insurrectionists from holding a federal office.

SCOTUS, including three libs, road you hard and put you away wet.

 

[Delldude]

Republicans in Congress tried to take away the votes of people by objecting to the electors.

They were just doing what the dem's had done previously....and IAW the COTUS.

If Trump wins the election, that theory goes, Democrats might attempt to disqualify him before electoral votes are counted in January 2025 during the same once-perfunctory process that pro-Trump rioters interrupted when they attacked the US Capitol in 2021.
___________________
“The opinion is unclear on what happens after the election if Trump wins,” said Gerard Magliocca, law professor at Indiana University and one of the nation’s top experts on the ban and who supported Trump’s disqualification.
“At best, it’s unclear,” he said. “And therefore, if Trump wins, people are going to try these things. And it just makes the presidential transition – if Trump wins – more complicated, unpleasant and problematic than it needed to be.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/06/politics/supreme-court-trump-constitutional-questions/index.html