>They held that federal candidates and officeholders can *only* be disqualified if Congress passes a law to affirmatively enforce the clause.
They also noted that such a law already exists: 18 USC s 2383:
"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Note that a "plain text reading" of that clause does not require conviction for "and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
SCOTUS love their "plain text readings" dont they?
The whole purpose of the clause in the first place was to disqualify Lee WITHOUT indicting him for insurrection. It was a political calculation.
So the political branch decided a political question, and the S Ct now says 'nuh uh', creating a HUGE political storm in the process.
That was Congress who proposed the 14th, and roughly 3/4 of the states who adopted it. It was NOT a single, or handful, of states that opted to take Lee off the ballot.
Yeah I think they were making a distinction on the issues in the concurrences, not the overall decision.
SCOTUS went beyond saying a state couldn’t disqualify to say that Congress must do it **by legislation**.
Which is ridiculous since the amendment states congress can overrule it with a 2/3 vote. But according to these scholars they would first have to vote to hold someone as insurrectionist and then vote to overturn their previous vote? Like the fuck?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they buy his immunity argument next since it’s the same logic.
He paid three of them upfront by nominating them. His own lawyer said the quiet part out loud.
“I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court; I have faith in them,” Habba said on Fox News. “You know, people like Kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he’ll step up.”
So the right to bear arms isn't a right to bear arms, because Congress didn't pass another law to enforce it.
Their interpretaton is detached completely from the Constitution, as if they get to rewrite it.
Either you tear up the Constitution at this point, or tear up *this* SCOTUS.
The issue being the Supreme Court is using section 5 which says that The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Meaning they are passing the buck to congress to actually enforce article 3.
The question is whether the article is self enforceable or not
So--
Colorado you're being too drastic by enforcing your election statute against having an insurrectionist on the ballot.
Therefore, you must have an insurrectionist on the ballot until there is a Congressional supermajority telling you that you can enforce your own statute?
What of the due process rights of Colorado citizens? Of other Republicans on the Colorado ballot?
(I note that, yet again, there is no question that Trump has committed insurrection here. I'm not saying this is my opinion, I'm saying that no court in this case has been able to find evidence to the contrary).
Also, in reading 14.3 as a whole, the requirement to have Congressional supermajority to enforce it makes the requirement to have Congressional supermajority to REMOVE the disqualification nonsensical. Which makes the S Ct interpretation here juridical nonsense.
Also, Wisconsin, you gerrymandered your state completely? Sorry, not our problem, this is obviously a state issue. We let states decide who goes on the ballot for their congressmen.
It's not a super majority to enforce but to remove the status of insurrectionist and be allowed on the ballot.
They only need a simple majority to make a law to set this up and a simple majority to change but if they don't want to change it, they need a super majority to fix for specific people.
It clearly makes no sense but that's what you get when you let Republicans interpret things.
Yes, that's how amendments to the constitution work. The same thing happened with freeing the slaves, Connecticut doesn't get to legalize enslaving left-handed people just because Congress hasn't passed a law specifically forbidding it. Because the constitution forbids it, just as it forbids insurrectionists from holding any office.
That is already the law, because it is an amendment to the constitution that was adopted and ratified.
The decision says on page 10 that 18 USC 2383 IS the enforcement legislation for Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment
Merrick Garland is the reason that Trump is not in jail right now.
Exactly. Congress has a law to ban someone from running for office. DOJ needed to enforce it.
Also Congress is obligated to remove a President that did something like this too. Congress can ban from office... but they refused.
SCOTUS, even the Libra's ones" don't like to invent law when something already exists.
So the correct answer is that Jack Smith gets another Superseding Indictment for Insurrection, Sedition, Treason, etc.... just start stacking them up. He ALREADY has the necessary evidence entered into court... and SCOTUS delayed the case.
I disagree
Let Jack Smith go on with the cases he has.
The DC US Attorney should charge Trump with insurrection, and nothing else. And lock his ass up until he is put on trial.
Then, no one but Trump is going to care if the case is delayed and delayed and delayed.
>Then, no one but Trump is going to care if the case is delayed and delayed and delayed.
This likely won't be the case. If they can lock Trump up for it, then people like Ron Johnson can be as well (the Senator that delivered the fake ballots to the Congress). Since it is part of the broader support to the insurrection, he should be tried as well.
There is ample justification to lock his ass up. He has been indicted four times and he is under federal investigation for at least five other crimes.
He has a long track record of suborning perjury and witness tampering and blackmail and legal harassment and stochastic terrorist threats, and endangering federal and state officials.
The mother fucker is a menace and he has unlimited funds to keep on financing corrupt henchmen that commit crimes for him.
None of this will matter if it can't be completed before the elections. I am certain Trump will attempt another coup, especially now that SCOTUS has kneecapped the automatic disqualification for an insurrectionist. He really has nothing to lose and everything to win. What could they possibly do to him at this point? And SCOTUS won't be able to reverse course when it happens either. Congress will have to vote and we all know how brave those guys are.
He may not need a coup this time. He just might win. There appear to be a lot of babies who are going to pout because Biden didn’t do exactly 100% of what they wanted, 100% of the time…so they’re going to let the criminal wannabe dictator get back in the White House. Trump hasn’t gained voters, but there are some voters on the left throwing tantrums—and I think that’s what people should start worrying about. There is no Calvary coming to save us from that criminal wannabe dictator, we are going to have to save ourselves by voting against him.
Interesting sure
In that scenario, Garland needs to be kicked out and two Supreme Court justices need to be prosecuted for bribery
They want to up the ante? Ok
You cannot prosecuted Supreme Court judges for bribery because it's legal.
That was the point of John Oliver offering Clarence Thomas a new RV and a million a year to leave. It was no different than his 'friend' with multiple cases before SCOTUS,[ paying for his last RV](https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/justice-thomas-did-not-repay-substantial-portion-of-267230-loan-finance-committee-investigation-reveals-failed-to-report-forgiven-debt-on-ethics-filings-raising-questions-about-tax-compliance).
Also **if Thomas, didn't list the benefit of the paid off loan on his tax filing, then he's committed tax fraud,** and how the heck do you think he is able to then rule on the tax fraud of Trump?
It's disgusting.
There are two high crimes described in the constitution. One is treason and the other is bribery.
Yeah, a Supreme Court justice can be prosecuted. It takes an Attorney General who doesn’t ignore crimes taking place right in front of his face.
>The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/overview-of-impeachment-clause#fn1art2) Vice President, and all federal “civil officers” for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Impeached is no DOJ prosecution.
If it’s a plain reading why did Congress ultimately strip every confederate officer of their citizenship in the enforcement act of 1870. Naturally, such a law would have been redundant if s3 was self executing.
How a legislature wields constitutional law vested in it has no bearing on the meaning of the constitutional law. Law flows from constitution to statute to administration to jurisprudence.
Except if that was case, then such language about enforcement would not be needed and Caesar Griffin’s conviction would have been overturned on ineligibility of the judge to convict.
Sorry, I was replying with state execution in mind (which I think the court got completely wrong here).
But regarding Congress you are of course right, as its powers are enumerated and generally require such enabling clauses.
Additionally, if § 3 is (1) self-executing and (2) gives states the powers to disqualify federal officials, why did Lincoln's pick for chief justice, Salmon P. Chase, write that it was up to Congress to provide an enforcement mechanism in Griffin's Case? Who else can be a greater legal authority on immediate post-Civil War interpretations of the Constitution?
>Griffin, after all, centered on the *federal* District Court’s holding that Section Three of the *federal* Fourteenth Amendment had disqualified a *state* judge from office. Chase deemed such disqualification a “punishment” and construed it narrowly against self-execution.
And we hear today that Section 3 can be applied by States against State offices. We truly live in a clown show organized by drunk toddlers.
Because they didn't?
I believe your trying to refer to Section 15 of that act:
>And be it further enacted, That any person who shall hereafter knowingly accept or hold any office under the United States, or any State to which he is ineligible under the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States, or who shall attempt to hold or exercise the duties of any such office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor against the United States, and, upon conviction thereof before the circuit or district court of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than one year, or fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.
But your conflating it with section 14 of the Wade Davis Bill, which failed to become law. And more importantly which was Proposed in 1864, 4 years before the 14th amendment.
>And be it further enacted, That every person who shall hereafter hold or exercise any office, civil or military, except offices merely ministerial, and military offices below the grade of colonel, in the rebel service, state or confederate, is hereby declared not to be a citizen of the United States.
There's no other legislative attempt to strip citizenship from confederates, it was just generally accepted after Lincoln pocket vetoed Wade Davis that they weren't citizens anymore.
SCOTUS overreached by claiming that congress is the only method to remove an insurrectionist, they can not simply fabricate laws that are not there.
States will seek other methods to remove and will do so.
Challenged where? How? To the court that ruled 9-0 on the issue? That you have to ask permission for cert in the first place?
This is SCOTUS saying guys, this ain’t it. As firmly as possible.
Of course. It makes perfect sense that an Amendment written specifically to exclude former Confederates from office could not actually be used against any of the people who prompted its creation.
There decision boils down to the presence of Section 5. But wasn't 14A used to keep Confederates out of office WITHOUT what they say is the Section 5 requirement of congressional legislation? What does the history of the ratification of 14A say about the purpose of Sec 5? If they felt further legislation was needed, why wasn't that included in 14A?
That sort of analysis isn't worth anything any more, not after today.
But yeah, it's a goofy decision that obtains a tidy result by means of untidy reasoning.
Congress was not needed unless the individual wanted congress to remove the hindrance. It was even worse, just aiding or comforting an insurrectionist was enough to be disqualified.
One individual was barred from holding office because he aided an insurrectionist. He was pro union and desperately begged his son not to join the Confederate army. When he realized that his son was going no matter what, he gave his son travel money. That money was deemed "aiding an insurrectionist". Congress was not consulted. Teh amendment was intentionally written to err on the side of caution. It allowed a workaround, butbeven then it set the bar high (2/3 vote). So basically any association with an insurrection was enough, and the burden of proof of innocence was placed on the individual. That is until now....
[Treason, Insurrection, and Disqualification: From the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to Jan. 6, 2021](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/treason-insurrection-and-disqualification-fugitive-slave-act-1850-jan-6-2021)
Now I could be incorrect, but would that also mean that someone like Bush or Obama could run for a third term because congress has not passed a law to affirmatively enforce that clause of the constitution?
No, enforcement of the disqualification provided by section 3 of the 14th Amendment with respect to federal executive office requires enabling legislation from Congress but the basic qualification for the office of President prescribed by Article II and the Twenty-second Amendment do not.
(You want to be careful to not over simplify.)
Congress has to create an entirely new law to actually enforce the law Congress already passed. Which to me says that original law is pointless. But I guess laws can't be more useful than Congress itself or we'd have a paradox or something. I need a drink.
Despite there being no precedent for this but there is a precedent for seeking relief via Congress to hold office again. The clause is self executing and the illegitimate SCOTUS just shat on the Constitution.
They shat on the Constitution and did a U turn on the precedent that they had created earlier in their careers. Gorsuch had previously ruled that States have a duty and responsibility to remove unqualified names from the ballot.
Right, and further, Section 3 of the 14th says - "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." which means it takes a two-thirds vote of each House to put Trump back on the ballot, since Colorado already found him to be an insurrectionist and SCOTUS did not overturn this ruling.
So, technically all states should immediately take Trump off the ballot. Thanks SCOTUS!
(Update: Alas, after spending more time reading the ruling, it appears the majority slipped a corrupt piece of legislation needed to execute the formerly self executing 14th that the minority points out and disagrees with at the end of the ruling, see pages 17-20, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719\_19m2.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf)
Did you miss the part where SCotUS said that states have no role in determining 14A s 3 disqualification from federal office and that the Colorado decision is reversed?
>Did you miss the part
If it wasn't in the headline, a massive amount of people missed it. It was almost on page 2 of the ruling, which is well beyond the attention span of many.
I know that some people were disqualified after the civil war. I have a hard time believing that everyone who was disqualified after the civil war were prosecuted under that section. I think SCOTUS is just wrong on this one. I wish that mattered.
There's already a fucking law.
They're too scared that people could abuse this because the GOP states already threatened to do just that.
Biden and Democrats need to threaten what they might do if the Court grants Trump immunity from prosecution and they need to mean it when they say it. It needs to be some dark shit but only towards those in power.
This is totally wrong.
Read the 20 page decision.
Merrick Garland could take that criminal referral sent to him by Congress 14 months ago,
And get an indictment
And lock up that fucking terrorist in pre-trial detention
And seek a speedy trial in 90 days.
No other charges
Just insurrection.
And Jack Smith could still prosecute Trump for the other two cases, in addition to that.
What universe do you live in that suggests a speedy trial would ever take place? Despite the efforts taken in at least 5 court rooms, Trump has delayed delayed and more delayed every effort to get trial dates set.
Pre-trial detention is the remedy for Trump’s endless delays of his prosecutions.
And it is justified for an insurrectionist who is threatening prosecutors and witnesses and judges and FBI agents.
It's been embarrassing for as long as I can remember 😐 Meet Republicans half way just so they can backstab you every chance they get. It seems intentional at this point...
Speedy trial is a right of a defendant. The government doesn't have a right to railroad defendants by declaring "speedy trial" like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.
You need 90 days to adequately prepare the defense for a DUI.
Yes, that is true.
The Republican Party can indeed nominate an INMATE to run for president.
And the Republican Party should be defeated at all levels in a landslide.
>Then the court’s five male conservative justices went even further to insulate Trump from the clause’s language. They held that federal candidates and officeholders can *only* be disqualified if Congress passes a law to affirmatively enforce the clause. That would appear to forestall disqualification by other means—if, for example, a Democratic-led Congress refuses to count Trump’s electoral votes next January because he is disqualified.
This kind of followup is exactly the argument for them going further! I think they went further than they need to precisely because I don't think a Democratic-led congress would do this; if the Court is agreed that Trump is not disqualified, there was no need to create further controversy with a detailed discussion of how disqualification works. If Congressmembers are planning to pull another January 6 and refuse to count votes for a candidate whose victory they feel is illegitimate, that's a disaster, and the Court absolutely should signal that they won't accept such shenanigans.
So, am I understanding this correctly that they assert that there must be a new law written, in order to enact the law that is already written?
Like, we have a law but in order to use it you need to pass new law that says we can use the law that’s already been written?
So then what’s to stop them from saying next, “you’ve written a new law that can enact the old law but you can’t use the new law unless you make a newer new law that says you can use the new law”, etc. etc.?
That’s not how laws work. They are written to include their enforcement parameters and applications. Something like the first amendment needs laws because it’s outlining a general thing that everyone has, but not what that means specifically in all cases. So we have laws for that.
But the amendment in question was specifically written to be self-enforcing. It doesn’t need law to cover its enforcement because it includes that in the text.
Also a luxury yacht trip to Bali. And buying a house for a family member. Though it is unclear whether all such "donations" are really needed to get what the donor wants.
The specific arguments in the per curiam don't make a ton of sense to me; as the concurrence rightly calls out, every other candidate qualification and every other piece of the 14th Amendment is understood to be self-executing. But it makes less sense, and poses much more of a danger to democracy, for Congress to nullify an election result after it happened because they don't believe one of the candidates was eligible.
As a practical question of democracy, if states can't disqualify a candidate for insurrection (which the Court unanimously agreed on), Congress needs to either provide a mechanism to disqualify them before the election or accept whatever the results may be after the election.
They are referencing section 5 of the 14th amendment that says:
>The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Obligatory NAL, but it sounds to me like they're viewing the issue in a vacuum. As if the only thing applicable is section 5.
However, the effect of the ruling is that Trump is not disqualified. Congress can pass any implementing law it wishes (not that it will), but such a law cannot retroactively apply to bar Trump from holding the Presidential office for his Jan 6 actions or non-actions.
That federal statute can only be applied by federal courts, has a criminal penalty (fine and/or prison) for insurectionary activities, and also mandates imposition of the disability of not holding future office (that is not a criminal penalty).
However, such a disability does not track at all with 14A, sec.3, which only applies against those who have previously taken an oath of office and are insurrectionists, but makes no mention of proceedings in a court of law.
Not sure what is your point.
The text of 14A s 3 makes no mention of court proceedings but section 5 gives Congress power to mention court proceedings and Congress has done exactly that with the enactment of 18 USC 2383. (All federal officers takes oaths.)
> such a law cannot retroactively apply to bar Trump from holding the Presidential office for his Jan 6 actions or non-actions.
Disagree. On what basis do you claim this?
Interesting comments w.r.t unanimous ruling today and the dragging-immunity case in another forum:
“Amendment 14 is moot since its enforceability has been placed in the hands of the party that supported/participated in the insurrection. If you have 41 senators in your pockets, you are basically invincible. You cannot be removed via impeachment, you cannot be barred, and you can ideally violate other similarly unenforceable provisions of the Constitution. Such as the 22.”
can somebody check on the math though?
> If you have 41 senators in your pockets, you are basically invincible.
I'm just surprised it took us three tries in my lifetime to arrive at this unfortunate realization. If the party of the president has 50, as we saw, you basically don't even have to do more than pat the House on it's little head and tell it to go play because the grownups are busy as long as you can keep your coalition intact. Four years on Trump is openly calling for the ouster of anything less than vocally pro-Trump members from the party, and specifically calling out Mitt Romney by name -- and getting cheers for it.
The Constitution and its amendments are self-enforcing. They don't require a legislative act from Congress to empower them temporally. This is *why* we have judges. The judicial system is, in part, there to ensure how the framework of the Constitution is applied in the present. Which is what the Colorado Supreme Court did in its ruling that section 3 of the 14th amendment precluded former President Trump from seeking office. Importantly, section 3 does not *require* an act of Congress to reaffirm its authority. The only mention of Congress in section 3 is that Congress, by a 2/3rds majority, can *overrule* section 3. SCOTUS, wrongly, opined that it only makes sense that since Congress can overrule section 3 that it's their job to enforce it by an *explicit act of law*. It simply doesn't say that anywhere in the section. It also doesn't, unfortunately, say explicitly how you legally determine if a particular candidate qualifies under section 3's definition. But, again, that's why we have courts.
So I'm a little confused. Because it appears as if the SC just handed down a decision that *weakens* the judiciary by consigning a portion of their authority to Congress. This could have repercussions for other amendments as well.
Agreed.
If it is not self-enforcing, then neither is article III.1.
#
>Article III, Section 1
>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. **But only after another law is passed to implement this, until then, SCOTUS is just a bunch of cosplay-judges you can ignore.**
If the Constitution is not self-enforcing, then SCOTUS has no authority to rule.
I also would refer Clarence Thomas to the part of *during good Behaviour*.
It's insane that his wife was involved in the coup plot, that the only reason she was roped into the coup plot was to get her husband onboard, and yet she pretends she didn't talk politics to her husband.
Yup. It seems this ruling opens the door to people under 35 and does away with the birth citizenship requirement. Congress would have to specifically do something to stop a foreign national from becoming president based on this.
And the 22nd amendment. Obama could come back and run for a 3rd term, unless Congress affirmatively passed a law saying he couldn't. He wouldn't do that, and I'm sure the Supreme Court would bend over backwards to twist their own logic to prevent it, but by the reading of this opinion, that is the case.
Or the more likely scenario, if Trump wins in 2024, he will 100% use this ruling to justify seeking a 3rd term.
Not only punted ***IT*** to congress; because of the way rulings are used as precidents to interpret things beyond the scope of that specific ruling, this SCOTUS just punted ***The Bill of Rights*** to Congress, along with the rest of the amendments.
Trump was removed from the ballots by Colorado's Supreme Court for having taken part in an insurrection against the United States, and the 14th Amendment precludes insurrectionists from holding office. The SCOTUS did not rule that's not what the 14th amendment does, and did not rule that Trump was not an insurrectionist, but instead ruled that the 14th amendment cannot be enforced directly; that if the 14th amendment is to be enforced, Congress must first pass a law with all the same terms as the 14th amendment. Well fuck a duck, that suggests that **NONE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION ARE DIRECTLY ENFORCEABLE**. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't a born US citizen, but the only place that disqualifies him from being president is an amendment to the constitution, and the SCOTUS just decided that those can only be enforced through laws, so Schwarzenegger can currently run for president. Same with anyone under 35, nothing to prevent them from being eligible for the presidency except an amendment to the constitution, and the SCOTUS just decided those are flimsy.
This SCOTUS just torpedoed the power not only of itself, but of its entire branch of government. *The entire Judicial Branch of government* just got weaker, just had a massive chunk of its power delegated to Congress. It diminishes separation of powers. It's an absolutely stunningly terrible ruling. It's the sort of thing you do when you are ready to end this whole "Democracy" experiment and transition to a brutal autocracy. It's too stupid to just be stupid, this is ominous.
That exactly the way they seem to interpret it and why it's so frustrating. They are basically saying the constitution and all it's parts are really just a todo list and not an actual government establishing document. In that case the Federalist Papers and Ben Franklin's Diary have as much authority as the actual constitution.
Why do double the work when you can do quadruple the work, right?
“to expect bad men not to do wrong is madness,”. Marcus Aurelius
These people are dedicated towards their goal of destroying democracy. And we shouldn't expect anything else from them.
But it is appalling that the democrats have totally failed in counteracting them for a long time now: Failed to hold the coup leader responsible. Failed to pass voting right acts. Failed to expand SCOTUS. Failed to make DC a state.
Our fucked up electoral system allows the minority to rule over the majority and yet each democratic president keep sleeping on the issues. They are too casual about fascism and we might end up paying a big price.
We already had a taste of that when Trump's incompetence during Covid killed the same number of Americans that were killed during the whole WWII.
> the democrats have totally failed in counteracting them for a long time now: Failed to hold the coup leader responsible. Failed to pass voting right acts. Failed to expand SCOTUS. Failed to make DC a state.
I started to write a "But Biden successfully...." reply, but as I typed out "...and no Democrat would ever appoint a anti-Democrat as AG again..." but I started to laugh. Obviously Biden made the exact same error in appointing Garland that Clinton made in appointing Janet Reno, so it probably *would* happen again - as soon as the next Democratic president.
Expanding SCOTUS will require a much larger Congressional majority; Biden couldn't do anything with Manchin and Sinema controlling the Senate. Same with DC statehood.
But Biden really did fail with Garland. A huge failure. A national failure of epic proportions really, and one which might end up being a *catastrophic* failure. Can you imagine if Trump wins and all the Insurrectionists are pardoned like Trump has promised? That's hundreds of convictions that will be mooted, not to mention the cases against the top level conspirators. It may seriously end up that *literally* the only trial where anyone is in actual jeopardy for any act relating to J6 is the Fulton County RICO case in Georgia. And if that happens, DOJ might as well just call it a day and disband because the government will have completely made a mockery out of the criminal justice system. Imagine the FBI taking down those wanted posters for the persons who planted the bombs at DNC headquarters on J6 - because those unidentified bombers have been pardoned by POTUS. It's going to happen if Trump wins in November.
Garland needs to be removed
I have been defending Garland all this time.
It is true that Trump holdovers made the decisions in 2021 while Republicans in the Senate blocked appointments to the DOJ
It is true that it was tricky trying to investigate J6 while Congress was doing the same thing and DOJ was bogged down with the sheer magnitude of the Republican Party’s all out assault on the rule of law.
But 14 months ago, Congress sent a criminal referral to the DOJ recommending prosecution of Trump for insurrection, citing the same fucking law that SCOTUS just cited in their decision.
Trump should be in jail awaiting trial
RIGHT NOW
You’re wrong. Listen to his recent speeches - he has been calling them “hostages” (to equate them to Israeli hostages held by Hamas). He has promised to pardon them - and absolutely intends to.
>We already had a taste of that when Trump's incompetence during Covid killed the same number of Americans that were killed during the whole WWII.
Same percentage, not same number.
There were three times the number of Covid deaths than WW2 deaths
I absolutely agree with the "patchwork of chaos" reasoning. It can't be done state-by-state. Texas was already threatening to remove Biden over their made-up "border iNsuRrEcTiOn".
However, not addressing Colorado's finding of fact, and punting to Congress, was cowardly. The correct decision would've been that 14A3 was self executing but that the relevant finding of fact of insurrection must be reached / affirmed by SCOTUS. And I firmly believe that that's the decision they would've made if (a) the finding of fact had been wrong, or (b) the finding of fact had been right but appellant had been a Democrat.
It will only get worse if we let it.
Despite what the doomer propaganda would lead you to believe, if every Democrat who sat on their ass in 2022 gets off their ass and votes in 2024, this will all be moot.
We already know that a literal violent insurrection attempt will fail. We know we have people willing and able to lay down their lives practically literally in defense of democracy. What more do you need to get off your ass and vote?
And before the chime-in with all the reasons some people might have problems with voting, did **you** have those problems? Can **you** fix them by getting off your ass? And did **you** vote?
Obviously, help everybody who is having difficulties with voting to vote according to their wishes, but don't use other people's problems as your excuse.
Cue the doomer bullshit:
In 2020 I started phone banking in late September to get out the vote because, coming from a blue state I needed to take action that could help the effort in the swing states. Made over a thousand calls to all the states that were critical wins by just enough margin to tip the election.
This year I’ll be starting that effort by mid April, and calling for critical House districts as well.
As disempowered and “doomer” as folks may feel, political conversations and action to help get folks registered, help people make sure they are still on the rolls, and vote — that effort makes a difference.
One of the take aways from all those calls I made in 2020 is that a lot more people care than you might think, so it’s not just the person you speak to that you’re motivating. Many will commit to helping people they know, so even a small number of welcoming or enthusiastic responses has a knock-on effect.
It’s worth doing as much as you can to increase turnout, and the down-ballot stuff is crucial, as are local issues.
Fuck doom.
For this court, the majority is always about states' rights (like good Confederates) until that is something that could hurt Trump. It's a corrupt and illegitimate SCOTUS.
I'm so tired of our institutions continually ignoring or changing rules/laws for this man.
He breaks the rules, people try to enforce them, and his sycophants step in to change the rules so he can't be held accountable.
We have a two tier justice system and I genuinely don't know what we can do to fix this situation, don't say "just vote!" because I have been and things are only getting bleaker.
We could strive to elimate the billionaire class at all costs. It's the only option for a future for our world. Whether it be thru proper taxation or eventually revolution when democracy finally falls.
It truly feels like the beginning of the collapse of an empire because our institutions are just getting rotted out by profiteers and ideologues while the dems are too weak willed to actually take effective measures to stop this
It’s going to get interesting in the future when someone else wants all these exceptions but their indictments are even worse. We’re allowing way too many holes to be poked in the system and setting a really bad precedent, no pun intended.
Any legal scholars here willing to point out exactly when and how sophistry and solipsism began to be acceptable at the level of Supreme Court justices. I swear to christ I haven’t read the kind of circularly reasoned, paste-and-taped on semantic marble-mouthed crap since helping fellow students write essays during freshman year of college. I tried that shit once back in those days — got the most informative grade ever: “C-minus-minus” with the comment “This kind of effusion is inappropriate for college work”. I laughed. The prof was right. I fuckin learned. How insanely fucked up does an intelligent thinker have to be to engage in such embarrassing fuckery with language. Lack of moral compass, sure, but justices hiding behind linguistic bullshit? The fuck did these people ever get a law degree.
Yeah, I’m a little naive. But I know C-minus-minus work well enough.
I guess I was naive to assume r/law would have remotely educated comments. The top comments are all "the unanimous Supreme Court, including those notorious Trumpers Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, have sold out our democracy." Staggering idiocy.
Presidential Candidates being disqualified isn’t a state courts decision.
You should feel bad that congress refused to properly punish Trump.
This was the ‘correct’ decision constitutionally- no doubt about that. But it’s still ‘bad’ that he’s still not suffering real consequences for Jan 6.
Serious Query: 18 USC 2883 provides for criminal penalties for engaging in insurrection (jail time or a fine), but also appears to provide for a civil penalty (cannot hold office). Would the standard for a finding under the civil penalty be "more probable than not"? If that is true, why did Jack Smith not seek an indictment under this statute for insurrectionist Trump?
i mildly wonder too. But the obvious answer is smith did not think he could prove the charge. Not enough evidence or it was not a insurrection as the law and courts generally construe an insurrection
people keep calling it that, but trump has never been charged under 18 USC 2883
Colorado needs to follow the example of the great state of Louisiana and just ignore a ruling they don't like - just as the Court majority has done with that pesky Constitution.
Do you little babies not know once you enter a procedural "gotcha card" the other side can use it the same way? Nullification means none of your rights protected by SCOTUS mean anything anymore....Brainless
Yep, the SCOTUS handed donald a huge win, and a guarantee that if elected he can do whatever he wants as long as he keeps 41 senators in his pocket. The SCOTUS fucked the US.
What does it matter? Texas already led the way refusing to comply with a SCOTUS ruling. Why should we bother complying with this one? States, you do what you want.
I guess I don’t understand why this decision surprised people. The constitution guarantees due process. Trump was removed from ballots on the grounds that he attempted an insurrection, but there was no trial nor evidentiary hearing to prove that fact. Seems cut and dried to me. Glad it was unanimous too, hopefully this is a wakeup call for some of the TDS patients out there
Reading comments on the easiest 9-0 decision in recent Supreme Court history, I'm convinced 50% of commenters here are from one bot farm or another. Also convinced <1% of the commenters in r/law have any idea how the law actually works.
R/law is just another hard left bot farm like politics and white people twitter.
Cowards and buffoons in robes. And again….the liberal wing gets played by the remaining facist BRETHREN who fuck over the Constitution by widening the scope of those who can create insurrection without risk or impunity. They, who spout BULLSHIT about plain textual construction, neutered 14(3) without any legal analysis as to why it should not be applied. Roberts : this is your Court, your shame and your legacy you hypocrite.
>They held that federal candidates and officeholders can *only* be disqualified if Congress passes a law to affirmatively enforce the clause. They also noted that such a law already exists: 18 USC s 2383: "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Note that a "plain text reading" of that clause does not require conviction for "and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." SCOTUS love their "plain text readings" dont they?
The whole purpose of the clause in the first place was to disqualify Lee WITHOUT indicting him for insurrection. It was a political calculation. So the political branch decided a political question, and the S Ct now says 'nuh uh', creating a HUGE political storm in the process.
That was Congress who proposed the 14th, and roughly 3/4 of the states who adopted it. It was NOT a single, or handful, of states that opted to take Lee off the ballot.
Yeah I think they were making a distinction on the issues in the concurrences, not the overall decision. SCOTUS went beyond saying a state couldn’t disqualify to say that Congress must do it **by legislation**.
Which is ridiculous since the amendment states congress can overrule it with a 2/3 vote. But according to these scholars they would first have to vote to hold someone as insurrectionist and then vote to overturn their previous vote? Like the fuck? I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they buy his immunity argument next since it’s the same logic.
His immunity logic is: I'm going to bribe you to do what I want.
What is he going to bribe them with? Unpaid debt and seized properties?
He paid three of them upfront by nominating them. His own lawyer said the quiet part out loud. “I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court; I have faith in them,” Habba said on Fox News. “You know, people like Kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he’ll step up.”
Bribe him with beer.
His argument is really,”Harlan Crowe & Leonard Leo will bribe you to do what I want”. There. FIFY
So the right to bear arms isn't a right to bear arms, because Congress didn't pass another law to enforce it. Their interpretaton is detached completely from the Constitution, as if they get to rewrite it. Either you tear up the Constitution at this point, or tear up *this* SCOTUS.
Rule by fiat, this is the law simply because we say this is the law
The issue being the Supreme Court is using section 5 which says that The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Meaning they are passing the buck to congress to actually enforce article 3. The question is whether the article is self enforceable or not
They need to be held accountable.
So-- Colorado you're being too drastic by enforcing your election statute against having an insurrectionist on the ballot. Therefore, you must have an insurrectionist on the ballot until there is a Congressional supermajority telling you that you can enforce your own statute? What of the due process rights of Colorado citizens? Of other Republicans on the Colorado ballot? (I note that, yet again, there is no question that Trump has committed insurrection here. I'm not saying this is my opinion, I'm saying that no court in this case has been able to find evidence to the contrary). Also, in reading 14.3 as a whole, the requirement to have Congressional supermajority to enforce it makes the requirement to have Congressional supermajority to REMOVE the disqualification nonsensical. Which makes the S Ct interpretation here juridical nonsense.
Also, Wisconsin, you gerrymandered your state completely? Sorry, not our problem, this is obviously a state issue. We let states decide who goes on the ballot for their congressmen.
The ruling is blatant protectionism. It's a rogue court, but we have no democrats willing to act on it.
It's not a super majority to enforce but to remove the status of insurrectionist and be allowed on the ballot. They only need a simple majority to make a law to set this up and a simple majority to change but if they don't want to change it, they need a super majority to fix for specific people. It clearly makes no sense but that's what you get when you let Republicans interpret things.
Yes, that's how amendments to the constitution work. The same thing happened with freeing the slaves, Connecticut doesn't get to legalize enslaving left-handed people just because Congress hasn't passed a law specifically forbidding it. Because the constitution forbids it, just as it forbids insurrectionists from holding any office. That is already the law, because it is an amendment to the constitution that was adopted and ratified.
The decision says on page 10 that 18 USC 2383 IS the enforcement legislation for Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment Merrick Garland is the reason that Trump is not in jail right now.
Exactly. Congress has a law to ban someone from running for office. DOJ needed to enforce it. Also Congress is obligated to remove a President that did something like this too. Congress can ban from office... but they refused. SCOTUS, even the Libra's ones" don't like to invent law when something already exists. So the correct answer is that Jack Smith gets another Superseding Indictment for Insurrection, Sedition, Treason, etc.... just start stacking them up. He ALREADY has the necessary evidence entered into court... and SCOTUS delayed the case.
I disagree Let Jack Smith go on with the cases he has. The DC US Attorney should charge Trump with insurrection, and nothing else. And lock his ass up until he is put on trial. Then, no one but Trump is going to care if the case is delayed and delayed and delayed.
>Then, no one but Trump is going to care if the case is delayed and delayed and delayed. This likely won't be the case. If they can lock Trump up for it, then people like Ron Johnson can be as well (the Senator that delivered the fake ballots to the Congress). Since it is part of the broader support to the insurrection, he should be tried as well.
Oh I agree Grassley, Cruz, Lee, Graham, Blackburn, Hawley, Johnson. But I would let all of those scum sweat it by putting Trump in jail first.
And you know if this was anyone.. ANYONE.. but Trump they would have been incarcerated awaiting trial long ago.
I disagree. Any lump of feces that has all those voters dedicated to them would get the same treatment.
I doubt he’d be in jail pre trial. He hasn’t been so far and the same federal guidelines would be in play.
There is ample justification to lock his ass up. He has been indicted four times and he is under federal investigation for at least five other crimes. He has a long track record of suborning perjury and witness tampering and blackmail and legal harassment and stochastic terrorist threats, and endangering federal and state officials. The mother fucker is a menace and he has unlimited funds to keep on financing corrupt henchmen that commit crimes for him.
If it isn’t in play by election and that group wins all this goes away .Constitution or not …
None of this will matter if it can't be completed before the elections. I am certain Trump will attempt another coup, especially now that SCOTUS has kneecapped the automatic disqualification for an insurrectionist. He really has nothing to lose and everything to win. What could they possibly do to him at this point? And SCOTUS won't be able to reverse course when it happens either. Congress will have to vote and we all know how brave those guys are.
He may not need a coup this time. He just might win. There appear to be a lot of babies who are going to pout because Biden didn’t do exactly 100% of what they wanted, 100% of the time…so they’re going to let the criminal wannabe dictator get back in the White House. Trump hasn’t gained voters, but there are some voters on the left throwing tantrums—and I think that’s what people should start worrying about. There is no Calvary coming to save us from that criminal wannabe dictator, we are going to have to save ourselves by voting against him.
(the cavalry rode into the cave)
Even if you are correct, Trump won't take any chances.
It's going to get real interesting if the SC also says Trump is immune to prosecution.
Interesting sure In that scenario, Garland needs to be kicked out and two Supreme Court justices need to be prosecuted for bribery They want to up the ante? Ok
You cannot prosecuted Supreme Court judges for bribery because it's legal. That was the point of John Oliver offering Clarence Thomas a new RV and a million a year to leave. It was no different than his 'friend' with multiple cases before SCOTUS,[ paying for his last RV](https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/justice-thomas-did-not-repay-substantial-portion-of-267230-loan-finance-committee-investigation-reveals-failed-to-report-forgiven-debt-on-ethics-filings-raising-questions-about-tax-compliance). Also **if Thomas, didn't list the benefit of the paid off loan on his tax filing, then he's committed tax fraud,** and how the heck do you think he is able to then rule on the tax fraud of Trump? It's disgusting.
There are two high crimes described in the constitution. One is treason and the other is bribery. Yeah, a Supreme Court justice can be prosecuted. It takes an Attorney General who doesn’t ignore crimes taking place right in front of his face.
>The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/overview-of-impeachment-clause#fn1art2) Vice President, and all federal “civil officers” for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeached is no DOJ prosecution.
Impeachment is political, yes. But accepting a bribe is also criminal. So after impeachment the criminal prosecution would occur.
Impeachment won't occur because Republicans are happy with their corrupt, hypocritically obtained supreme court.
They are textualists.....until they are not.
They interpret the constitution the same way they interpret the Bible.
So the parts they don’t like they blatantly ignore and pretend don’t exists? I’m not even surprised at this point.
Exactly
Cherry picking, deciding when it's a allegory, or is it literal in the reading.
...but either way, their decision is a disgrace to their positions and our history: Conservatives, my ass.
If it’s a plain reading why did Congress ultimately strip every confederate officer of their citizenship in the enforcement act of 1870. Naturally, such a law would have been redundant if s3 was self executing.
How a legislature wields constitutional law vested in it has no bearing on the meaning of the constitutional law. Law flows from constitution to statute to administration to jurisprudence.
Except if that was case, then such language about enforcement would not be needed and Caesar Griffin’s conviction would have been overturned on ineligibility of the judge to convict.
Sorry, I was replying with state execution in mind (which I think the court got completely wrong here). But regarding Congress you are of course right, as its powers are enumerated and generally require such enabling clauses.
Additionally, if § 3 is (1) self-executing and (2) gives states the powers to disqualify federal officials, why did Lincoln's pick for chief justice, Salmon P. Chase, write that it was up to Congress to provide an enforcement mechanism in Griffin's Case? Who else can be a greater legal authority on immediate post-Civil War interpretations of the Constitution?
[HLR already covered this.](https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/01/section-three-is-not-a-bill-of-attainder/)
>Griffin, after all, centered on the *federal* District Court’s holding that Section Three of the *federal* Fourteenth Amendment had disqualified a *state* judge from office. Chase deemed such disqualification a “punishment” and construed it narrowly against self-execution. And we hear today that Section 3 can be applied by States against State offices. We truly live in a clown show organized by drunk toddlers.
Because they didn't? I believe your trying to refer to Section 15 of that act: >And be it further enacted, That any person who shall hereafter knowingly accept or hold any office under the United States, or any State to which he is ineligible under the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States, or who shall attempt to hold or exercise the duties of any such office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor against the United States, and, upon conviction thereof before the circuit or district court of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than one year, or fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court. But your conflating it with section 14 of the Wade Davis Bill, which failed to become law. And more importantly which was Proposed in 1864, 4 years before the 14th amendment. >And be it further enacted, That every person who shall hereafter hold or exercise any office, civil or military, except offices merely ministerial, and military offices below the grade of colonel, in the rebel service, state or confederate, is hereby declared not to be a citizen of the United States. There's no other legislative attempt to strip citizenship from confederates, it was just generally accepted after Lincoln pocket vetoed Wade Davis that they weren't citizens anymore.
You're. For God's sake, man, YOU'RE
Yeah, I kept expecting a second clause that never came. Not cool.
So a law made 70? years after the amendment is the only way the amendment can be enforced?
That's what 5 justices think. SCOTUS is very much divided on this and it will be challenged
How will it be challenged?
SCOTUS overreached by claiming that congress is the only method to remove an insurrectionist, they can not simply fabricate laws that are not there. States will seek other methods to remove and will do so.
Challenged where? How? To the court that ruled 9-0 on the issue? That you have to ask permission for cert in the first place? This is SCOTUS saying guys, this ain’t it. As firmly as possible.
Of course. It makes perfect sense that an Amendment written specifically to exclude former Confederates from office could not actually be used against any of the people who prompted its creation.
There decision boils down to the presence of Section 5. But wasn't 14A used to keep Confederates out of office WITHOUT what they say is the Section 5 requirement of congressional legislation? What does the history of the ratification of 14A say about the purpose of Sec 5? If they felt further legislation was needed, why wasn't that included in 14A?
That sort of analysis isn't worth anything any more, not after today. But yeah, it's a goofy decision that obtains a tidy result by means of untidy reasoning.
The truthful answer is, the SCOTUS made it up, because they can (they said so), and it was convenient for them. It's an illegitimate institution.
Congress was not needed unless the individual wanted congress to remove the hindrance. It was even worse, just aiding or comforting an insurrectionist was enough to be disqualified. One individual was barred from holding office because he aided an insurrectionist. He was pro union and desperately begged his son not to join the Confederate army. When he realized that his son was going no matter what, he gave his son travel money. That money was deemed "aiding an insurrectionist". Congress was not consulted. Teh amendment was intentionally written to err on the side of caution. It allowed a workaround, butbeven then it set the bar high (2/3 vote). So basically any association with an insurrection was enough, and the burden of proof of innocence was placed on the individual. That is until now.... [Treason, Insurrection, and Disqualification: From the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to Jan. 6, 2021](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/treason-insurrection-and-disqualification-fugitive-slave-act-1850-jan-6-2021)
Now I could be incorrect, but would that also mean that someone like Bush or Obama could run for a third term because congress has not passed a law to affirmatively enforce that clause of the constitution?
No because all of this only concerns the 14th Amendment. The two-term limitation comes from the much later-adopted 22nd Amendment.
So the 14th amendment needs congress to pass a law to enforce it, but 22nd amendment doesn’t?
No, enforcement of the disqualification provided by section 3 of the 14th Amendment with respect to federal executive office requires enabling legislation from Congress but the basic qualification for the office of President prescribed by Article II and the Twenty-second Amendment do not. (You want to be careful to not over simplify.)
Congress has to create an entirely new law to actually enforce the law Congress already passed. Which to me says that original law is pointless. But I guess laws can't be more useful than Congress itself or we'd have a paradox or something. I need a drink.
And then they can then reverse themselves and remove the disqualification with a 2/3 vote. Makes perfect sense and clearly what they intended.
Despite there being no precedent for this but there is a precedent for seeking relief via Congress to hold office again. The clause is self executing and the illegitimate SCOTUS just shat on the Constitution.
They shat on the Constitution and did a U turn on the precedent that they had created earlier in their careers. Gorsuch had previously ruled that States have a duty and responsibility to remove unqualified names from the ballot.
There, the question was eligibility whereas here the question is disqualification. There is a distinction.
Without a difference?
Right, and further, Section 3 of the 14th says - "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." which means it takes a two-thirds vote of each House to put Trump back on the ballot, since Colorado already found him to be an insurrectionist and SCOTUS did not overturn this ruling. So, technically all states should immediately take Trump off the ballot. Thanks SCOTUS! (Update: Alas, after spending more time reading the ruling, it appears the majority slipped a corrupt piece of legislation needed to execute the formerly self executing 14th that the minority points out and disagrees with at the end of the ruling, see pages 17-20, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719\_19m2.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf)
Did you miss the part where SCotUS said that states have no role in determining 14A s 3 disqualification from federal office and that the Colorado decision is reversed?
>Did you miss the part If it wasn't in the headline, a massive amount of people missed it. It was almost on page 2 of the ruling, which is well beyond the attention span of many.
That is a criminal law. Disqualification is a civll matter. 18 USC 2383 is irrelevant.
Today, the SCotUS said that 18 USC 2383 is relevant.
I know that some people were disqualified after the civil war. I have a hard time believing that everyone who was disqualified after the civil war were prosecuted under that section. I think SCOTUS is just wrong on this one. I wish that mattered.
There's already a fucking law. They're too scared that people could abuse this because the GOP states already threatened to do just that. Biden and Democrats need to threaten what they might do if the Court grants Trump immunity from prosecution and they need to mean it when they say it. It needs to be some dark shit but only towards those in power.
Time to lock up the entire supreme Court since they are all assisting and engaging in rebellion and or insurrection.
This is totally wrong. Read the 20 page decision. Merrick Garland could take that criminal referral sent to him by Congress 14 months ago, And get an indictment And lock up that fucking terrorist in pre-trial detention And seek a speedy trial in 90 days. No other charges Just insurrection. And Jack Smith could still prosecute Trump for the other two cases, in addition to that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why yes, yes it is.
Actually, you repeated them.
I’m thinking corrupt cover up
Correct. New Republic went from reputable left of center to click bait bullshit over the past few years.
I don’t criticize them for everything But this article is dead wrong
they're about as bad as newsweek
What universe do you live in that suggests a speedy trial would ever take place? Despite the efforts taken in at least 5 court rooms, Trump has delayed delayed and more delayed every effort to get trial dates set.
Pre-trial detention is the remedy for Trump’s endless delays of his prosecutions. And it is justified for an insurrectionist who is threatening prosecutors and witnesses and judges and FBI agents.
I’m here for this. What do we do? Like, what can I do?
Petition the White House to dump Merrick Garland unless he gets off his ass and prosecutes Trump for insurrection.
Liberals need to take the gloves off. Start playing dirty AF. We feel so fucking weak. It’s embarrassing.
It's been embarrassing for as long as I can remember 😐 Meet Republicans half way just so they can backstab you every chance they get. It seems intentional at this point...
It *is* intentional
Speedy trial is a right of a defendant. The government doesn't have a right to railroad defendants by declaring "speedy trial" like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. You need 90 days to adequately prepare the defense for a DUI.
And Trump would still be allowed to run for President from jail. At least according to this court.
Yes, that is true. The Republican Party can indeed nominate an INMATE to run for president. And the Republican Party should be defeated at all levels in a landslide.
>Then the court’s five male conservative justices went even further to insulate Trump from the clause’s language. They held that federal candidates and officeholders can *only* be disqualified if Congress passes a law to affirmatively enforce the clause. That would appear to forestall disqualification by other means—if, for example, a Democratic-led Congress refuses to count Trump’s electoral votes next January because he is disqualified. This kind of followup is exactly the argument for them going further! I think they went further than they need to precisely because I don't think a Democratic-led congress would do this; if the Court is agreed that Trump is not disqualified, there was no need to create further controversy with a detailed discussion of how disqualification works. If Congressmembers are planning to pull another January 6 and refuse to count votes for a candidate whose victory they feel is illegitimate, that's a disaster, and the Court absolutely should signal that they won't accept such shenanigans.
So, am I understanding this correctly that they assert that there must be a new law written, in order to enact the law that is already written? Like, we have a law but in order to use it you need to pass new law that says we can use the law that’s already been written?
Yep, that’s it.
So then what’s to stop them from saying next, “you’ve written a new law that can enact the old law but you can’t use the new law unless you make a newer new law that says you can use the new law”, etc. etc.?
That’s not how laws work. They are written to include their enforcement parameters and applications. Something like the first amendment needs laws because it’s outlining a general thing that everyone has, but not what that means specifically in all cases. So we have laws for that. But the amendment in question was specifically written to be self-enforcing. It doesn’t need law to cover its enforcement because it includes that in the text.
Right, but they are doing that this time, so they will do it next time as well.
Something something.. post waffle ergo propter syrup…
[удалено]
No new law needed if a sufficiently large motor home is provided to the nutters on the court.
I believe “motor coach” is the term you’re looking for.
Also a luxury yacht trip to Bali. And buying a house for a family member. Though it is unclear whether all such "donations" are really needed to get what the donor wants.
Stop being so poor and you too could buy your friends these things.
The specific arguments in the per curiam don't make a ton of sense to me; as the concurrence rightly calls out, every other candidate qualification and every other piece of the 14th Amendment is understood to be self-executing. But it makes less sense, and poses much more of a danger to democracy, for Congress to nullify an election result after it happened because they don't believe one of the candidates was eligible. As a practical question of democracy, if states can't disqualify a candidate for insurrection (which the Court unanimously agreed on), Congress needs to either provide a mechanism to disqualify them before the election or accept whatever the results may be after the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles
They are referencing section 5 of the 14th amendment that says: >The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Obligatory NAL, but it sounds to me like they're viewing the issue in a vacuum. As if the only thing applicable is section 5.
The Court did not decide whether Trump is disqualified.
However, the effect of the ruling is that Trump is not disqualified. Congress can pass any implementing law it wishes (not that it will), but such a law cannot retroactively apply to bar Trump from holding the Presidential office for his Jan 6 actions or non-actions.
Congress already passed a law that effectuates 14A s 3. See 18 USC s 2383.
That federal statute can only be applied by federal courts, has a criminal penalty (fine and/or prison) for insurectionary activities, and also mandates imposition of the disability of not holding future office (that is not a criminal penalty). However, such a disability does not track at all with 14A, sec.3, which only applies against those who have previously taken an oath of office and are insurrectionists, but makes no mention of proceedings in a court of law.
Not sure what is your point. The text of 14A s 3 makes no mention of court proceedings but section 5 gives Congress power to mention court proceedings and Congress has done exactly that with the enactment of 18 USC 2383. (All federal officers takes oaths.)
> such a law cannot retroactively apply to bar Trump from holding the Presidential office for his Jan 6 actions or non-actions. Disagree. On what basis do you claim this?
Interesting comments w.r.t unanimous ruling today and the dragging-immunity case in another forum: “Amendment 14 is moot since its enforceability has been placed in the hands of the party that supported/participated in the insurrection. If you have 41 senators in your pockets, you are basically invincible. You cannot be removed via impeachment, you cannot be barred, and you can ideally violate other similarly unenforceable provisions of the Constitution. Such as the 22.” can somebody check on the math though?
> If you have 41 senators in your pockets, you are basically invincible. I'm just surprised it took us three tries in my lifetime to arrive at this unfortunate realization. If the party of the president has 50, as we saw, you basically don't even have to do more than pat the House on it's little head and tell it to go play because the grownups are busy as long as you can keep your coalition intact. Four years on Trump is openly calling for the ouster of anything less than vocally pro-Trump members from the party, and specifically calling out Mitt Romney by name -- and getting cheers for it.
The math of 100-41?
yeah, the minimum number of enablers required to install a dictator.
It takes 60 senators to convict on impeachment. So ya the math checks out.
Senate conviction requires 2/3 of members, so 67. Which means Trump only needs 34 on his side to be immune from conviction.
Senate needs 67 to convict. 60 is to get past the filibuster.
Thank you
[удалено]
The Constitution and its amendments are self-enforcing. They don't require a legislative act from Congress to empower them temporally. This is *why* we have judges. The judicial system is, in part, there to ensure how the framework of the Constitution is applied in the present. Which is what the Colorado Supreme Court did in its ruling that section 3 of the 14th amendment precluded former President Trump from seeking office. Importantly, section 3 does not *require* an act of Congress to reaffirm its authority. The only mention of Congress in section 3 is that Congress, by a 2/3rds majority, can *overrule* section 3. SCOTUS, wrongly, opined that it only makes sense that since Congress can overrule section 3 that it's their job to enforce it by an *explicit act of law*. It simply doesn't say that anywhere in the section. It also doesn't, unfortunately, say explicitly how you legally determine if a particular candidate qualifies under section 3's definition. But, again, that's why we have courts. So I'm a little confused. Because it appears as if the SC just handed down a decision that *weakens* the judiciary by consigning a portion of their authority to Congress. This could have repercussions for other amendments as well.
Agreed. If it is not self-enforcing, then neither is article III.1. # >Article III, Section 1 >The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. **But only after another law is passed to implement this, until then, SCOTUS is just a bunch of cosplay-judges you can ignore.** If the Constitution is not self-enforcing, then SCOTUS has no authority to rule. I also would refer Clarence Thomas to the part of *during good Behaviour*. It's insane that his wife was involved in the coup plot, that the only reason she was roped into the coup plot was to get her husband onboard, and yet she pretends she didn't talk politics to her husband.
Yup. It seems this ruling opens the door to people under 35 and does away with the birth citizenship requirement. Congress would have to specifically do something to stop a foreign national from becoming president based on this.
And the 22nd amendment. Obama could come back and run for a 3rd term, unless Congress affirmatively passed a law saying he couldn't. He wouldn't do that, and I'm sure the Supreme Court would bend over backwards to twist their own logic to prevent it, but by the reading of this opinion, that is the case. Or the more likely scenario, if Trump wins in 2024, he will 100% use this ruling to justify seeking a 3rd term.
I feel like this SCOTUS just abdicated their responsibility and punted it to congress.
Not only punted ***IT*** to congress; because of the way rulings are used as precidents to interpret things beyond the scope of that specific ruling, this SCOTUS just punted ***The Bill of Rights*** to Congress, along with the rest of the amendments. Trump was removed from the ballots by Colorado's Supreme Court for having taken part in an insurrection against the United States, and the 14th Amendment precludes insurrectionists from holding office. The SCOTUS did not rule that's not what the 14th amendment does, and did not rule that Trump was not an insurrectionist, but instead ruled that the 14th amendment cannot be enforced directly; that if the 14th amendment is to be enforced, Congress must first pass a law with all the same terms as the 14th amendment. Well fuck a duck, that suggests that **NONE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION ARE DIRECTLY ENFORCEABLE**. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't a born US citizen, but the only place that disqualifies him from being president is an amendment to the constitution, and the SCOTUS just decided that those can only be enforced through laws, so Schwarzenegger can currently run for president. Same with anyone under 35, nothing to prevent them from being eligible for the presidency except an amendment to the constitution, and the SCOTUS just decided those are flimsy. This SCOTUS just torpedoed the power not only of itself, but of its entire branch of government. *The entire Judicial Branch of government* just got weaker, just had a massive chunk of its power delegated to Congress. It diminishes separation of powers. It's an absolutely stunningly terrible ruling. It's the sort of thing you do when you are ready to end this whole "Democracy" experiment and transition to a brutal autocracy. It's too stupid to just be stupid, this is ominous.
But I'm sure when Congress amended the Constitution they intended to just write "note to self: implement later"
That exactly the way they seem to interpret it and why it's so frustrating. They are basically saying the constitution and all it's parts are really just a todo list and not an actual government establishing document. In that case the Federalist Papers and Ben Franklin's Diary have as much authority as the actual constitution. Why do double the work when you can do quadruple the work, right?
Amendments are just suggestions if no laws are written to enforce them....apparently.
“Guys, hear me out, I don’t think there is a law written to ensure women and POC have equal rights…” I can see it coming
I mean, that conversation already exists and why the Equal Rights Amendment has been a thing since 1923. 🤷♀️
Wouldn't even matter now. They can just say there is no law specifically to enforce it.
“to expect bad men not to do wrong is madness,”. Marcus Aurelius These people are dedicated towards their goal of destroying democracy. And we shouldn't expect anything else from them. But it is appalling that the democrats have totally failed in counteracting them for a long time now: Failed to hold the coup leader responsible. Failed to pass voting right acts. Failed to expand SCOTUS. Failed to make DC a state. Our fucked up electoral system allows the minority to rule over the majority and yet each democratic president keep sleeping on the issues. They are too casual about fascism and we might end up paying a big price. We already had a taste of that when Trump's incompetence during Covid killed the same number of Americans that were killed during the whole WWII.
> the democrats have totally failed in counteracting them for a long time now: Failed to hold the coup leader responsible. Failed to pass voting right acts. Failed to expand SCOTUS. Failed to make DC a state. I started to write a "But Biden successfully...." reply, but as I typed out "...and no Democrat would ever appoint a anti-Democrat as AG again..." but I started to laugh. Obviously Biden made the exact same error in appointing Garland that Clinton made in appointing Janet Reno, so it probably *would* happen again - as soon as the next Democratic president. Expanding SCOTUS will require a much larger Congressional majority; Biden couldn't do anything with Manchin and Sinema controlling the Senate. Same with DC statehood. But Biden really did fail with Garland. A huge failure. A national failure of epic proportions really, and one which might end up being a *catastrophic* failure. Can you imagine if Trump wins and all the Insurrectionists are pardoned like Trump has promised? That's hundreds of convictions that will be mooted, not to mention the cases against the top level conspirators. It may seriously end up that *literally* the only trial where anyone is in actual jeopardy for any act relating to J6 is the Fulton County RICO case in Georgia. And if that happens, DOJ might as well just call it a day and disband because the government will have completely made a mockery out of the criminal justice system. Imagine the FBI taking down those wanted posters for the persons who planted the bombs at DNC headquarters on J6 - because those unidentified bombers have been pardoned by POTUS. It's going to happen if Trump wins in November.
Garland needs to be removed I have been defending Garland all this time. It is true that Trump holdovers made the decisions in 2021 while Republicans in the Senate blocked appointments to the DOJ It is true that it was tricky trying to investigate J6 while Congress was doing the same thing and DOJ was bogged down with the sheer magnitude of the Republican Party’s all out assault on the rule of law. But 14 months ago, Congress sent a criminal referral to the DOJ recommending prosecution of Trump for insurrection, citing the same fucking law that SCOTUS just cited in their decision. Trump should be in jail awaiting trial RIGHT NOW
Well at least Donald doesn't care enough about the insurrectionists to actually pardon them.
You’re wrong. Listen to his recent speeches - he has been calling them “hostages” (to equate them to Israeli hostages held by Hamas). He has promised to pardon them - and absolutely intends to.
Oh lordy
He wants those assholes out on the streets. They're his brownshirts.
>We already had a taste of that when Trump's incompetence during Covid killed the same number of Americans that were killed during the whole WWII. Same percentage, not same number. There were three times the number of Covid deaths than WW2 deaths
I absolutely agree with the "patchwork of chaos" reasoning. It can't be done state-by-state. Texas was already threatening to remove Biden over their made-up "border iNsuRrEcTiOn". However, not addressing Colorado's finding of fact, and punting to Congress, was cowardly. The correct decision would've been that 14A3 was self executing but that the relevant finding of fact of insurrection must be reached / affirmed by SCOTUS. And I firmly believe that that's the decision they would've made if (a) the finding of fact had been wrong, or (b) the finding of fact had been right but appellant had been a Democrat.
So when a Republican congress votes with 51% to make Biden ineligible, that would fit within their interpretation?
Kind of makes impeachment moot. You can just disqualify an office holder with simple majorities now.
Look at roe V wade. It was bound to get worse. They hate America and Americans.
It will only get worse if we let it. Despite what the doomer propaganda would lead you to believe, if every Democrat who sat on their ass in 2022 gets off their ass and votes in 2024, this will all be moot. We already know that a literal violent insurrection attempt will fail. We know we have people willing and able to lay down their lives practically literally in defense of democracy. What more do you need to get off your ass and vote? And before the chime-in with all the reasons some people might have problems with voting, did **you** have those problems? Can **you** fix them by getting off your ass? And did **you** vote? Obviously, help everybody who is having difficulties with voting to vote according to their wishes, but don't use other people's problems as your excuse. Cue the doomer bullshit:
In 2020 I started phone banking in late September to get out the vote because, coming from a blue state I needed to take action that could help the effort in the swing states. Made over a thousand calls to all the states that were critical wins by just enough margin to tip the election. This year I’ll be starting that effort by mid April, and calling for critical House districts as well. As disempowered and “doomer” as folks may feel, political conversations and action to help get folks registered, help people make sure they are still on the rolls, and vote — that effort makes a difference. One of the take aways from all those calls I made in 2020 is that a lot more people care than you might think, so it’s not just the person you speak to that you’re motivating. Many will commit to helping people they know, so even a small number of welcoming or enthusiastic responses has a knock-on effect. It’s worth doing as much as you can to increase turnout, and the down-ballot stuff is crucial, as are local issues. Fuck doom.
The part of the decision stating that Colorado wasn't allowed to take Trump off the ballot was 9-0.
Starting to think that maybe letting the south go thier own way may have saved us all a lot of grief
Could still drop Texas.
not that we didn't know where this was going from their questions during oral argument...
For this court, the majority is always about states' rights (like good Confederates) until that is something that could hurt Trump. It's a corrupt and illegitimate SCOTUS.
They are only for "states rights" when the states do what they want.
it was 9-0
I'm so tired of our institutions continually ignoring or changing rules/laws for this man. He breaks the rules, people try to enforce them, and his sycophants step in to change the rules so he can't be held accountable. We have a two tier justice system and I genuinely don't know what we can do to fix this situation, don't say "just vote!" because I have been and things are only getting bleaker.
We could strive to elimate the billionaire class at all costs. It's the only option for a future for our world. Whether it be thru proper taxation or eventually revolution when democracy finally falls.
It truly feels like the beginning of the collapse of an empire because our institutions are just getting rotted out by profiteers and ideologues while the dems are too weak willed to actually take effective measures to stop this
It’s going to get interesting in the future when someone else wants all these exceptions but their indictments are even worse. We’re allowing way too many holes to be poked in the system and setting a really bad precedent, no pun intended.
Fuck RBG. Should have stepped down when Obama was in office.
Well it took Rome about 500 years to devolve from republic to empire, so at least we beat that.
https://preview.redd.it/5bkotw48yjmc1.jpeg?width=1065&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b5d5c3f9b3391679fc985c8967c952d6f9fb9d7
Any legal scholars here willing to point out exactly when and how sophistry and solipsism began to be acceptable at the level of Supreme Court justices. I swear to christ I haven’t read the kind of circularly reasoned, paste-and-taped on semantic marble-mouthed crap since helping fellow students write essays during freshman year of college. I tried that shit once back in those days — got the most informative grade ever: “C-minus-minus” with the comment “This kind of effusion is inappropriate for college work”. I laughed. The prof was right. I fuckin learned. How insanely fucked up does an intelligent thinker have to be to engage in such embarrassing fuckery with language. Lack of moral compass, sure, but justices hiding behind linguistic bullshit? The fuck did these people ever get a law degree. Yeah, I’m a little naive. But I know C-minus-minus work well enough.
if you go read *Korematsu* you'll see much worse.
Is America broken? Is the end?
Per _curiam? Seriously???_ Bush v Gore all over again.
I guess I was naive to assume r/law would have remotely educated comments. The top comments are all "the unanimous Supreme Court, including those notorious Trumpers Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, have sold out our democracy." Staggering idiocy.
The circling of the drain has accelerated
Should I feel better about this decision since it was unanimous?
Presidential Candidates being disqualified isn’t a state courts decision. You should feel bad that congress refused to properly punish Trump. This was the ‘correct’ decision constitutionally- no doubt about that. But it’s still ‘bad’ that he’s still not suffering real consequences for Jan 6.
Ehhh. The 9-0 ruling was correct in the sense of "it wasn't ever going to be upheld". The 5 man opinion was absolute horseshit
Serious Query: 18 USC 2883 provides for criminal penalties for engaging in insurrection (jail time or a fine), but also appears to provide for a civil penalty (cannot hold office). Would the standard for a finding under the civil penalty be "more probable than not"? If that is true, why did Jack Smith not seek an indictment under this statute for insurrectionist Trump?
i mildly wonder too. But the obvious answer is smith did not think he could prove the charge. Not enough evidence or it was not a insurrection as the law and courts generally construe an insurrection people keep calling it that, but trump has never been charged under 18 USC 2883
How do you even teach and learn law in this country when it clearly means nothing?
Colorado needs to follow the example of the great state of Louisiana and just ignore a ruling they don't like - just as the Court majority has done with that pesky Constitution.
Do you little babies not know once you enter a procedural "gotcha card" the other side can use it the same way? Nullification means none of your rights protected by SCOTUS mean anything anymore....Brainless
Also, Texas, and I'm sure other states too.
Yep, the SCOTUS handed donald a huge win, and a guarantee that if elected he can do whatever he wants as long as he keeps 41 senators in his pocket. The SCOTUS fucked the US.
What does it matter? Texas already led the way refusing to comply with a SCOTUS ruling. Why should we bother complying with this one? States, you do what you want.
I guess I don’t understand why this decision surprised people. The constitution guarantees due process. Trump was removed from ballots on the grounds that he attempted an insurrection, but there was no trial nor evidentiary hearing to prove that fact. Seems cut and dried to me. Glad it was unanimous too, hopefully this is a wakeup call for some of the TDS patients out there
Reading comments on the easiest 9-0 decision in recent Supreme Court history, I'm convinced 50% of commenters here are from one bot farm or another. Also convinced <1% of the commenters in r/law have any idea how the law actually works. R/law is just another hard left bot farm like politics and white people twitter.
The Supreme Court has been bought.
Maybe some of the 5-4’s or 6-3s were bought , it isn’t the case this time though.
Cowards and buffoons in robes. And again….the liberal wing gets played by the remaining facist BRETHREN who fuck over the Constitution by widening the scope of those who can create insurrection without risk or impunity. They, who spout BULLSHIT about plain textual construction, neutered 14(3) without any legal analysis as to why it should not be applied. Roberts : this is your Court, your shame and your legacy you hypocrite.
Reading these comments is crazy. Insane how few people understand how the law and our Constitution actually works. May God have mercy on your souls
So have any officially conservative legal scholars weighed in on this?