Seems bull to me. The amendment literally says congress can remove the disability, it doesn’t say they solely impose it.
It's a non-decision , anything else and they would be dealing with these cases forever.
It's a clear punt by the Supreme court.
Now - if "Congress have to decide" what are the terms - Simple majority or would it require 2/3rds in the Senate like impeachment?
If just a majority you'd wonder are there 3 or 4 in the House that are leaving anyway that might vote against him?
It was a unanimous decision to be fair, albeit the reasoning and scope varied among justices.
So much for blind justice. ACBs consenting opinion shows the court took a political calculus.
The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.
Mike Sington - Senior Executive at NBCUniversal
Trump AI
Long live the KING!!!
the CEO/Owner of the GOP has spoken
Bullet proof? The guy who lost the last election? The guy who owes $500m for legal cases he lost? The guy who has gone bankruptcy numerous times?
I agree that he certainly gives the air of someone Bullet proof but in reality he is quite a magnet for bullets
The tragedy is that people will fall for this...
Trump himself has probably fallen for it.
I suppose the point of bullets is to wound. He may attract many bullets, but no single one is having much of a detrimental effect. Certainly not to the extent you'd expect they have, anyway. That isn't really because Trump is so strong as it is that he has successfully created a total cult of personality with followers who are seemingly ready to follow him to the ends of the earth. Lawsuits, criminal cases and general exposés only make them double down even further.
The problem with Teflon is it has a very thin skin.
Trump speaking now telling Biden to close the borders. Ignoring that Bidens Bill is being blocked by Congress.
Donald: "You dont need congress, you have total control"
Also not understanding the current situation.
So basically the only other case likely to go to trial anytime before the election is the nothing-burger Stormy Daniels one. The Georgia election interfering case might go to trial before the election, but it also might not. The existing rulings including the NY corporate fraud one are mostly irrelevant- since he is appealing and they won't be concluded till after the election. So for the most part, the US has shot its load on the legal side to stopping Trump in 2024 and now all that's left to stop the US going into full autocratic dictator meltdown is the election itself. God help us, because the voting public in the US quite possibly won't.
Hopefully one of them ends up buried in his skull.
Imagine needing AI to have a photo with black people.
bUt hE's nOt a rAcIsT!
Yeah it does somewhat only serve to reinforce the fact Trump's team knows he has zero appeal with black voters and Trump can't/won't even contrive a simple photoshoot with some ... I dunno, outreach centre in Chicago.
And given only recently Trump farted on about how black people should like him cos he's a felon, just like them!, this seems like a double header of cringe.
If there was ever a more glaring example of why Barrett should have never come close to the SCOTUS, this is it. What a dreadful bit of writing and what a shameless hack. Unqualified in every way. Burn in Hell, Mitch McConnell
So glad I live in Ireland.
I think you are on the wrong thread.
Funny you have an issue with this courts decision but no problems with any of the state judges or DA's hounding Trump who were appointed by the Democrats.
The Supreme court, the highest court in the US is biased, but lower level courts are not it seems.
Yeah right.
and the good news for democracy is - that's the perogative of the US voters who they vote for
trump 2016
biden 2020
2024 we shall see who the college electors decide
Which state judges have been hounding trump?
Jfc Axios - do your job!!
What’s wrong with it?
The way this thread is going proves precisely her point. There are no discussions the last page or two on the legal analysis, just complaints about how the court was pro-trump or whatever (apparently disregarding the opinions of Roberts, Kagan or Sotomayor who predate Trump). Barrett and Sotomayor were on a panel two weeks ago, well worth the watch. Available on CSPAN’s channel, was at the Governor’s Conference. Both of them lamented that fact that the media and voters don’t seem to give a damn about the law and only seem to care about whether the court’s opinion is to the benefit or detriment of their preferred policies. Roberts had made a similar observation last year.
Her bottom line is correct. All nine judges agreed, and realistically, there was no other possible outcome. Honestly, anyone who expected a single judge to come out with “a state can unilaterally disqualify a national-level candidate” was deluding themselves. That the concurring three who wrote separately would have come to the same conclusion by narrower reasoning is not something for, to use her word, “stridency”
It goes back to the nature of the Federal District as not being one of the United States (pretty much by definition). Back in The Day, citizens who lived in DC did not have any representation at any level, to include local government which was run by appointees by the Federal Government, That didn’t sit well with the residents on the SouthWest side of the Potomac in particular, who felt their needs were not being addressed. Thus the retrocession of part of DC to Virginia in 1847, which also sets the precedent for how folks on the NorthEast side of the the river can gain congressional representation if they really want it. Of interest, however, the citizens on that side of the water decided against retrocession when the Virginian side voted in favor.
Interestingly, there is much less opposition from Republicans on the idea of Puerto Rico becoming a state as it’s an entirely different situation. The issue there is simply that Puerto Rico hasn’t asked to become one. It’s difficult to say where Puerto Rico would fall in Congress as their political parties mainly divide on the matter of independence, statehood, or status quo. The current Congressional representative caucuses with the Republicans. The previous went Democrat. The one before that, Republican. All three represent the same party, the New Progresive Party (the pro-statehood party). The one before those three caucused Democrat, but was a member of the “status quo” party, Popular Democratic.
Are you saying Republicans would oppose one and not the other because they think they can win it?
Well, in terms of legal arguments, suggesting an act of Congress is necessary when the Constitution explicitly states 2/3rds of Congress may overturn the disability makes zero legal sense to me.
Can you blame people? SCOTUS have serious credibility issues when Thomas is hearing cases surrounding an insurrection in which his wife was neck deep in!
All nine Judges agreed that a State level court could not make the decision in isolation which would have overruled the Colorado judgement, however it was a 5-4 decision to say that an act of congress was required to invoke the provision - That came exclusively from the Conservative Judges on the court.
They kicked to touch and removed the Judiciary from the process entirely , making it a toxic partisan political process rather than a legal one , which is an awful cowardly option.
Had they instead ruled that it requires a Federal Court decision to invoke the 14th Amendment that would have put them back in the firing line in a few month time as a Federal court somewhere would have ruled against Trump leading to the substantive matter question of "Did he engage in Insurrection?" coming before the Supreme court directly and forced them to make a real ruling.
Bottom line , they chickened out and made it political and toxic instead of making it about the actual law.
The only person who has truly, sincerely fallen for Trump is himself.
Yes and no. If DC were overwhelmingly Republican, I have no doubt that in practice it would today be more Republicans talking about finding a way to turn most of DC into a State and Democrats arguing against. In this case, as a matter of principle, precedent is very definitely on the side of the Republicans: An active decision was made at the time the District was created that the people who lived there would in effect be kicked out of the States and thus lose their Congressional representation, with the "fix" being retrocession, as implemented for Alexandria County. The current arguments for "turn DC into a State" have really been vocally proposed only in recent years, after the 1980s.
PR is an entirely different principle and the positions of both parties have generally been the same over the decades: That if the PRians ask, they'll be admitted, this has been a constant position, which is presumably why the NPP has been willing to caucus both with Republicans and Democrats. The fact that the prospective state seems unlikely to tilt overwhelmingly one way or the other is probably why neither party has changed its historical position for pragmatic (i.e senate weight) reasons, but even if they wanted to, I'm not sure there are any arguments against.
