Posted on 03/04/2024 9:00:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
As reported, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 9-0 Monday morning that states cannot take former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 presidential ballot.
In her written opinion on the ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained the message she believes Americans should take away from the decision.
"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," Barrett wrote. "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."
All Justices concurred that the states cannot create a "chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles." A patchwork was rejected because it would “sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States.”
The media isn't taking the ruling well.
CNN on SCOTUS RULING: “Unfortunately for America, the court isn’t necessarily wrong.”
The Defenders of Democracy™️ are at it again
Denying citizens' the right to vote for their preferred candidate may be unconstitutional — but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be good for America pic.twitter.com/GvimW4lR9m— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) March 4, 2024
Nothing in her statement tells us the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL reason for rejecting the attempt to ban Trump from the state's ballot. In fact her reasoning seems to be political: "the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up,"
While I'm happy with the ruling, personally, her reasoning leaves much to be desired.
“writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up”
The national temperature will most certainly go up for certain groups......trust me
I think at the root of it all is that someone had the sense to see that this could be used against the democrats as well, and that democrat politicians could be kicked off the ballots in red states.
A ruling allowing that to stand could have come back and bit them big time.
The lefts Brownshirts will make these justices sorry…guaranteed.
Brick manufacturing companies stand to make a tidy profit this summer
Coney it would appear would have been very comfortable to agree with the judgement, and leave it like that, as did Sonia/Elana/Kantanji. It’s just that Coney didn’t feel proper being lumped with those 3, so she rambled a bit, but seems to me aligned with them.
Well Amy, you should know that the only thing it did for the democommies is turn it to max heat. But, being out of touch with what’s going on in the streets seems the norm there. Thanks for doing the correct thing.
1. Look at how little the Liberals comprehend US law
2. Without THIS ruling on THIS thing, we could not be said to HAVE a Supreme Court
I would have been much happier if her statement would have made reference to the fact that as a unanimous ruling, it meant that what they were asked to look at was so unconstitutional and such an abuse of power, the message was “don’t ever try a stupid stunt like that again.”
RE: The national temperature will most certainly go up for certain groups......trust me
Precisely. The national temperature should not be the primary concern of any court decision because INTRINSICALLY, anty decision the SCOTUS makes will cause disatisfaction and anger in one group.
The decision should be based on LAW and the Constitution.
That’s why I am left with an uneasy feeling with Justice ACB’s writing. Nothing in her statement mentions law or constitution at all. It’s all based on calming the political climate.
Her message should be ignored, as it basically mirrored the liberal justices message. Amy Coney Barrett is worthless.
She seems to be making an argument for an activist court, which cannot turn down the temperature. Making decisions based on the rule of law and establishing respect for the court is the only way to turn this down. This is a dumb comment.
We will have to read the ruling - because one can't trust the simplistic, hyper-ventilating MSM to give the salient points.
States certainly have the right determine their own electoral procedures.
On the other hand, this must be done through the State Constitution and Legislature - not the fiat of some government bureaucrat - which is was happened in Maine and Colorado.
🎵🎵”Feelings, oh oh feelings... “🎵🎵
The “Law” means nothing.
It is the job of the courts to find facts and apply law.
The fact is that Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or the United States.
Colorado could not rationally find that he had.
It did not rationally find that he had.
“GO Wild Conference Washington DC 2023 for planners, makers and creators
“Our premium in-person conference is unlike any other. The speakers, the swag, & the spirit of GO Wild are hard to describe.”
https://www.wildforplanners.com/
I suspect nearly every one of them voted for Biden:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wJrRYKfAC7U
The states’ rights battle is still going on. SCOTUS wants to avoid a “chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles.”
Too late.
That battle is becoming more and more sharply pronounced.
And the Founders views about that are in the two Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers (mass paperback books still in print).
The “nations’ temperature” should be irrelevant to Supreme Court rulings. The law should be the only thing that matters.
Right, and it’s worth noting that five of the Justices wanted to go further and rule on the Unconstitutionality of using the 14th amendment to consider Trump an insurrectionist.
That would have been a much stronger ruling but they went with the watered down opinion in order to get to 9-0 ruling.
Unfortunately, this means the 14th amendment thing is still on the table.
“Court should turn the national temperature down”
Frankly, that’s not her freakin’ job. The job of the SCOTUS is to enforce the Constitution and the law as they are. Sometimes that’s going to turn the national temperature down, and sometimes it’s going to turn national temperature UP. It’s not her place to adjudicate on that basis. That’s “philosopher king” Tony Kennedy-style crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.