Justice Barrett Explains the Message Americans Should Take Away From the Supreme Court's Trump Ballot Ruling

Townhall ^ | 03/04/2024 | Katie Pavlich

[bantam]

EXACTLY-—There was NO insurrection!
Only media wh0res who keep repeating there was!

[Moorings]

The “nations’ temperature” should be irrelevant to Supreme Court rulings. The law should be the only thing that matters.

Bingo! The court is there to make rulings based on the law/constitution. Their job is not temperature control for the country. That is the job of the politicians who are ruling. But one party is very focused on raising that temperature.

[Brian Griffin]

“insurrection”

not proved

“rebellion”

not proved

Decision of Colorado court reversed.

[KC Burke]

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,"

I believe you are mistaken and the link to the opinion in the article can provide the corrective.

Justice Barrett is writing for all 9 Justices. The opinion in headed Per Curiem which is defined:

In law, a per curiam decision or opinion is one that is not authored by or attributed to a specific judge, but rather to the entire court or panel of judges who heard the case.

Then the entire opinion is stated in two short paragraphs with the reason for reversal stated as:

because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

The court then presents subparagraphs with the detail of the event but the decision is unanimous around that one issue stated.

This is not to say that separate Justices might not have found additionally for other reasons, but they were able to be unanimous which has the unity cited in the article along with the supposed cooling impact of such unity.

[DesertRhino]

Amy Conehead Barrett at it again.

“In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency....”

It’s a time to be decisive, and we get a touchy feely mommy decision. The only reason she was picked is because she is a female. Now we pay the price. She has been a disaster.

[John S Mosby]

The message from Barrett will without doubt turn the temp up for demonrat mobocracy Anti-Constitutionalists.

It will do this even without her “explanation”. As she calls it “Writings on the Court”— have nearly always in MAJOR decisions showed the power of a Branch of our government Constitutionally established design and functional powers.

Never forget Chuckie Schmucky Schumer’s illegal threats against individual Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch (?) on the so called “right” of abortion. He threatened them, not in the well of the Senate (where he is protected there) but on the steps outside the Capitol. A warrant for his arrest should have been drawn up— by the Court directing the Federal Marshals to do so-arrest Schumer! It never happened. So let’s wait to hear the fecal stream of crazed people from this decision. Notably the illegally appointed Jack Smith who is... crazy.

Schumer is on video record making threats. Whereas Andrew Jackson in Worcester v. Georgia, when The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision- apocryphal quote: “Let Justice Marshall now enforce it”, and privately suggested sending the Massachusetts militia to enforce it- since he was sure Northern partisans were behind the decision. This was in 1832. Indian reservations were to be treated as a Nation- and negotiated with by US govt. as such.

[Moorings]

Unfortunately, there are few if none on the Republican elected officials who have the chutzpah to turn back the democrat tactics against them. The democrats bank on this when they do their lawfare and other schemes.

A lot of the republican voters also don't have the stomach for active confrontation, and probably will not support any badass republican officials. Democrats also know this and use it to their advantage.

If any republican official decides to go rogue and get back at the dems, the entrenched RINO leadership of the party will quash their efforts in cooperation with the democrats.

Probably one of the reasons why the Bush clan and other assorted RINOs went after Ken Paxton, the super AG for Texas.

[adorno]

The Colorado decision to ban Trump from the state’s election, was completely political and not based on any law that mattered. It was done by a completely leftist set of democratic party judges; iow, completely politically partisan.

All of the court cases against Trump are all politically based, done by partisan hacks from the democratic party. As such, they should all be ruled invalid, just like the Colorado case. To take down a candidate via wholly political bias, is against the will of the people and should be disallowed. To represent the will of the people means that, decisions to ban a candidate should be bipartisan and not based on the desires of a political opponent or political party. The DOJ decisions are all politically based against Trump. There is no bipartisanship in what they’ve done against Trump.

Political decisions should not be represented as ‘the will of the people’. All of the court cases and decisions by states against Trump, are all political and not based on true law enforcement. ALL of the cases should be dismissed and any ‘settled’ cases that were brought forth because of political bias, should also be overturned. Anything brought to courts that were wholly political, should all be dismissed or overturned.

The Colorado case was totally political and based on the desire of Trump’s enemies to affect the vote. Likewise, all politically based cases against Trump are meant to affect the vote. There is no single case that is not political and meant to affect the vote. Therefore, all cases need to be dismissed.

[Freeper]

The SC decision is correct.

However, ACB’s written decision lacks logic.

[Brian Griffin]

“Updated December 20, 2020”

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-promises-wild-protests-washington-165055313.html

The term “wild” as uttered by Trump was publicly known across the nation over two weeks before January 6th, 2021 according to leftist Business Insider & Yahoo.

“Several pro-Trump Republicans, however, have said they plan to disrupt the formal process, with Representative-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia tweeting on Saturday: “On January 6th...I will OBJECT and REJECT the fraudulent electoral votes from several states across the country.’

—Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) December 19, 2020”

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wild-protests-planned-day-of-electoral-college-vote-count-2020-12

[SamuraiScot]

Frankly, that’s not her freakin’ job. The job of the SCOTUS is to enforce the Constitution

Well, to be frank, it was always obvious that she was a ditz. . .

[Dr. Franklin]

Amy has been a disappointment, but still an improvement over Ginsburg. That is to damn her with faint praise. We are at this point exactly because SCOTUS played politics with the 2020 Big Steal by declaring that U.S. citizens had no "standing" to complain of a rigged national election. The job of SCOTUS, and any federal court, is to declare the law in the case. SCOTUS is at its weakest when it plays politics, e.g., the Dread Scott case.

I actually found the dissent more persuasive. The majority decided more than what was necessary, and its ruling implies that state legislatures can't disqualify a presidential candidate for any reason they want, violates the Electors Clause cited in the opinion. If a state legislature refuses to allow Biden to appear on the state ballot, that is its prerogative. SCOTUS just muddied up the water on that point. Bad SCOTUS.

[subterfuge]

Amy Farrah Fowler!

[Fido969]

writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up

Means they are pulling their punches on the wording of the opinion. It should be an angry chastisement.

[lepton]

That comment is not in the main body of the ruling. The ruling goes through the Legal and Constitutional reasoning for rejecting the state’s argument and actions.

[ALPAPilot]

I'm not fully satisfied with Justice ACB's rationale for reversing the Colorado ruling...

It was a concurring note. She agreed with the three of the four previous per curiam sections. She didn't agree with section IIA, which put her in the same place as the three liberal. Unlike the liberals, she declined to give us the reason for her disagreement with that section.

[Dr. Franklin]

Justice Barrett is writing for all 9 Justices. The opinion in headed Per Curiem which is defined:

Amy's name isn't on the Per Curiam opinion. She may have written part of it, but it isn't just her opinion. Her concurrence is her way of lecturing everyone like schoolmarm. I believe the minority concurrence legitimately raises the point that the majority decided more than needed, and muddies the waters about the power of the state legislatures to disqualify presidential on almost any grounds they want unless it some how discriminatory based on race, gender, etc.

[Brian Griffin]

Trump promises ‘wild’ protest in DC on Jan. 6, the day Congress to count electoral votes
Published December 19, 2020

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/trump-promises-wild-protest-in-dc-on-jan-6-the-day-congress-to-count-electoral-votes

[PghBaldy]

Schumer is protected, like all of them, outside the Capital too by the Constitution:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.