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

Townhall ^ | 03/04/2024 | Katie Pavlich

[lepton]

I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that
States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.

[Thank You Rush]

We get a unanimous favorable decision and STILL, there are those who are going to object. Can’t win.

I appreciate your analysis of what actually happened and why - thank you.

[Thank You Rush]

“”but on the steps outside the Capitol.””

Wasn’t that on the steps outside the USSC?

[Erik Latranyi]

You are wrong.

She did cite the reasons.

States cannot disqualify a candidate for federal office, only Congress can do that.

Just as states could not refuse to put Obama on the ballot because of his uncertain natural-born status, it was left to congress.

[lepton]

You want something more than this:

“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. “

[wildcard_redneck]

Letting the Colorado ruling stand would have Balkanized the states politically into pure, distilled Republican and Demonrats states, federal rule would be over and we would have slid into civil war.

[Toespi]

There were tens of thousands protesting at the capitol on J6. If it was an insurrection, the guy at Pelosi’s desk he would still be sitting there OR we would be at full scale civil war. It wasn’t an insurrection it was a planned event by the government to kill as many Americans as possible that went sour because the protesters didn’t have guns

[Major Matt Mason]

Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up"

I'm happy with the 9-0 ruling, but this response by ACB is weak sauce. Only one side is turning up the political heat in this country, and this ruling won't stop that side from causing more trouble. Rule on the law, not on the SC's role as political referee. ACB is a Sandra O'Conner wannabe, as many here warned before she was appointed. No more RINOs on the court, period.

[lepton]

ACB clearly references her full agreement with the arguments on the law and the constitution that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential Candidates.

“I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that
States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.”

[ChessExpert]

I think it bizarre that Democrats claim that leaving it to the voters is undemocratic. Democrats are afraid that the people of Colorado want Donald Trump to be their President. That is the only reason that they want his name stricken from the ballot.

Democrats would declare it “A Win for Democracy” if Joe Biden were the only name on the ballot. That is the kind of Democracy found in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and communist Cuba.

This court’s ruling is a big win for true Democracy.

How about the law? For starters, there was no insurgency. Secondly, President Trump did not contribute to the violence of January 6th. If you want to know who was responsible, start with Ray Epps. As a legal principle, shouldn’t President Trump get a presumption of innocence?

I agree with the argument against patchwork solutions. The Presidency is a national office. I remember when the Florida Supreme Court was coming up with diverse ad hoc solutions, county by county, to put Al Gore in the White House. In contrast, PA narrowly went for Gore and Republicans accepted the results instead of trying to flip the state. The Supreme Court was right to apply the national standard found in the Constitution.

I think the original insurgency clause was directed at the national level for all states. It was not partisan lawfare, here and there, to decide the US President.

[Sparticus]

“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

Agreed, this will inflame the left because everything inflames them. I want the SCOTUS to continually punch the left in the jewels until they are completely demoralized. Until they role over and die, politically.

[lepton]

She seems to be making an argument for an activist court,

---

She is doing the opposite, in arguing a minimalist approach given that it completely squashes what the State did here.

[V_TWIN]

“this will inflame the left because everything inflames them”

Not everything, just when it doesn’t go their way.

Much like petulant children, they are enfuriated when told NO.

[Dr. Franklin]

You are wrong.
She did cite the reasons.
States cannot disqualify a candidate for federal office, only Congress can do that.
Just as states could not refuse to put Obama on the ballot because of his uncertain natural-born status, it was left to congress.

This is that part that Amy joined which troubles me:

"The only other plausible constitutional sources of such adelegation are the Elections and Electors Clauses, whichauthorize States to conduct and regulate congressional andPresidential elections, respectively. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2.1 But there is little reason to think thatthese Clauses implicitly authorize the States to enforce Sec-tion 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. Granting the States that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power."

So, according to this, the state legislatures can't ban a candidate for running because they don't like him/her or think he/she is a traitor, etc. What this says is that all federal elections have been federalized by the Fourteenth Amendment and the state have no power to exclude candidates. This ruling promotes federalism, and restricts states' rights in the Tenth Amendment and the Electors Clause for presidential electors. The justices who wrote this part of the opinion are federalists. I keep noting that there is a difference between conservatives and federalists. A conservative would say its the state legislatures decision to ban a candidate from the presidential ballot. The federalists disagree with that point.

[oldbrowser]

Defund the Supreme Court!!!

[ProtectOurFreedom]

I agree. Her short analysis is VERY weak and disappointing and it leaves lots of openings due to her weakness. She should have delivered a more learned and forceful statement for the ages that would have ended this once and for all. She appears she's trying to split the baby.

...this is not the time

...this volatile season

...particularly in this circumstance

...For present purposes

[lepton]

Her stated disagreement was that it wasn’t necessary to go beyond the portions that clearly showed CO was in the wrong.

[John S Mosby]

as post 40 above— could have been USSC, but— traveling between sessions.

In schumer’s case the term would be slithering.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

“the message was “don’t ever try a stupid stunt like that again.””

I hope you are right, but her statement makes lots of references to “this circumstance” which would seem to leave the door wide open for future lawfare efforts.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

“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.”

Agree 100%. That is a horrible basis for jurisprudence and rulings from SCOTUS.