Posted on 03/04/2024 7:02:16 AM PST by cotton1706
The Court holds that "[b]ecause the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse."
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
RE: The Glory and PRAISE go to GOD ALMIGHTY... To Him is our THANKS... GREAT DAY...
Amen.
RE: “I’d be surprised if it were anything else.”
Me, too. I expected this. Then, again, you never know.
//////////////////////////////
I honestly wish I still had the tiny glimmer of belief in the goodness of the people in the government——all three branches in this descending, evil cesspool of 2024.
Thankful for this one good thing.
In the past decade, 9-0 rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have been more common than you might think. Despite the perception that the Court is deeply divided along partisan lines, unanimous decisions are actually quite frequent. Let’s explore some notable 9-0 rulings from the past 10 years:
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) v. Alston (2021): The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the NCAA, allowing certain payments to college athletes and challenging the longstanding amateur model of college sports.
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (2021): In a significant tech case, the Court ruled unanimously in favor of Google, holding that its use of Java code in Android was fair use and not copyright infringement.
Riley v. California (2014): The Court unanimously decided that police officers must obtain a warrant before searching the contents of a suspect’s cellphone during an arrest.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Although not within the past 10 years, this landmark decision deserves mention. The unanimous ruling declared that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.
Or maybe she is pure and simply stated the court can only answer the question at hand. To wit: can Trump be blocked from the Colorado ballet. She did her job as a judge. She judged what was before her. I don’t have any problem with her statement.
Although not you specifically I have noted other responses on this thread where people are shaking this is a 5-4 decision. It absolutely is not. It is 9-0 decision. The three witches of eastwick all start their joined opinion “concur in judgement”. ACB on her own behalf writes “concurs with judgment and in part with opinion”. I think certain freepers specialize in finding a cloud to every silver lining. In this particular case the only thing people will remember is 9-0, the subtext is just academic hand wringing by justices who want to opine how smart they are for the world to see.
You are entirely incorrect. The Supreme Court only works on the record and debates error around it. In your statement you would allow the Supreme Court to become the trier or fact. The Supreme Court has only a sliver of instances where the are the court of original jurisdiction. They cannot make findings of fact. It’s why in trials at the local level (like seen in the Fanni fiasco), there were questions that objections were sustained but still read into the record to “preserve the record” which is something that could be a reversible error by the trial judge (an appeal can’t be based on disagreement on the verdict which is rooted in the Latin “truth”). The ultimate power and genius of our system is that only an empaneled juror on the trial level determines the truth “the trier or fact”. Every appeal must be based on errors of application of law.
The Supreme Court here acted justly, they reversed the out of line Colorado Supreme Court. 9-0 reversed. They did not remand it back to try again. They did not vacate and remand with instructions. They said the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong. Period. Their judgment was reversed with no second bite at the Apple.
I think if they try to defy a 9-0 ruling it will only make them look bad. Politically, it’s over for this issue.
Late night talk shows, mouthpieces on CNN/MSNBC, Hollyweird actors and sports casters will rant and rail, but nothing will be done politically or legally.
If some state refuses to follow this Rule of Law, they should forfeit there electoral votes, as well as losing their right to representation in the house and senate until they decide to follow the law.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Trump is fully vindicated. Even if there was an insurrection, he wasn’t involved in it.
Are all Mainers total retards or just the down easters? Can we give it to Canaduh?
It’s a fair and logical decision.
That all 9 voted for it is normal common sense.
He funny! Isn’t this insurrection? Off to the DC gulag with you!!!!
“Colorado was basically Republican until mail in ballots”
you’ve got cause and effect reversed in colorado: colorado was quite conservative until a massive invasion of california locusts who defiled their california nests and then moved to fresher fields to defile in colorado, AND THEN mail-in ballots were instituted by a subsequent blue state legislature ...
The amendment itself does not state how insurrection or rebellion is determined. One as a matter of law cannot assume that it is a judicial process. This argument supports exactly what happened. There was a bench trial or hearing wherein the judicial process simply declared PDJT as an insurrectionist. The court of primacy where fact is determined did just this. Without a jury, without a witness, so that is open to interpretation.
Trump was never charged criminally and therefore was never endangered with being deprived of his liberty — the charge of insurrection according to federal code is criminal and has a maximum penalty of 10 years. As the constitution is silent on if insurrection is criminal (unless charged federally) the 10th amendment reserves to the states or the people respectively the right to determine how to bring this charge. So if this were a crime, it speaks volumes that Trump was never charged. Ergo because an idiot Supreme Court in colorado got this case by a unilateral declaration and conviction of insurrection from the trial court level which was overturned by the appellant level in colorado, which was then overturned by the Supreme Court restoring the insurrection fact which originated in the trial court, the federal appeal had to weave into the ruling that this is a federal issue which Trump did by raising the 14th amendment argument. Federal law must be explicit in it application otherwise it belongs to the state
On a 14th amendment argument (states do not supersede the affirmative words of the constitution) the SCOTUS has the right to reverse the SCOColorado. But unless Colorado has a specific charge that criminalized insurrection on the state level (which can only be against the state), then the case would be reversed and remanded for proper procedure. In this case the SCOTUS administered the biggest beating possible — a pure reversal with no remand.
This decision i think is well crafted and 9-0 and stops now all this insurrection BS. If states don’t already have a law on the books relative to federal elections (which they could not) and now they legislate something, or judge something as in this case, then you have a bill of attainder which also is federally prohibited.
This is a perfect decision as it ends everything with no room to try again.
Olbermann is certifiably insane and in need of a straitjacket. I recall his rant over George W. Bush’s pardon of Scooter Libby, calling it the gravest Constitutional crisis in history.
Unhinged.
That right there is funny as hell!
Keith can have the court dissolved. All he needs is 2/3 majority of both the house and senate + 3/5 agreement by the several states. Piece of cake. Or an article V convention where the states by 3/5 call for consideration of this issue as part of the convocation legislation for an article 5 convention.
KO is not only a jackass he does not understand basic civics. And that is the beauty of the constitution. It was written by the people. The people can understand it. As citizens of the US it is our responsibility to understand the constitution. We don’t need lawyers to find penumbras and tell us we are too stupid to understand it. Anyone who lives here can understand it and make rational arguments.
The wise Latina concurred in judgment only. But a dissent by another name is just whining that they lost. The controlling legal authority is 9-0. Everything else is just bitching.
Jena Griswoke is crying in her cheerios.
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.