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 ...
The corruption has reached the point where they tried to take the right to vote, from the people. But for the SC.
The deranged left have used the language of an argument and the lie to start the argument. It would pay if people learned how to read the language in the first place.
They start with Jan 6 and describe it to fit their next lie. Each step is a step further into the goal... keep Trump from being President.
They got to the point where they could use the word that would pull it off... Time and feeding the public with lie after lie.. they got to “insurrection”. that ought to do it. Not just use the word.. say it often and with more distress.. That worked also.
Then they could float the boat of compassion. some bought that also. So, take his name off the ballot. but that didn’t work either. that got the voters ire.
Those steps to removing the one person they know will doom their plans for total domination.. total control over all.
To not see this... you had better wise up.. next time the SC may not save you.
These days, the only time SCOTUS renders a 9-0 decision is when the militant leftist activist justices—Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson—see a harmless opportunity to buy themselves some cover.
“See! We’re not partisan hacks! We ruled in favor of that evil, Putin-loving bastard Trump!”
“9-0 decision”
Good. A split decision would have contributed to a possible civil war.
Who is the “oathbreaking insurrectionist” they speak of? Trump was never charged with insurrection so how can he be guilty of that? And if oathbreaking is a disqualifier, then there are ample grounds to decertify Biden based on his refusal to secure the border.
There are no Presidential elections in the Constitution and there is no right to vote for President.
and the states cannot remove Trump from their ballots.
Oh stuff it. If the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the Colorado case then it can’t apply in the Smith witch hunt.
Scooter Libby was pardoned by president Trump.
Not surprising. Even the Dem justices realize this could easily be used against Biden / Dem candidates in the future!
Wrong. A similar decision was made in 2000 in Bush and Gore.
The SCOTUS stopped the re re re recounting. Some people even claimed that the SCOTUS decided that election.
We are voting for the President. Not a state official.
The President rules over the whole country. Not an individual state.
You are misinformed. You are voting for a Constitutionally defined office called "Elector". That is a STATE office, chosen however the Legislature of your State decides. In their magnanimity, they let you vote. Mighty white of them. The Electors, in turn, vote for President and Vice President.
See Article II Section 1, and Amendment XII
What do you think the "Electoral College" is?
Again, the SCOTUS stopped the ballot counting in Florida. Apparently they had the authority to do this because they did it because it was for a a national office — the president.
Okay so we are arguing about who has jurisdiction in this situation. Clearly the SCOTUS and not the state — 9 to 0.
The Electors, who vote in the actual Presidential Election, are chosen in each State by whatever means each State's Legislature decides. The elections you and I vote in are State elections. We aren't voting for President and Vice President, we are voting for a slate of Electors.
Read the Constitution, as I suggested. Article II Section 1, and Amendment XII.
It's clearly a State election, operated at the sole discretion of the State legislatures. The Courts, both State and Federal need to stay in their respective lanes.
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.