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
When it comes time to “fish or cut bait”, Barrett and Kavanaugh will be wafflers, and therefore undependable as far as the Constitution is concerned. The left are experts at utilizing the perceived weaknesses of their opponents to their advantage.
I believe that ACB’s very last sentence in her statement did point out that the ruling was unanimous. It appears although that all the justices did arrive at this ruling, they did so for different reasons. Anyway, it is a good ruling. I hope that the presidential immunity ruling is as successful.
Trump just reacted to the SCOTUS ruling and gave his “Tear down this wall” statement aimed at Biden - Biden, stop these coordinated lawsuits and Biden, close the border!
Very effective
States can conduct elections as they see fit and draw congressional boundaries.
But states do not get to choose who is qualified to run for federal office using the 14th Amendment as a disqualification.
I agree with this.
so what happens with the immunity ruling? Libs are going to go collectively nuclear bat sh^t crazy if they rule in Trumps favor.... We’ll probably see rioting in the streets and calls for court stacking, especially since that one will most likely be a spit decision.
Setting the “national temperature” doesn’t appear on her job description. Just rule on the Constitutionality of laws and we’ll handle our own temperatures.
No. They were very clear that states cannot ban a candidate using the 14th Amendment. They did not say states could not ban a candidate under other constitutional powers.
“While I’m happy with the ruling, personally, her reasoning leaves much to be desired”
Agreed. Is she dumbing it down for the lunatic liberals?
“Most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”
Suprise question from Justice Kagan.
IT makes ACB sound more progressive than Ginsberg.
Barrett’s message is just more proof she is a LIBERAL TROJAN HORSE.
Oh for God sakes. What is everybody going on about Amy Coney-Barrett. NOTHING she said should invite derision. Across the board she has uniformally made conservative rulings. Sometimes it feels like our side needs some imagined foe to focus our sites on. Just stop. Can conservatives ever just be happy! 🙄
Glass
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.”
She's spot-on correct.
Love the Bee!
You took a half-sentence and put your own context to it. Incorrect. Here's what she said IN CONTEXT:
"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.
In context, she referenced the UNITY of the court in the DECISION it made. That a court with such diverse opinions in recent cases would UNIFY and say "No, we cannot have a patchwork of states making up their own election laws as it pertains to national elections cannot be left to stand" sends one hell of a message to the American public and especially the TDS idiots saying this: Calm the f*** down!
Listening to liberal heads explode today is just music to my ears.
Context is always important.
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.