Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Barrett Explains the Message Americans Should Take Away From the Supreme Court's Trump Ballot Ruling
Townhall ^ | 03/04/2024 | Katie Pavlich

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. 




TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2024; ballot; scotus; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last
To: SeekAndFind

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.


61 posted on 03/04/2024 10:03:38 AM PST by Rlsau1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hecticskeptic

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.


62 posted on 03/04/2024 10:07:35 AM PST by erkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

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


63 posted on 03/04/2024 10:09:15 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

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.


64 posted on 03/04/2024 10:10:31 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (This is the end of the Republic....because we could not keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Scr*w that argument. We don't need feminine emotions to build a case. We need Constitutional clarity and decisions.
65 posted on 03/04/2024 10:13:41 AM PST by Gritty (The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the Revolution. - Saul Alinsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.


66 posted on 03/04/2024 10:16:26 AM PST by BuckeyeGOP ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
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.


According to the Electors clause of the U.S. Constitution, states do not determine the selection of presidential electors, the states' legislatures do that. If the CO state legislature wanted to ban Trump from the ballot, that is its right to do so, but the state AG and courts can't do that. That's my problem with this ruling. They suggest the state legislatures can't ban anyone they want absent some prohibited discrimination. If the TX legislature decides to ban Biden, that's their right. This ruling is about federalism, which is why the result is unanimous. It's the same rationale that states must accept voters who fill out the federal voter registration form to vote in federal elections and can't inquire about their citizenship.
67 posted on 03/04/2024 10:17:43 AM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

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.


68 posted on 03/04/2024 10:19:55 AM PST by Bullish (...And just like that, I was dropped from the ping-list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

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.


69 posted on 03/04/2024 10:21:41 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (This is the end of the Republic....because we could not keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“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?


70 posted on 03/04/2024 10:24:08 AM PST by Jonny7797
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonny7797

“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.


71 posted on 03/04/2024 10:29:33 AM PST by mouse1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

IT makes ACB sound more progressive than Ginsberg.


72 posted on 03/04/2024 10:35:30 AM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
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.

The constitutional problem in the case is who removed Trump from the state ballot, not why. The ruling was overly broad.
73 posted on 03/04/2024 10:38:43 AM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Barrett’s message is just more proof she is a LIBERAL TROJAN HORSE.


74 posted on 03/04/2024 10:40:12 AM PST by InsidiousMongo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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! 🙄


75 posted on 03/04/2024 10:53:04 AM PST by redheadedshannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

Glass


76 posted on 03/04/2024 10:54:25 AM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
ACB's reasoning was quite clear, and you used half a sentence out of context to make it appear she wasn't. She was crystal clear here:

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.

77 posted on 03/04/2024 11:04:37 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

https://babylonbee.com/news/in-shocking-blow-to-democracy-supreme-court-affirms-voters-can-vote-for-candidate-they-want


78 posted on 03/04/2024 11:06:08 AM PST by Brown Deer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Love the Bee!


79 posted on 03/04/2024 11:06:52 AM PST by Lazamataz (Laz 2005: "First, we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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,"

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.

80 posted on 03/04/2024 11:09:59 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson