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
No, she is making an argument against an activist court. She’s literally saying: Colorado cannot be upheld as it violates the Constitution. Underneath all of the chaos & bickering, the SC is fully aware that politicians & influential types are attempting to use the legal & Constitutional system incorrectly to defeat a political opponent. Through the course of action those political figures have chosen, they are forcing the courts to act as referee in what should be a purely political debate decided by voters. She has a solid conservative voting record. I read her opinion as a caution to lower court judges that they should not fall prey to hearing cases that are obviously political in nature & that the courts should be making clear that it isn’t their role. 🤔
No, she is making an argument against an activist court. She’s literally saying: Colorado cannot be upheld as it violates the Constitution. Underneath all of the chaos & bickering, the SC is fully aware that politicians & influential types are attempting to use the legal & Constitutional system incorrectly to defeat a political opponent. Through the course of action those political figures have chosen, they are forcing the courts to act as referee in what should be a purely political debate decided by voters. She has a solid conservative voting record. I read her opinion as a caution to lower court judges that they should not fall prey to hearing cases that are obviously political in nature & that the courts should be making clear that it isn’t their role. 🤔
No, she is making an argument against an activist court. She’s literally saying: Colorado cannot be upheld as it violates the Constitution. Underneath all of the chaos & bickering, the SC is fully aware that politicians & influential types are attempting to use the legal & Constitutional system incorrectly to defeat a political opponent. Through the course of action those political figures have chosen, they are forcing the courts to act as referee in what should be a purely political debate decided by voters. She has a solid conservative voting record. I read her opinion as a caution to lower court judges that they should not fall prey to hearing cases that are obviously political in nature & that the courts should be making clear that it isn’t their role. 🤔
They are getting more ludicrous every day.
That's the same illogic that caused a majority of the SC(r)OTUS to wimp out on addressing the 2020 ballot irregularities.
Thanks for your kind words. I will agree that we have people that generally fail to read the detail and instead, let the journalists tell them what it means — something this site was created to correct.
Agreed
broken clock :-)
Looks like another “Summer of Love” this year. I’d much rather have the original “Summer of Love” - Music festivals and hippies.
So what. A wild protest. There have been thousands of said wild protests in this country. Trump wasn’t even at the Capitol.
“I think at the root of it all is that someone had the sense to see that this could be used against the democrats as well, and that democrat politicians could be kicked off the ballots in red states.”
“A ruling allowing that to stand could have come back and bit them big time.”
Very true, and it bites just as compellingly in the “presidential immunity” case that going to be argued in April regarding Pres. Trump’s Washington indictment for allegedly interfering with the 2020 election and the various related state indictments. Right now his lawyers are arguing for limited immunity that would essentially be an immunity circumscribed by the impeachment clauses of the Constitution so that he could only be prosecuted for alleged crimes that he had already been impeached for and convicted of. The idea that he’s prosecutable is based on the concept that former Presidents do not have the immunity for their official acts that current Presidents have. However, if SCOTUS adopts this theory then every former President will be exposed to such risk.
The two most recent Democrat former Presidents, Obama and Clinton, both have very substantial risks at state and Federal levels. The state levels ought to be the most concerning since they are risks of homicide prosecutions, Clinton for the Waco massacre, and Obama for the deaths of several American citizens, including Border Patrol agents, that resulted from illegally smuggled guns that were smuggled across the border as a part of Operation Fast and Furious, and were then returned to the United States and used to murder American citizens. In each case the murders occurred in the southern states where there is probably no statute of limitations and a likely inclination to prosecute. Hence, as soon as SCOTUS might decide that Trump can be persecuted by state as well as federal jurisdictions, Obama and Clinton are both going to have giant legal targets on their backs. Of course, the same would apply to Biden after he leaves office.
In other words, if this current orgy of prosecution works, its next targets will be Biden, Obama, and Clinton.
One could only hope.....
Well said, KC Burke.
“”In schumer’s case the term would be slithering.””
That would be true - just like any snake!!!
Good that they avoided foolish chaos for the nation. To bad they created it for Oklahoma in McGirt. What of the Curtis Act of 1898?
That’s not your job Amy!
That’s the same legal rationale the feds are pushing to slam Texas on the border.
Thanks.
KC in a prior post here describes that Barrett is writing for the entire Court, all Justices, that is called Per Curiem. Definition KC has written out.
So the “tone” of Barrett’s writing of the decision IS irritatingly “kumbaya” because she is writing for the other women justices as well as the men. Which give it the feel of a touchy feely mommy decision for a really Turning Point judicial ruling. It IS the result of the women all of the other ones are ultra Leftists Barrett has to deal with every day, especially el stupido the ever tired Sotomayor the so called “wise Latina” who is anything but wise (dumb as a rock). And then there’s the new one Ketanji Jackson who couldn’t say what a “woman” was! (really stupid DC clown judge). So Barrett has to weave through that- wouldn’t put it all on her- imagine dealing with Kagan, Jackson and Sotomayor.
Will say that Barrett has not shown the brilliance she did in hearings for her nomination.
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.