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,"
While I'm happy with the ruling, personally, her reasoning leaves much to be desired.
“writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up”
The national temperature will most certainly go up for certain groups......trust me
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.
The lefts Brownshirts will make these justices sorry…guaranteed.
Coney it would appear would have been very comfortable to agree with the judgement, and leave it like that, as did Sonia/Elana/Kantanji. It’s just that Coney didn’t feel proper being lumped with those 3, so she rambled a bit, but seems to me aligned with them.
Well Amy, you should know that the only thing it did for the democommies is turn it to max heat. But, being out of touch with what’s going on in the streets seems the norm there. Thanks for doing the correct thing.
1. Look at how little the Liberals comprehend US law
2. Without THIS ruling on THIS thing, we could not be said to HAVE a Supreme Court
I would have been much happier if her statement would have made reference to the fact that as a unanimous ruling, it meant that what they were asked to look at was so unconstitutional and such an abuse of power, the message was “don’t ever try a stupid stunt like that again.”
Her message should be ignored, as it basically mirrored the liberal justices message. Amy Coney Barrett is worthless.
We will have to read the ruling - because one can't trust the simplistic, hyper-ventilating MSM to give the salient points.
States certainly have the right determine their own electoral procedures.
On the other hand, this must be done through the State Constitution and Legislature - not the fiat of some government bureaucrat - which is was happened in Maine and Colorado.
🎵🎵”Feelings, oh oh feelings... “🎵🎵
The “Law” means nothing.
It is the job of the courts to find facts and apply law.
The fact is that Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or the United States.
Colorado could not rationally find that he had.
It did not rationally find that he had.
“GO Wild Conference Washington DC 2023 for planners, makers and creators
“Our premium in-person conference is unlike any other. The speakers, the swag, & the spirit of GO Wild are hard to describe.”
https://www.wildforplanners.com/
I suspect nearly every one of them voted for Biden:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wJrRYKfAC7U
The states’ rights battle is still going on. SCOTUS wants to avoid a “chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles.”
Too late.
That battle is becoming more and more sharply pronounced.
And the Founders views about that are in the two Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers (mass paperback books still in print).
The “nations’ temperature” should be irrelevant to Supreme Court rulings. The law should be the only thing that matters.
Right, and it’s worth noting that five of the Justices wanted to go further and rule on the Unconstitutionality of using the 14th amendment to consider Trump an insurrectionist.
That would have been a much stronger ruling but they went with the watered down opinion in order to get to 9-0 ruling.
Unfortunately, this means the 14th amendment thing is still on the table.
“Court should turn the national temperature down”
Frankly, that’s not her freakin’ job. The job of the SCOTUS is to enforce the Constitution and the law as they are. Sometimes that’s going to turn the national temperature down, and sometimes it’s going to turn national temperature UP. It’s not her place to adjudicate on that basis. That’s “philosopher king” Tony Kennedy-style crap.
“insurrection”
not proved
“rebellion”
not proved
Decision of Colorado court reversed.
I believe you are mistaken and the link to the opinion in the article can provide the corrective.
Justice Barrett is writing for all 9 Justices. The opinion in headed Per Curiem which is defined:
In law, a per curiam decision or opinion is one that is not authored by or attributed to a specific judge, but rather to the entire court or panel of judges who heard the case.
Then the entire opinion is stated in two short paragraphs with the reason for reversal stated as:
because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.
The court then presents subparagraphs with the detail of the event but the decision is unanimous around that one issue stated.
This is not to say that separate Justices might not have found additionally for other reasons, but they were able to be unanimous which has the unity cited in the article along with the supposed cooling impact of such unity.
Amy Conehead Barrett at it again.
“In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency....”
It’s a time to be decisive, and we get a touchy feely mommy decision. The only reason she was picked is because she is a female. Now we pay the price. She has been a disaster.
The Colorado decision to ban Trump from the state’s election, was completely political and not based on any law that mattered. It was done by a completely leftist set of democratic party judges; iow, completely politically partisan.
All of the court cases against Trump are all politically based, done by partisan hacks from the democratic party. As such, they should all be ruled invalid, just like the Colorado case. To take down a candidate via wholly political bias, is against the will of the people and should be disallowed. To represent the will of the people means that, decisions to ban a candidate should be bipartisan and not based on the desires of a political opponent or political party. The DOJ decisions are all politically based against Trump. There is no bipartisanship in what they’ve done against Trump.
Political decisions should not be represented as ‘the will of the people’. All of the court cases and decisions by states against Trump, are all political and not based on true law enforcement. ALL of the cases should be dismissed and any ‘settled’ cases that were brought forth because of political bias, should also be overturned. Anything brought to courts that were wholly political, should all be dismissed or overturned.
The Colorado case was totally political and based on the desire of Trump’s enemies to affect the vote. Likewise, all politically based cases against Trump are meant to affect the vote. There is no single case that is not political and meant to affect the vote. Therefore, all cases need to be dismissed.