eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

The Constitution did not petrify/ossify in 1850.

---

We obviously have amendments. Which amendment gives the federal government power over how the states hold their elections?

---

a half dozen posters have spent two pages trying to explain that to you. There's nothing productive I can add.

Foreverconservative said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Which amendment gives the federal government power over how the states hold their elections?

---

With regard to how a state is permitted to keep an insurrectionist of the ballot, the answer is below.

I am going to have it hidden so posters Can try to guess at the answer.


14th amendment. What should have been painfully clear to any person that bothered to pay even the slightest attention to the Supreme Court ruling in this case

---

Neat trick

14th amendment. What should have been painfully clear to any person that bothered to pay even the slightest attention to the Supreme Court ruling in this case

---

I just made a circle with my index finger and thumb below my waist, and you looked at it.

*Punch*

Eeww

Those aren't tears, Fascist. They're urine. I'm sure you enjoy being bathed in it.

— Keith Olbermann⌚️ (@KeithOlbermann) March 4, 2024

For all the people counting on liberal states and their Marxist/anti democracy Ilk...

BREAKING: Decision Desk HQ projects Donald Trump wins the Colorado Republican Primary pic.twitter.com/Kw1uVCnScj

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) March 6, 2024

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

It's not really relevant to this decision, but historically, I don't think that's correct. (Putting aside for a moment that what we think of as a ballot didn't even exist at the time and didn't come in till the 20th century.)

Prior to the 14th amendment, state could put an insurrection on the ballot, or leave one off. Nothing in the constitution Spoke to that. The amendment was passed to make sure the Civil War rebels did not take over the federal government or come in the power in the states again

If you look at the dissent from Thomas in term limits v Thornton, I think he would agree.

Quote:

---

Justice Thomas , with whom The Chief Justice, I dissent. Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.

Because the majority fundamentally misunderstands the notion of "reserved" powers, I start with some first principles. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the people of the States need not point to any affirmative grant of power in the Constitution in order to prescribe qualifications for their representatives in Congress, or to authorize their elected state legislators to do so.

---

By the way, based on the current composition of the court, they'd probably reverse the holding in that term limits case

---

Have I ever mentioned I have a huge man crush on Thomas?

Well well well.

Looks like the supreme court clerks failed to scrub the metadata on the opinion they released.

Metadata shows Sotomayor writes the concurring opinion and the rest of the girls sign off on it at the last minute.

So that's not a real good look.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Well well well.

Looks like the supreme court clerks failed to scrub the metadata on the opinion they released.

Metadata shows Sotomayor writes the concurring opinion and the rest of the girls sign off on it at the last minute.

So that's not a real good look.

---

Could have been intentional to give the Dems a wink to the decision. If that's true, it's disgusting and a black stain on the liberal justices. Just like they allowed the leak on Roe v Wade. Also, if true, it's a HUGE break of trust between colleagues and friends. People have to realize that these are intellectual elites who value each other from a respect perspective and friendship perspective. It is well known that many of the liberal and conservative justices are closer than what most would know.

It's very disappointing if this was a law clerk.

Quote:

---

Looks like the supreme court clerks failed to scrub the metadata on the opinion they released.

---

To be clear that is the regular clerks for SCOTUS, not on any particular justices' clerks, correct?

Although, I can see the quality of any clerk Sotomator would hire could be that bad as well?

Or perhaps this was not accidental considering the Dobbs leaker was never even pursued.

its not going to be a law clerk that is the one posting the opinions, scubbing metadata. thats someone in the office clerk department

BMX Bandit said:

---

its not going to be a law clerk that is the one posting the opinions, scubbing metadata. thats someone in the office clerk department

---

That was my assumption but since it was the Wise Latina, had to ask

Could it be as innocuous as the clerk's office needing final sign-off and they just happened to get them last minute?

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

eric76 said:

---

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

---

That's literally what they've done from the start. Do you really think the Justices thought that growing wheat on your own land to feed cattle on your own land was what the founders thought when they said Congress could regulate interstate commerce?

Almost all of the biggest cases are like that. Or did you really think that SCOTUS found that Obamacare was constitutional because it was a tax when the government argued it wasn't?

aggiejayrod said:

---

eric76 said:

---

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

---

That's literally what they've done from the start. Do you really think the Justices thought that growing wheat on your own land to feed cattle on your own land was what the founders thought when they said Congress could regulate interstate commerce?

Almost all of the biggest cases are like that. Or did you really think that SCOTUS found that Obamacare was constitutional because it was a tax when the government argued it wasn't?

---

Well, to be fair, after the government argued that it wasn't a tax, they went on to argue that it WAS a tax...

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Luttig's opinion is dumbass. Trump has not been, nor even charged, with insurrection. Just because lefty jimmies are more rustled than hooking up with a tceh STD, doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Anyone in the future, convicted of insurrection by the Federal gov't, can still be excluded.

TDS is terminal.

BigRobSA said:

---

eric76 said:

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Precedent.
No, probably not, but the correct ruling was reached. Trump didn't attempt, and hasn't been convicted of, insurrection. Also, the rule being applied wouldn't apply to him even if he had.

I get it, you're not a Trump fan. Neither am I. But your incessant desire to forego reality when it comes to ANYTHING dealing with Trump is tiresome and does nothing to help things, in any way.

---

Yeah…just Trump… definitely not a lot of matters. Or do you forget "where's the blood?" being screamed up and down this board?

Exactly. The whole point is that we have an enormous body of federal decisions/jurisprudence about voter disenfranchisement and constitutional protections, but one thing that would really disenfranchise quite literally tens of millions of voters is if some low level partisans in a handful of states decide not to allow a candidate to run they just detest. It isn't about insurrection, it's about due process and voting rights.

Hand waiving from terminal TDS-sufferers doesn't change any of that.

Also, I laughed that the poster you quoted/replied to implied out of shear fear 'well, he could even run again in 2028!' Anyone eligible should be allowed to run, and be defeated/elected. That's why we have elections.

If Trump was part of an insurrection…congress can pass legislation to that effect and ban him from holding office again. It's just that simple. Sorry Liz Cheney (badly) lost that crusade, insane Democrats/communists/TDS sufferers.

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

So, the guy that championed using the 14th Amendment to get rid of Trump disagrees with the SCOTUS when his view got *****slapped 9-0?

---

When did I use the 14th Amendment as a way to get rid of Trump. While it would make me happy to have a rational Republican on the ballot, I never thought that this would affect much of anything,. Those states that would ban Trump for the ballots are states that he would be unlikely to win.

But keep making crap up. Maybe one day you'll get something correct.

BigRobSA said:

---

eric76 said:

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Precedent.
No, probably not, but the correct ruling was reached. Trump didn't attempt, and hasn't been convicted of, insurrection. Also, the rule being applied wouldn't apply to him even if he had.

I get it, you're not a Trump fan. Neither am I. But your incessant desire to forego reality when it comes to ANYTHING dealing with Trump is tiresome and does nothing to help things, in any way.

---

My opinion on this has nothing to do with my opinion of Trump.

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Luttig's opinion is dumbass. Trump has not been, nor even charged, with insurrection. Just because lefty jimmies are more rustled than hooking up with a tceh STD, doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Anyone in the future, convicted of insurrection by the Federal gov't, can still be excluded.

TDS is terminal.

---

What are the odds that anyone would be tried fast enough to make much difference?

This decision basically means that nobody will be declared ineligible to run because of the 14th amendment.

nortex97 said:

---

Exactly. The whole point is that we have an enormous body of federal decisions/jurisprudence about voter disenfranchisement and constitutional protections, but one thing that would really disenfranchise quite literally tens of millions of voters is if some low level partisans in a handful of states decide not to allow a candidate to run they just detest. It isn't about insurrection, it's about due process and voting rights.

Hand waiving from terminal TDS-sufferers doesn't change any of that.

Also, I laughed that the poster you quoted/replied to implied out of shear fear 'well, he could even run again in 2028!' Anyone eligible should be allowed to run, and be defeated/elected. That's why we have elections.

If Trump was part of an insurrection…congress can pass legislation to that effect and ban him from holding office again. It's just that simple. Sorry Liz Cheney (badly) lost that crusade, insane Democrats/communists/TDS sufferers.

---

So you want to end term limits on the Presidency?

How many years do you think that Obama would have as President if not for the limits? Do you think that Trump could have beaten Obama in 2016? Or 2020? Or 2024?

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Luttig's opinion is dumbass. Trump has not been, nor even charged, with insurrection. Just because lefty jimmies are more rustled than hooking up with a tceh STD, doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Anyone in the future, convicted of insurrection by the Federal gov't, can still be excluded.

TDS is terminal.

---

What are the odds that anyone would be tried fast enough to make much difference?

This decision basically means that nobody will be declared ineligible to run because of the 14th amendment.

---

No it doesn't. You're TDS is simply letting you believe farcical things.

eric76 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

eric76 said:

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Precedent.
No, probably not, but the correct ruling was reached. Trump didn't attempt, and hasn't been convicted of, insurrection. Also, the rule being applied wouldn't apply to him even if he had.

I get it, you're not a Trump fan. Neither am I. But your incessant desire to forego reality when it comes to ANYTHING dealing with Trump is tiresome and does nothing to help things, in any way.

---

My opinion on this has nothing to do with my opinion of Trump.

---

bwhahaha. Now that is a good joke!

texagbeliever said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

eric76 said:

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Precedent.
No, probably not, but the correct ruling was reached. Trump didn't attempt, and hasn't been convicted of, insurrection. Also, the rule being applied wouldn't apply to him even if he had.

I get it, you're not a Trump fan. Neither am I. But your incessant desire to forego reality when it comes to ANYTHING dealing with Trump is tiresome and does nothing to help things, in any way.

---

My opinion on this has nothing to do with my opinion of Trump.

---

bwhahaha. Now that is a good joke!

---

It seems likely that people without principles think that nobody ever has principles.

Even if it were a candidate who I liked, I would still oppose the Supreme Court becoming involved. It would be a state issue, not a federal issue.

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Luttig's opinion is dumbass. Trump has not been, nor even charged, with insurrection. Just because lefty jimmies are more rustled than hooking up with a tceh STD, doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Anyone in the future, convicted of insurrection by the Federal gov't, can still be excluded.

TDS is terminal.

---

What are the odds that anyone would be tried fast enough to make much difference?

This decision basically means that nobody will be declared ineligible to run because of the 14th amendment.

---

No it doesn't. You're TDS is simply letting you believe farcical things.

---

Those believing farcial things are members of the cult.

You like to use the word cult a lot. Are you in the TDS cult? Maybe we should start using that every time you bring it up.

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Trump is going to win Maine; not just the second congressional district but the entire state.

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Luttig's opinion is dumbass. Trump has not been, nor even charged, with insurrection. Just because lefty jimmies are more rustled than hooking up with a tceh STD, doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Anyone in the future, convicted of insurrection by the Federal gov't, can still be excluded.

TDS is terminal.

---

What are the odds that anyone would be tried fast enough to make much difference?

This decision basically means that nobody will be declared ineligible to run because of the 14th amendment.

---

No it doesn't. You're TDS is simply letting you believe farcical things.

---

Those believing farcial things are members of the cult.

---

They said it's a power reserved to Congress

Congress has to decide to invoke the 14th (DoA)

I know you crave a world where a stacked leftist SCOTUS gets to just declare all republicans to be seditionists who are ineligible to be on any ballot but stop living in your Very Concerned fantasies and take the loss like a man

Maroon Dawn said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Luttig's opinion is dumbass. Trump has not been, nor even charged, with insurrection. Just because lefty jimmies are more rustled than hooking up with a tceh STD, doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Anyone in the future, convicted of insurrection by the Federal gov't, can still be excluded.

TDS is terminal.

---

What are the odds that anyone would be tried fast enough to make much difference?

This decision basically means that nobody will be declared ineligible to run because of the 14th amendment.

---

No it doesn't. You're TDS is simply letting you believe farcical things.

---

Those believing farcial things are members of the cult.

---

They said it's a power reserved to Congress

Congress has to decide to invoke the 14th (DoA)

I know you crave a world where a stacked leftist SCOTUS gets to just declare all republicans to be seditionists who are ineligible to be on any ballot but stop living in your Very Concerned fantasies and take the loss like a man

---

In the 14th amendment, if the Congress has the sole power to rule a candidate ineligiible for office as a result of section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article", then why is "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" even necessary? How could it ever be applied? After all, with that argument, they could do the same with a majority vote by section 5l.

It is far more rational that section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" is about general legislation on the issue, not specific legislation for any particular candidate and that the "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" allows them to overrule any removal of eligibility by other sources at their discretion.

If section 5 required Congress to find them ineligible, then there would be no need for them to be mentioned in section 3 since they could be made eligible by a majority vote under section 5.

eric76 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Luttig's opinion is dumbass. Trump has not been, nor even charged, with insurrection. Just because lefty jimmies are more rustled than hooking up with a tceh STD, doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Anyone in the future, convicted of insurrection by the Federal gov't, can still be excluded.

TDS is terminal.

---

What are the odds that anyone would be tried fast enough to make much difference?

This decision basically means that nobody will be declared ineligible to run because of the 14th amendment.

---

No it doesn't. You're TDS is simply letting you believe farcical things.

---

Those believing farcial things are members of the cult.

---

They said it's a power reserved to Congress

Congress has to decide to invoke the 14th (DoA)

I know you crave a world where a stacked leftist SCOTUS gets to just declare all republicans to be seditionists who are ineligible to be on any ballot but stop living in your Very Concerned fantasies and take the loss like a man

---

In the 14th amendment, if the Congress has the sole power to rule a candidate ineligiible for office as a result of section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article", then why is "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" even necessary? How could it ever be applied? After all, with that argument, they could do the same with a majority vote by section 5l.

It is far more rational that section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" is about general legislation on the issue, not specific legislation for any particular candidate and that the "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" allows them to overrule any removal of eligibility by other sources at their discretion.

If section 5 required Congress to find them ineligible, then there would be no need for them to be mentioned in section 3 since they could be made eligible by a majority vote under section 5.

---

9-0 SCOTUS disagrees with you

But of course if they only knew about your Very Concerned layman's legal opinion on an internet message board, I'm sure they would have ruled 9-0 to let Trump be removed

"Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal." -- Robert Heinlein.

eric76 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

So, the guy that championed using the 14th Amendment to get rid of Trump disagrees with the SCOTUS when his view got *****slapped 9-0?

---

When did I use the 14th Amendment as a way to get rid of Trump. While it would make me happy to have a rational Republican on the ballot, I never thought that this would affect much of anything,. Those states that would ban Trump for the ballots are states that he would be unlikely to win.

But keep making crap up. Maybe one day you'll get something correct.

---

I didn't say that YOU said that.

I was referring to Judge Luttig, who came up with the idea to use the 14th Amendment...you know, they guy you cited in your post to support your position.

And...your last sentence is quite amusing...perhaps you could issue a mea culpa.