fc2112 said:

---

So do leftists riot over this decision?

---

Just a mostly peaceful protest. No insurrection.

fc2112 said:

---

So do leftists riot over this decision?

---

Nah, they won't tell the NPCs to riot over this.

Might get a few protesters, but nothing major.

what time will it happen? 10 eastern?

Logos Stick said:

---

10 eastern?

---

Yes

Primary ballots were mailed out a few weeks ago in CO and Trump was on the R one. Not saying the ruling doesn't matter, just sharing info people maybe didn't know.

If they were to rule he could be struck from the ballot for being not liked by Colorado justices/officials, then ballots returned marked for Trump wouldn't be counted.

Trump v. Anderson

Per Curiam

The Court holds that "because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse."

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Primary ballots were mailed out a few weeks ago in CO and Trump was on the R one. Not saying the ruling doesn't matter, just sharing info people maybe didn't know.

---

Well, CO's own court put a hold on their own ruling if it was appealed, which was almost immediate, so he had to be on the ballot.

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.

All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinionnot, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationalethat resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.

Quote:

---

The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.

---

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but this language seems way stronger than typical of SCOTUS. Am I correct?

Sounds like the court said states don't have this power but Congress could? Am I reading that correctly?

45-70Ag said:

---

Sounds like the court said pointed out that the constitution states don't have this power but Congress could? Am I reading that correctly?

---

45-70Ag said:

---

Sounds like the court said states don't have this power but Congress could? Am I reading that correctly?

---

The 14th Amendment gives Congress that power.

On the plus side, we get to make Trump a loser one more time in November now. On the downside, the Supreme Court is insane.

45-70Ag said:

---

Sounds like the court said states don't have this power but Congress could? Am I reading that correctly?

---

Here is the written opinion. it is a quick read.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

I cannot seem to copy from the PDF on my phone, but basically they rule that the original language of the constitution said that power flowed to the federal government from the states, but that the 14th amendment changed that dynamic

so much for states rights

Rapier108 said:

---

45-70Ag said:

---

Sounds like the court said states don't have this power but Congress could? Am I reading that correctly?

---

The 14th Amendment gives Congress that power.

---

I think it's more nuanced. If I'm reading correctly, SCOTUS is saying that Congress must tell us what the 14th means through legislation. Ergo, had Congress at some point in the past says that the power to interpret the 14th is a states issue, then what CO did would be allowed.

The system is rigged against Trump!! Deep state!!!!!


…wait

End of democracy as we know it…

annie88 said:

---

Whether you like or hate Trump, I cannot believe this is our country. A presidential candidate should not be left off any ballots in any state. This is just insane.

---

You know what's kinda humorous is that many of our communist lovers would support having an illegal alien on the ballot for president.

There would be all kinds of articles by Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post, and various articles in support from NYT, the Huff, Slate, AJC, and nearly every other "journalistic" operation.