The justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow Colorado to bar the former president from the state’s primary ballot. The justices offered different reasons, but the decision was unanimous.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    yeah this ruling was a rare good one. The states can’t enforce the federal constitution. Now it would be more interesting if the state itself had a constitutional section being used.

    • jaberwok@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      Unfortunately, it really wasn’t. They unanimously agreed that the Colorado Supreme Court was overstepping its authority, in that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has to be executed at the federal level for federal officers. While I’m not particularly happy with this result, I understand their reasoning, and I think it’s as fair a ruling as they could have made. Four of the justices wanted to stop here, however, but the more conservative justices did not – which is what makes this ruling problematic. Basically the other 5 justices ignored the plain-text of the amendment to assert their preferred outcome, which was basically to invalidate Section 3 in its entirety. (They argued that congressional action was necessary to clarify how Section 3 works, which is, IMO, absurd – especially given how they’re quite willing to invoke the plain-text meaning of other sections of the Constitution when it conforms more to their liking.) With this judgement, they’re basically saying that it doesn’t matter if Trump committed insurrection or not, it will take an act of Congress to so define it and invalidate his ability to be President.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        SCOTUS has crossed out Section Three with a Sharpie.

        Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrongly depended on “b-b-but it would be a patchwork!” Every state already has different rules - set by the state - to determine ballot qualification for Presidential candidates. Just because Colorado (and Maine and Illinois) have determined that Trump is not qualified to be on their state’s ballots, does not oblige any other state to disqualify.

        States are responsible for handling elections. This ruling very clearly ignores that constitutional provision. I would love nothing more for Colorado (or Maine or Illinois) to still keep Trump off of their ballot, saying “Make me.”

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          colorado took him off referencing the federal constitution though and not the state constitution or law. that is problematic.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ding ding ding.

        It’s one thing to say that this is a federal issue and must be handled by a federal court, but if states can’t decide who is on their ballot in this instance, what authority allows them to do so ever? Different states have different rules with regards to which candidates and how they get on the ballot.

        Federal elections should not be run by States if States are going to be limited seemingly at random on what they can and can’t enforce. What happens if a 20 year old runs for president? Are states allowed to say no to that because it’s in the Constitution, or would Congress need to clarify that as well?