🚨Official SCOTUS rejects Trump insurrection ineligibility thread🚨
| well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | olive spectacular fortuitous meteor | 03/04/24 | | Charismatic bearded house | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | crawly telephone travel guidebook | 03/04/24 | | Maize mexican casino | 03/04/24 | | fiercely-loyal digit ratio headpube | 03/04/24 | | indecent slate quadroon | 03/04/24 | | shimmering low-t indian lodge | 03/04/24 | | Copper hunting ground shitlib | 03/04/24 | | shimmering low-t indian lodge | 03/04/24 | | aromatic vermilion useless brakes mood | 03/04/24 | | Wonderful people who are hurt box office | 03/04/24 | | talented ivory point coldplay fan | 03/04/24 | | Glassy slippery center | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | turquoise newt | 03/04/24 | | Know-it-all ladyboy dragon | 03/04/24 | | Filthy exhilarant idiot lodge | 03/04/24 | | offensive persian | 03/04/24 | | insecure elastic band | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | razzle bespoke stage brethren | 03/04/24 | | Charismatic bearded house | 03/04/24 | | Glassy slippery center | 03/04/24 | | diverse gaped church tank | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | indecent slate quadroon | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | talented ivory point coldplay fan | 03/04/24 | | Contagious At-the-ready Yarmulke | 03/04/24 | | Glassy slippery center | 03/04/24 | | Maize mexican casino | 03/04/24 | | offensive persian | 03/04/24 | | obsidian organic girlfriend idea he suggested | 03/04/24 | | insecure elastic band | 03/04/24 | | Contagious At-the-ready Yarmulke | 03/04/24 | | insecure elastic band | 03/04/24 | | Bat-shit-crazy station | 03/04/24 | | soul-stirring stead pocket flask | 03/05/24 | | insecure elastic band | 03/05/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/05/24 | | indecent slate quadroon | 03/05/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | indecent slate quadroon | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | obsidian organic girlfriend idea he suggested | 03/04/24 | | lime chad parlour | 03/04/24 | | concupiscible rebellious resort | 03/04/24 | | obsidian organic girlfriend idea he suggested | 03/04/24 | | Contagious At-the-ready Yarmulke | 03/04/24 | | Overrated Friendly Grandma | 03/04/24 | | indecent slate quadroon | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | Red big sanctuary selfie | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | Red big sanctuary selfie | 03/04/24 | | arousing violent heaven | 03/04/24 | | Contagious At-the-ready Yarmulke | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | insecure elastic band | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | puce half-breed degenerate | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | Wonderful people who are hurt box office | 03/04/24 | | insecure elastic band | 03/04/24 | | Bat-shit-crazy station | 03/04/24 | | Filthy exhilarant idiot lodge | 03/04/24 | | Jet-lagged faggotry main people | 03/04/24 | | metal foreskin | 03/04/24 | | Wonderful people who are hurt box office | 03/04/24 | | well-lubricated halford | 03/04/24 | | Jet-lagged faggotry main people | 03/04/24 | | Jet-lagged faggotry main people | 03/04/24 | | fiercely-loyal digit ratio headpube | 03/06/24 | | offensive persian | 03/06/24 | | shimmering low-t indian lodge | 03/04/24 | | aromatic vermilion useless brakes mood | 03/04/24 | | shimmering low-t indian lodge | 03/04/24 | | Jet-lagged faggotry main people | 03/04/24 | | Greedy fanboi | 03/04/24 | | Jet-lagged faggotry main people | 03/04/24 | | olive spectacular fortuitous meteor | 03/05/24 | | obsidian organic girlfriend idea he suggested | 03/06/24 | | Jet-lagged faggotry main people | 03/04/24 | | marvelous skinny woman | 03/06/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: March 4th, 2024 10:15 AM Author: well-lubricated halford
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 opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461448) |
Date: March 4th, 2024 10:16 AM Author: well-lubricated halford
barrett, concurring:
JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in
the judgment.
I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. 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. 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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461453) |
Date: March 4th, 2024 10:17 AM Author: well-lubricated halford
power grrrls:
===
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE
JACKSON, concurring in the judgment.
“If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our Republic. This Court is authorized “to say what the law is” only because “[t]hose who apply [a] rule to particular cases . . . must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis added).
Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461454) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2024 11:17 AM Author: well-lubricated halford
Melissa Murray (@ProfMMurray on Threads 🧵)
@ProfMMurray
·
23m
dat snark
====
Quick thoughts on Trump v. Anderson.
1) This could have been a one-pager....
2) But 5 Justices wanted to go further to answer questions that weren't on the table
3) Something that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson called them on
4) The SS, EK, KBJ dissent is dripping in snark. 🔥
https://twitter.com/ProfMMurray/status/1764678233734148467
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461634) |
Date: March 4th, 2024 10:24 AM Author: Overrated Friendly Grandma
The reasoning was only 5-4. Cons (minus the chick) reasoned that you can't invoke the constitutional prohibition against insurrectionists unless and until enabling legislation is passed by congress
The 3 libs (apparently thirsty to invite biden's jackbooted thugs in the DOJ to act against trump) on vague grounds only wanted to bar colorado/states from acting (bc reasons)
Barrett agreed with the libs that that that should have been the reasoning because it is a narrower holding which is ethpethially important in a contentious case
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461473) |
Date: March 4th, 2024 11:20 AM Author: well-lubricated halford
Neal Katyal dishing out the copium
===
Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal
It’s a win for Trump. At the same time, remember that the Supreme Court’s decision today did not do what Donald Trump had asked: clear him of insurrection. The Colorado court found that he so was, and Trump had an entire section of his SCOTUS brief arguing he was peaceful on 1/6. The Court didn’t do what he asked; it did not clear him. And the act’s decision leaves space for his criminal trial about Jan 6 to proceed, should the Court dispose of the other Trump immunity case quickly in the Spring (as it can and must). The Court took 25 days to render this decision. Anything longer in the immunity case would be deeply inconsistent with what it did here.
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1764674263737364769
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461636) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2024 12:56 AM Author: fiercely-loyal digit ratio headpube
I'm tepid about it. Dems had to run the table on like 6-8 (depending on how you divide them up) questions to win, and their arguments weren't horrible on any one of them, but there were at-least-credible counterarguments on each.
So it was clearly going to be a win. But I actually wasn't in love with any *one* of the TRUMP arguments. The real (principled) reason to side with TRUMP here is the overarching anti-democratic feel of the opposite result, which of course was also a tough stream for anti-TRUMPers to swim against as they're trying to go 7-0 on novel legal issues.
I actually think that the 5-justice rationale (that the 3 libs and barrett bitched about reaching) probably comes the closest to addressing the real concern re: possible abuses of applying an infinitely flexible term like "insurrection": if Congress wants to set up a real set of substantive definitions and adjudicatory procedures ex ante of any disqualification (and ideally ex ante of any putative insurrection, although there's only one guaranteed vote for the ex post facto clause applying to this), that's fine, but we can't be just deciding ad hoc that one accidental riot is a 14A insurrection because the news networks bring on 3 years worth of MAF lib lawprof pundits to say it clearly is, but when some milwaukee-area state senator riles up a crowd that later burns down a police station, that's not an insurrection because msnbc brought on BOTH 5'4" larry tribe AND 5'7" neal katyal to sneer without citation at the argument.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47467809) |
|
|