|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Mar 4, 2024 17:54:57 GMT -5
I imagine part of it is because conservatives are the ones always screaming about state's rights and how they are more important than federal powers or whatever. If that were really an issue (and not a bigoted dogwhistle), the republican justices would have ruled that way.
(and you know, the liberal justices have basically no power, let's not pretend it's an evenly divided court)
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
Member is Online
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 4, 2024 17:54:59 GMT -5
The Dems have been offering plenty of stuff to the people of the US in the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Act. You know, things the Republicans are taking credit for..... while simultaneously claiming they are making everything worse. Regarding the ruling: Interesting that the Majority justices think only Congress can act to strike candidates off the ballot. State's Rights seems to have been forgotten by the "Conservative" judges.... again. Edit: If you want to read more: www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-opinion-trump-ballot-03-04-24/index.htmlWasn't this a unanimous decision? With all 9 Justices in agreement, I'm a bit confused on how you are laying this at the feet of the Conservative side like it's their cross to bear. States are free to run their own elections how they see fit, how they run Federal election though isn't totally up to them. All 9 judges agree with the outcome, but 4 did not agree with the decision to limit the federal side to specifically congress and not the federal government in general.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 5, 2024 10:45:08 GMT -5
There were two parts to the decision. The first part was unanimous. State's can't remove people from the ballot. I align closely with this decision and agree with it. It was the right decisions, as the determination that someone is an insurrectionist should be a Federal matter. Plus, it also helps maintain the power of the Courts as the ones who determine guilt/innocence.
The second part is the one that was an overreach spearheaded by "Conservative" Justices. That section specified that the only way to designate someone eligible to be impacted by the amendment required a Congressional vote passing an additional law/measure and declaring them an insurrectionist. This was agreed to 5-4 on partisan lines with Barret joining the dissenters. This interpretation means that if a Insurrectionist has enough support in Congress, they can ignore the 14th amendment. It is no longer a self-executing provision and requires further law making to be enforceable. It also erodes the Courts own power to decide insurrection.
However, the fact that "Conservative" justices are supposedly "State's Rights" and "Originalist/Textualists" means that their interpretation of this Amendment should have focused on those two cardinal rules. I contend that their ruling was inconsistent with their alleged basis for jurisprudence that they testified to in their Senate hearings.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
Member is Online
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 5, 2024 10:52:21 GMT -5
In fairness, I don't think it is strictly a partisan split when ACB also joined the split. Her reasoning was a bit different but also sound, in that the SC hadn't been asked to opine on the question of how the insurrection clause is activated by the federal government, only whether it could be by a state. Therefore they shouldn't comment on that as it is out of the scope of the case and an overreach by the majority.
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Mar 5, 2024 11:14:48 GMT -5
Well, the Supreme Court put Trump back on the ballot. Apparently only Congress can implement the 14th Amendment. Unsurprising result. Not the approach I expected though. As it happens, I both think Trump shouldn't be standing for re-election AND think it was a fairly poor strategy by democrats overall to try to sink Trump in the courts rather than offering something for the people of the US. Or even just shouting about the genuinely surprising amount of good stuff Biden has pushed through that he is weirdly quiet about. Biden has appointed a similar number of judges as Trump, for example (not SC judges of course...). It was republicans that brought the case, not democrats
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 6, 2024 10:42:17 GMT -5
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Mar 6, 2024 10:47:14 GMT -5
Give it a little time...
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 6, 2024 15:38:33 GMT -5
I heard a "rumor" that Trump has invited Musk to Mar-A-Lago to beg for money.
Biden has been out fundraising Trump. Plus, Trump needs someone to pay his legal bills and fines. Is Elon Musk the guy to help?
Russia and Putin must not be the Patron it use to be for him. I guess all of Putin's cash must be going into R's in the House instead.
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Mar 8, 2024 10:53:43 GMT -5
I have a hunch that Putin's influence over Trump probably comes more down to incriminating video tapes than it does financial backing, although there is that as well.
Remember Putin's role when he was in the KGB as head of 'Kompromat', sometimes those methods are the most straightforward.
|
|
mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by mdgv2 on Mar 8, 2024 10:55:38 GMT -5
I heard a "rumor" that Trump has invited Musk to Mar-A-Lago to beg for money. Biden has been out fundraising Trump. Plus, Trump needs someone to pay his legal bills and fines. Is Elon Musk the guy to help? Russia and Putin must not be the Patron it use to be for him. I guess all of Putin's cash must be going into R's in the House instead. Or it’s to ask for Shitter to tweak its algorithms to stop Democrat posts and that.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 8, 2024 11:27:04 GMT -5
Pretty fiery State of the Union address last night, and it was pretty clearly a political ad for Biden. He made a big contrast to Trump's most recent speeches, like the one Trump made after the SC decision. Anyone paying attention will see the big difference right away.... too bad the vast majority of voters will never actually watch or read the two speeches. If there is a live debate between these two, it would be telling to see the difference side-by-side. Speech is here I think: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFVUPAEF-sw
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on Mar 8, 2024 13:23:48 GMT -5
On one level it would be great - seeing Joe demolish The Fat One with facts. Unfortunately Donny will just rant at him "Perverts & thieves!", "Drain the Swamp!", "I'll fix this country Day One!", "You're a crook!", "Emails!"
And his base will lap it up, the idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Mar 8, 2024 14:29:27 GMT -5
Fox News will just show clips of the debate with Biden at half speed, to claim he is senile and slurring his words. Reality is like water of a duck's back to these people.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 8, 2024 15:46:59 GMT -5
I do really enjoy when Biden asked "Does this guy ever shut-up?" in the last debate.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 12, 2024 9:51:08 GMT -5
|
|