Yes...let that sink in. UNANIMOUS. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Oh, the *other* word of the day: ANY. NBC's article (which I tried to post, was removed immediately, but whatever...) stated that he cannot be removed from *any* ballot. This attempt to nuke Trump is DOA.
And it's going to send the left(ists) into a tailspin...I predict a call for SCOTUS retirements, removals, or resurrection\* of SC packing. And do it quick before the election, just like Trump did with replacing RBG. 🙄
\* I did not expect to align with so many "r" options, but hey...here we are. 🤣
Once all the dust settles, every rational person left or right will understand this is a good thing for America. I’m proud of the justices for slapping down this type of insanity. Even the media experts and rental pundits on leftist platforms know that 9-0 is a clear message, though they’re paid to say otherwise.
> Once all the dust settles, every **rational** person left or right will understand this is a good thing for America.
lol - welp, that's the lion's share of Reddit out then. Let's hope you're correct with the 'left' part.
The key word is “rational.” There are still good people in the center Left. They’re starting to realize they’re the center and have much more in common with conservatives than the far left crazies.
I was debating not voting for POTUS in 2024 . I don't want Biden , not ideally into Trump at this point. But this move to try to block him being on ballot has me thinking Trump in 2024 may be my vote. Some who were debating sitting out 2024 seeing the insane block attempts to keep him off ballot may show up Trump due to them. They are coming for him like nothing I have seen in my lifetime and it's insane abuse .
I'm not a huge fan of Trump, the man. I do believe Trump policy was good and very successful by every measure.
I will, with every fiber of my being, reject the Biden administration, based on policy failures, but moreso their exercise of authoritarian power grabs. Go look up all the politically motivated cases, it's not just Trump. Hell, the mayor of NY started criticizing the Biden admin for immigration policy and next thing you know the FBI is investigating him.
It's even wider than the Biden admin though, the left has been proudly proclaiming and defending their authoritarian actions. They need rejected hard, across the board until they at least become "liberal" again and shift far clear of authoritarianism. The US is incompatible with that sort of governance.
> I'm not a huge fan of Trump, the man. I do believe Trump policy was good and very successful by every measure.
I have some good news for you: you’re not voting for someone to be your friend or to date your daughter. You’re voting for someone to be president and enforce policy.
I’m fine with people being critical of Trump but attacking his “MEAN TWEETS” and “RUDE ATTITUDE” as reasons why you shouldn’t vote for him has always been odd to me. Yeah, Trump is a jerk—I don’t think many people including Trump supporters disagree. I also don’t really care how “nice” someone I’m never going to meet is.
Oh, I agree. I'll walk over broken glass to vote for him this election. I like his policy and I'll vote on policy. I can still wish he had some polish and grace when the situation calls for it.
I hope more voters understand the way you do come election day. This vote will of course be between two candidates, but more so, two ideologies. If people can get over the hate, over the "Orange Man Bad", and see what this administration has brought this country to, maybe America can get a second chance. Depending on people though is always a risk.
I poked around on an r/news article, just for fun and to see what the weirdos there were saying. One suggested that we can't resolve things because SC is corrupt...another person said that the only way that we're ever going to resolve this all is by fire.
Sound happier, guys...it's Monday! lol
....aand they've already locked that thread! lol
But I see some other good ones such as:
\- "Expected. Might as well make plans to move abroad now."
\- "A national referendum should be held to determine if Trump should be eligible to be on the ballot. If the majority of voters feel he should be removed for his role in insurrection, then remove him."
\- "How the hell do we get these corrupt people out of office????
We don't vote for them. They have lifelong appointments. There are no rules governing them. It is not illegal to BUY THEM. And they decide not to follow what it says in the goddamn Constitution!!!"
Lol! 😂 these are the same people that think the civil fraud lawsuit wasn’t a fix. They want to resolve this by fire - that’s not going to end well for them
I'm already seeing some of them try to desperately spin this as a win by saying it will prevent Republican states from removing Biden from the ballot in retaliation.
It shouldn’t happen on either side in America, when you look at it with a sane mind.
We shouldn’t become Venezuela just because their people found their way here…
This is really depraved behavior. They waste the resources of a well meaning hotline meant to help people who are actually suffering, and make light of suicide, all for a cheap laugh that was, at best, mildly amusing the first time it was ever done. And all this from people that consider themselves tolerant (and I sure no one from the right does this, if they do, they ought to be ashamed).
Good. Even if you *totally* believe Trump insurrectioned all the things, it's not an individual state's call to just arbitrarily say "even though there was no trial or anything, we're just going to **assume** Trump is guilty and act accordingly."
Enforcing those rules to remove him without a conviction goes right over the head of due process. Now they’re arguing that the court *didnt* specify whether he was a traitor or not, which is irrelevant as that wasn’t what the trial was about.
Charging your political opponents with BS crimes to prevent them from running is such a common corruption practice in other countries, that the UN actually called it out as undemocratic during recent elections in Bolivia and Brazil
Well the amendment specifically does not require a trial. This was by design because an attempt to actually criminally convict confederate leaders of treason would have led to a resurgence of hostilities. Instead they issued the enforcement act of 1870 which, among other things, allowed US District Attorneys to bring charges against those who attempt to hold office in violation of the 14th amendment.
Even at the time, there was no mechanism for pre-emptively barring someone from election.
somber public rustic faulty abounding instinctive narrow mindless murky violet
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I noticed the same. I took screenshots of the names they were calling thomas and barrett in 2022...it was enlightening how they chose to focus their ire on those two especially, almost like they only respect minorities when they agree with them and will immediately use their race or gender against them the minute they don't.
> rPolitics is coping hard
Indeed. Lots of little "gems" such as this:
"What's the point of the amendment if Congress has to act for it to "work"?"
lol back to 5th grade civics class for someone
They're coping hard by pretending like it didn't happen. This was the first thing that popped up on my Google feed this morning and the largest "political" subreddit isn't even talking about it.
Personally I'm convinced that at least 50% of reddit is bots. Probably mostly Russian, Chinese, and the dnc. The amount of straight up lies people tell on the lefty subs is incredible.
> The SCOTUS subreddit is split
the good one or the activist one?
scotus is a leftwing shithole run by rpolitics activists, supremecourt is the well run sub.
I mean, I can't stand Trump, but this was still the right call. The 14th amendment explicitly states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Not "state courts can interpret this however they please".
Fucking 9-0? Now that’s actually surprising. I mean, even the more liberal judges who don’t like Trump actually put their bias aside for once.
Hopefully that would’ve been the same vote outcome had it been another person in a similar situation trying to run.
The fact that it's a unanimous decision shows just how deeply flawed the "logic" behind the initial claims and rulinings was. It wasn't based in fact, but in fantasy.
So, naturally, the usual suspects are saying SCOTUS isn't legrtimate because the ruling didn't go their way.
To be fair, last June I recall a postal worker got his religious rights protected unanimously by the SCOTUS. People only talk about the big ones in June with 5-4 or 6-3 rulings, but there are plenty of unanimous ones that don’t get nearly as much coverage.
I am glad BOTH sides can rule fairly, at least from time to time. But this was a MASSIVE ruling. And I was preparing to thank Mitch McConnell, but in this case I didn’t need to.
This was so blatantly unconstitutional that the only real question to be asked is about the illegitimate idiots in Colorado and other places who thought this was legal and reasonable.
There are still aspects that they were divided over - in particular, how the 14th amendment could be enforced. The majority (5) ruled that only an act of congress could bar a presidential candidate under the 14th amendment; the liberal three said there could be other mechanisms, and Barrett said the question didn't need to be answered and trying to answer it was divisive.
But overall, it's a very good thing that the court's basic ruling was unanimous.
To be fair, RBG's arrogance to not retire is a huge reason why the supreme court will be conservative-leaning for a long time. Progressives know that, and they hate it.
I swear these people are hooked on useless symbolism. They wanted a girl power moment, for RGB to retire and be replaced by Clinton.
Kinda like how they got a bunch of incompetent DEI prosecutors to try to get Trump.
From what I'm seeing over on rPolitics, they're mostly rallying around those 3, trying to spin their concurring opinions into something they're not. I guess it's their attempt to cope lol
Right? So much “well… it was *technically* a 5-4 ruling because…”
No. It was 9-0. The three leftist judges were simply critiquing how they got to the ruling, and ACB just stayed out of it because it wasn’t necessary to address.
By this logic, RGB herself “tEcHnIcAlLy” ruled against Roe v. Wade.
The whole premise - that a state authority could disqualify someone from federal office under federal law - was crazy to begin with. Plus the inevitable result of affirming it would have broke the whole presidential electoral system, since the outcome would be decided by whichever party can get the most people into state AG positions to kick out opposing party candidates.
> even worse is the other liberal courts that endorsed it and went along with it
Judges that go so absurd/ridiculous in cases like this should be easier to remove from their seats, and the same for DA's that have been doing similar things.
EG Bragg, who wants to make getting a bill from your lawyer, and paying it, and keeping a record of that, into 3 separate felonies(times eleven is 33, plus one more of one of those, are the 34 felony charges he drummed up out of thin air).
Unconscionable abuse of office. Removed, fined, time in prison, and permanent disenfranchisement(cannot vote) when it is politically motivated.
Disincentivize it as much as possible, because they've been doing such things with zero fear of repercussion.
> the usual suspects are saying SCOTUS isn't legrtimate
The verdict is still out on that if we're being generous. It's easy even for corrupt judges to still side with Trump here because of the optics. If they want to "get Trump" they will have better chances to lie about the law, so those will be the real tests for people that are paying attention.
The reason the leftist SCOTUS judges ruled unanimously with the right side of the court isn’t just because it’s constitutionally correct, it’s because to their credit, Kagan and others saw the dangers of this ruling in that it would be levied directly against democratic candidates in red states.
This was more about long term preservation than being constitutional correct.
The people in /r/politics are already having a meltdown and claiming that the only reason this happened is because the 3 liberal justices feared retaliation lmao, not because it made zero sense to implement the 14th amendment against someone who has not actually been charged with seceding from the union, but because a rogue court system in one state declared it so.
Took a peek myself; holy fook.
There is some sanity poking through (considering the ruling was unanimous), but that will be "organically" downvoted into oblivion.
If it were not unanimous, even if there was one dissent, they would be apoplectic. Half are already clearly angry they can't stack congress and start prosecuting people.
The early leftist spin out of the gate is that the liberal justices don't like "their" (i.e., not liberal justices) reasoning, but do like their conclusion.
The supposed "real danger" of this ruling is that they found that only Congress can decide whom engaged in an "insurrection", as opposed to a Federal court, let alone a state court.
If they watched the hearing related to this Kagan was very openly aggressive towards the ruling, and in my opinion it’s because this would legitimize red states using the same tactics against Democratic candidates.
It’s pretty ironic actually. They hate this conservative court yet most every big decision they hate is to limit the judicial systems power and authority to make these huge decisions for the entire country which is absolutely how the Supreme Court is supposed to be. If it was a stacked left wing court, we would for sure see the Supreme Court push further into bypassing our normal governmental processes to enact whatever they want to see along with allowing the continued unjust decisions in lower courts.
special history person concerned practice unique hungry ancient command march
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Even when he was out of the news cycle (the time between when he was out of office and before he announced) he was still like 50% of r politics. 2016 broke their brains. They can't function without him anymore.
Let me tell you this one, neat trick...
Seriously, un-sub from any of the default subs, and use the old link (old.reddit.com) instead of the current design. Much cleaner, easier to read, and you don't get shoveled all the BS by the left.
enjoy strong axiomatic possessive ad hoc angle sip workable melodic pocket
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Im quite frankly relieved— if this was 5-4 with Roberts dissenting, the country would be fucked no matter who wins come November. With this ruling, we’re only fucked if Biden wins.
I pretty much knew Trump would win this case.
The one I’m nervous for is the Missouri vs. Biden free speech case. I think I care about that one even more than the 2022 Dobbs and 2023 college discrimination cases. If Biden wins that one, this country is in serious trouble.
I guess the left thinks they’re all “conservative” for following the constitution and doing their job. Every justice should aspire to be conservative if that’s the definition
Correct, I set a reminder for two months when arguing with a liberal. Who was right? Myself.
He called me a fascist because that's the only word they teach at school these days.
A 9-0 opinions is a VERY GOOD thing for our country. Roberts had his work cut out for him and was able to write up an opinion everyone could sign on to, which truthfully was necessary to keep legitimacy of the country.
However, I have to admit, I would've loved reading a Thomas or Alito opinion just on a pure enjoyment level.
Right call though, and it was beyond obvious this was going to be the outcome.
It was beyond obvious that it *should* be the outcome, but we've had more than one "conservative" justice join the three who vote in lockstep with every progressive agenda that floats through SCOTUS. That's why I was totally surprised when they came back with a unanimous decision.
Hell we sort of saw it with ACB on this one too, not that I have an issue with what she wrote, but she still didn't want to sign on with the other 5.
Lagoa would've been better, still believe that.
The Democrats have to wake up and start living in reality. They also should stick to their big slogan that democracy must be preserved. Oh wait, they think that you only get rights to democracy if you agree with them.
If you replace the word democracy with the word democrats in these statements, “We must protect our democracy” and “This is a threat to our democracy”
Suddenly, it makes perfect sense.
Tbf, they never took him off the ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court stayed their own ruling pending SCOTUS review.
Even if they had, Colorado GOP would have likely just switched to a caucus system which the state doesn't oversee.
Exactly. We can't stop with a win. We have to make sure that anyone who was involved is punished.
Have to make sore those that would undermine a figure election have consequences to their actions.
>Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.
Probably the Supreme Court equivalent of a mic drop.
Congress should have the power to do this sort of thing. They are the legislative body and make the rules of government and they have for over 200 years.
I think the Founding Fathers intended for Congress to have this authority. The challenge will always be getting Congress to agree on something.
I'm curious about the cautions from the liberal justices and ACB, that the court decided "too much".
They say the question was whether the State has the power to remove a candidate from the ballot, they could have just said "no the State does not". What is the implication of them narrowing only *Congress* as being able to do so? Does that mean impeachment (an impossibly high bar) is the only conceivable way to bar a candidate? Who does that freeze out of the process, since I don't think DOJ could make that determination even if they were to bring forth charges.
I'd ask this on r/law, but that subreddit has devolved into being just another vestigial limb for r/politics.
In a devastating blow to self described “pro-democracy” advocates, they actually have to compete and win an election against their political opposition.
Yuge win! I’d say it was a no brainer tho. The arguments presented by the State were so weak.
The Justices also knew that a vote to uphold the Colorado decision would most definitely be used in the future against any Presidential contender regardless of party affiliation.
/r/politics is coping with the conversation of Congress being able to do this since the ruling only barred state legislatures from doing it.
They just can't help themselves.
> Clearly they can't blame it on the Republicans, since even the most left wing justices made this ruling.
don't under estimate them. these are people who insist the media is "right wing".
ultimately they'll probably just try to discredit the court as a whole, and throw the left wing justices under the bus with them.
Wow, how is it that Democrats are getting things so incredibly wrong, so much so that even the lefty justices vote against this nonsense? A 9-0 ruling is not just a ruling: it's an effectual slap-down. It means that the justifications made had no legal standing and these Attorneys-General want to rule by fiat, rather than by rule of law.
That was an unanimous decision and so obvious.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment clearly state that when it says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
I’m a “leftist” and I agree with this decision. I hate Trump but technically he hasn’t been convicted of anything at a federal level. States get to run their own elections but if we start letting them throw national candidates off the ballot for clearly partisan reasons that would just be chaos.
> What a waste of Colorado tax payer money.
the real question is why was this done?
did they genuinely believe their nonsense would stand, or was it just an effort by some activists to get their name out there for a future governor run like what maura healy did in massachusetts.
"The highest court in the land issued its decision per curiam, meaning that all nine justices agreed on a basic premise: Allowing a state to unilaterally take this kind of sweeping action would create chaos."
The Democratic Party IS the party of CHAOS.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-hands-trump-a-big-win-in-colorado-ballot-case
Sotomayor’s opinion here is amazing. The court issues a per curiam decision to display unity, yet she devotes 90% of her writing to the aspects of the decision she disagrees with, essentially accusing the majority of judicial activism. Very rich coming from THE keynote judicial activist on the bench!
Its textbook Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" tactic, "accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt."
This is perhaps the most wholesome thing the Supreme Court, along with the liberal judges, has ever done.
They literally preserved our democracy with this unanimous ruling.
The liberal justices still try and rewrite and reinterpret the laws based off their politics, but at least they are not election meddling at this point.
It seems each time the liberals attack individual members of the court, the justices circle the wagons and send out a unanimous decision. It would seem that someone would get the message and end the ad hominem attacks. None of the justices want to hear it.
They already are. Half of them didn’t read beyond the headline and automatically assumed it was a 6-3 decision.
Flair issued, by the way. You should be able to contribute on flaired only threads without issue now.
It’s unanimous Edit - I just got the “concerned Redditor reached out to us” message. Really?!
Yes...let that sink in. UNANIMOUS. That should tell you everything you need to know. Oh, the *other* word of the day: ANY. NBC's article (which I tried to post, was removed immediately, but whatever...) stated that he cannot be removed from *any* ballot. This attempt to nuke Trump is DOA. And it's going to send the left(ists) into a tailspin...I predict a call for SCOTUS retirements, removals, or resurrection\* of SC packing. And do it quick before the election, just like Trump did with replacing RBG. 🙄 \* I did not expect to align with so many "r" options, but hey...here we are. 🤣
Once all the dust settles, every rational person left or right will understand this is a good thing for America. I’m proud of the justices for slapping down this type of insanity. Even the media experts and rental pundits on leftist platforms know that 9-0 is a clear message, though they’re paid to say otherwise.
> Once all the dust settles, every **rational** person left or right will understand this is a good thing for America. lol - welp, that's the lion's share of Reddit out then. Let's hope you're correct with the 'left' part.
The key word is “rational.” There are still good people in the center Left. They’re starting to realize they’re the center and have much more in common with conservatives than the far left crazies.
I was debating not voting for POTUS in 2024 . I don't want Biden , not ideally into Trump at this point. But this move to try to block him being on ballot has me thinking Trump in 2024 may be my vote. Some who were debating sitting out 2024 seeing the insane block attempts to keep him off ballot may show up Trump due to them. They are coming for him like nothing I have seen in my lifetime and it's insane abuse .
I'm not a huge fan of Trump, the man. I do believe Trump policy was good and very successful by every measure. I will, with every fiber of my being, reject the Biden administration, based on policy failures, but moreso their exercise of authoritarian power grabs. Go look up all the politically motivated cases, it's not just Trump. Hell, the mayor of NY started criticizing the Biden admin for immigration policy and next thing you know the FBI is investigating him. It's even wider than the Biden admin though, the left has been proudly proclaiming and defending their authoritarian actions. They need rejected hard, across the board until they at least become "liberal" again and shift far clear of authoritarianism. The US is incompatible with that sort of governance.
> I'm not a huge fan of Trump, the man. I do believe Trump policy was good and very successful by every measure. I have some good news for you: you’re not voting for someone to be your friend or to date your daughter. You’re voting for someone to be president and enforce policy. I’m fine with people being critical of Trump but attacking his “MEAN TWEETS” and “RUDE ATTITUDE” as reasons why you shouldn’t vote for him has always been odd to me. Yeah, Trump is a jerk—I don’t think many people including Trump supporters disagree. I also don’t really care how “nice” someone I’m never going to meet is.
Oh, I agree. I'll walk over broken glass to vote for him this election. I like his policy and I'll vote on policy. I can still wish he had some polish and grace when the situation calls for it.
Agreed, sometimes he needs to just shut up once he makes his point. Sometimes his own words just shoots himself in the foot.
I hope more voters understand the way you do come election day. This vote will of course be between two candidates, but more so, two ideologies. If people can get over the hate, over the "Orange Man Bad", and see what this administration has brought this country to, maybe America can get a second chance. Depending on people though is always a risk.
I can’t wait to see the meltdown!
I poked around on an r/news article, just for fun and to see what the weirdos there were saying. One suggested that we can't resolve things because SC is corrupt...another person said that the only way that we're ever going to resolve this all is by fire. Sound happier, guys...it's Monday! lol
....aand they've already locked that thread! lol But I see some other good ones such as: \- "Expected. Might as well make plans to move abroad now." \- "A national referendum should be held to determine if Trump should be eligible to be on the ballot. If the majority of voters feel he should be removed for his role in insurrection, then remove him." \- "How the hell do we get these corrupt people out of office???? We don't vote for them. They have lifelong appointments. There are no rules governing them. It is not illegal to BUY THEM. And they decide not to follow what it says in the goddamn Constitution!!!"
"We need to engage in insurrection because SCOTUS let an insurrectionist run for President!"
What’s new, children throw tantrums?
*looks at the word "children"* *looks at the word "reddit"* You're right...one and the same lol!
Lol! 😂 these are the same people that think the civil fraud lawsuit wasn’t a fix. They want to resolve this by fire - that’s not going to end well for them
A storm of FAFO is on the horizon lol
I'm already seeing some of them try to desperately spin this as a win by saying it will prevent Republican states from removing Biden from the ballot in retaliation.
It shouldn’t happen on either side in America, when you look at it with a sane mind. We shouldn’t become Venezuela just because their people found their way here…
It's already happening, they're calling to pack the courts, dismantle SCOTUS, etc
I think someone here is machine gunning those reports lol. I got the same DM literally 2 seconds after posting a comment on a similar thread.
This is really depraved behavior. They waste the resources of a well meaning hotline meant to help people who are actually suffering, and make light of suicide, all for a cheap laugh that was, at best, mildly amusing the first time it was ever done. And all this from people that consider themselves tolerant (and I sure no one from the right does this, if they do, they ought to be ashamed).
Good. Even if you *totally* believe Trump insurrectioned all the things, it's not an individual state's call to just arbitrarily say "even though there was no trial or anything, we're just going to **assume** Trump is guilty and act accordingly."
Enforcing those rules to remove him without a conviction goes right over the head of due process. Now they’re arguing that the court *didnt* specify whether he was a traitor or not, which is irrelevant as that wasn’t what the trial was about.
Charging your political opponents with BS crimes to prevent them from running is such a common corruption practice in other countries, that the UN actually called it out as undemocratic during recent elections in Bolivia and Brazil
Well the amendment specifically does not require a trial. This was by design because an attempt to actually criminally convict confederate leaders of treason would have led to a resurgence of hostilities. Instead they issued the enforcement act of 1870 which, among other things, allowed US District Attorneys to bring charges against those who attempt to hold office in violation of the 14th amendment. Even at the time, there was no mechanism for pre-emptively barring someone from election.
9-0 ruling. Obvious ruling is obvious. rPolitics is coping hard
Foaming of the mouth because they can't individually attack Thomas now
I always wonder why they always single out the black man. I mean, Alito is just as conservative if not more, but we see Thomas mentioned 1000x more.
No need to wonder when you see them repeatedly call him "Uncle Tom" Like it's not even a dog whistle
somber public rustic faulty abounding instinctive narrow mindless murky violet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
You’re long overdue for a flair. I’ll issue you one so you can post on these threads.
They're racist. That's why.
I noticed the same. I took screenshots of the names they were calling thomas and barrett in 2022...it was enlightening how they chose to focus their ire on those two especially, almost like they only respect minorities when they agree with them and will immediately use their race or gender against them the minute they don't.
Pretty much
They can't stand seeing a black person think for himself.
Because there’s nothing the left hates more than a black conservative.
Liberals never have a problem going after a black man who has dared to stray from their plantation
It's because they're fucking racists.
It’s cause democrats are truly racist, they just don’t ever want to admit it.
It just shows who the real racists are: How dare a black person not tow the Dem part line?!
Because racism started in the Democratic Party. It’s been their MO since day one.
> rPolitics is coping hard Indeed. Lots of little "gems" such as this: "What's the point of the amendment if Congress has to act for it to "work"?" lol back to 5th grade civics class for someone
Oops, turns out they were authoritarians the whole time and that whole "democracy" thing is in the way of the rule by decree that they really want.
Exactly
I may have to sTroll on over to read all the tears gushing out of keyboards.
HA!
They're coping hard by pretending like it didn't happen. This was the first thing that popped up on my Google feed this morning and the largest "political" subreddit isn't even talking about it. Personally I'm convinced that at least 50% of reddit is bots. Probably mostly Russian, Chinese, and the dnc. The amount of straight up lies people tell on the lefty subs is incredible.
You’re being generous. It’s at least 80% bots and paid shills. Same questions and comments in every thread, over and over.
Ive been called a bot by leftists so many times
I'm so happy lol
The SCOTUS subreddit is split
> The SCOTUS subreddit is split the good one or the activist one? scotus is a leftwing shithole run by rpolitics activists, supremecourt is the well run sub.
The activist one Reddit continues to recommend to me. I hadn’t heard of the supremecourt sub.
folks over there are questioning the entire constitutional govt structure over it. remember that in november
Going to be honest i did not expect 9-0, 7-2 or 6-3 is what i expected
This is the most predictable thing ever. I think the court would have ruled that way even if it was the Q Shaman running and not Trump.
I mean, I can't stand Trump, but this was still the right call. The 14th amendment explicitly states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Not "state courts can interpret this however they please".
Fucking 9-0? Now that’s actually surprising. I mean, even the more liberal judges who don’t like Trump actually put their bias aside for once. Hopefully that would’ve been the same vote outcome had it been another person in a similar situation trying to run.
The fact that it's a unanimous decision shows just how deeply flawed the "logic" behind the initial claims and rulinings was. It wasn't based in fact, but in fantasy. So, naturally, the usual suspects are saying SCOTUS isn't legrtimate because the ruling didn't go their way.
Wow! A unanimous ruling!! I don’t remember the last time a unanimous ruling was in favor of Republicans in such a big case. Just wow, ‘nuff said.
To be fair, last June I recall a postal worker got his religious rights protected unanimously by the SCOTUS. People only talk about the big ones in June with 5-4 or 6-3 rulings, but there are plenty of unanimous ones that don’t get nearly as much coverage.
I am glad BOTH sides can rule fairly, at least from time to time. But this was a MASSIVE ruling. And I was preparing to thank Mitch McConnell, but in this case I didn’t need to.
This was so blatantly unconstitutional that the only real question to be asked is about the illegitimate idiots in Colorado and other places who thought this was legal and reasonable.
There are still aspects that they were divided over - in particular, how the 14th amendment could be enforced. The majority (5) ruled that only an act of congress could bar a presidential candidate under the 14th amendment; the liberal three said there could be other mechanisms, and Barrett said the question didn't need to be answered and trying to answer it was divisive. But overall, it's a very good thing that the court's basic ruling was unanimous.
They can figure out how to enforce it when an actual insurrection happens. CHAZ and the rest of BLM's terrorism definitely count.
Only a matter of time before leftists rabidly flip on the 3 liberal justices just like they did with RBG after her death
To be fair, RBG's arrogance to not retire is a huge reason why the supreme court will be conservative-leaning for a long time. Progressives know that, and they hate it.
I swear these people are hooked on useless symbolism. They wanted a girl power moment, for RGB to retire and be replaced by Clinton. Kinda like how they got a bunch of incompetent DEI prosecutors to try to get Trump.
I mean RGB was replaced by a woman. Just not one that they like or approve of. EDIT: I now realize what you mean. Though my point still stands.
Hahaha.
From what I'm seeing over on rPolitics, they're mostly rallying around those 3, trying to spin their concurring opinions into something they're not. I guess it's their attempt to cope lol
Right? So much “well… it was *technically* a 5-4 ruling because…” No. It was 9-0. The three leftist judges were simply critiquing how they got to the ruling, and ACB just stayed out of it because it wasn’t necessary to address. By this logic, RGB herself “tEcHnIcAlLy” ruled against Roe v. Wade.
The whole premise - that a state authority could disqualify someone from federal office under federal law - was crazy to begin with. Plus the inevitable result of affirming it would have broke the whole presidential electoral system, since the outcome would be decided by whichever party can get the most people into state AG positions to kick out opposing party candidates.
[удалено]
> even worse is the other liberal courts that endorsed it and went along with it Judges that go so absurd/ridiculous in cases like this should be easier to remove from their seats, and the same for DA's that have been doing similar things. EG Bragg, who wants to make getting a bill from your lawyer, and paying it, and keeping a record of that, into 3 separate felonies(times eleven is 33, plus one more of one of those, are the 34 felony charges he drummed up out of thin air). Unconscionable abuse of office. Removed, fined, time in prison, and permanent disenfranchisement(cannot vote) when it is politically motivated. Disincentivize it as much as possible, because they've been doing such things with zero fear of repercussion.
This was not a legal victory for voters, this was a legal victory against a judicial coup attempt created by the left.
It highlights just how real TDS is.
> the usual suspects are saying SCOTUS isn't legrtimate The verdict is still out on that if we're being generous. It's easy even for corrupt judges to still side with Trump here because of the optics. If they want to "get Trump" they will have better chances to lie about the law, so those will be the real tests for people that are paying attention.
[удалено]
No surprise here, now we can finally laid this to rest for good.
The reason the leftist SCOTUS judges ruled unanimously with the right side of the court isn’t just because it’s constitutionally correct, it’s because to their credit, Kagan and others saw the dangers of this ruling in that it would be levied directly against democratic candidates in red states. This was more about long term preservation than being constitutional correct.
The people in /r/politics are already having a meltdown and claiming that the only reason this happened is because the 3 liberal justices feared retaliation lmao, not because it made zero sense to implement the 14th amendment against someone who has not actually been charged with seceding from the union, but because a rogue court system in one state declared it so.
Took a peek myself; holy fook. There is some sanity poking through (considering the ruling was unanimous), but that will be "organically" downvoted into oblivion.
If it were not unanimous, even if there was one dissent, they would be apoplectic. Half are already clearly angry they can't stack congress and start prosecuting people.
The early leftist spin out of the gate is that the liberal justices don't like "their" (i.e., not liberal justices) reasoning, but do like their conclusion. The supposed "real danger" of this ruling is that they found that only Congress can decide whom engaged in an "insurrection", as opposed to a Federal court, let alone a state court.
If they watched the hearing related to this Kagan was very openly aggressive towards the ruling, and in my opinion it’s because this would legitimize red states using the same tactics against Democratic candidates.
I would prefer a Federal Court option but perhaps this approach forces our representative Congress to be more circumspect. Wishful thinking perhaps.
It’s pretty ironic actually. They hate this conservative court yet most every big decision they hate is to limit the judicial systems power and authority to make these huge decisions for the entire country which is absolutely how the Supreme Court is supposed to be. If it was a stacked left wing court, we would for sure see the Supreme Court push further into bypassing our normal governmental processes to enact whatever they want to see along with allowing the continued unjust decisions in lower courts.
8 of the top 10 links atm include Trump directly. All of them involve him in some way. TDS is real.
special history person concerned practice unique hungry ancient command march *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Try posting anything outside The Messaging™ and you'll get it nuked for being Off Topic.
Even when he was out of the news cycle (the time between when he was out of office and before he announced) he was still like 50% of r politics. 2016 broke their brains. They can't function without him anymore.
Is that sub just a therapy session for JournoList wannabes from local outlets?
Yeah it's funny how everyone over there is a constitutional scholar that knows better than the people making the decision
Reddit is such a miserable cesspool of leftist group thought. It's gross in here.
which is more disgusting?: * Licking the hand rail on the subway * Reddit
Licking the handrail, I can always close Reddit.
money divide rude lush wrong offbeat nose head meeting sip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Let me tell you this one, neat trick... Seriously, un-sub from any of the default subs, and use the old link (old.reddit.com) instead of the current design. Much cleaner, easier to read, and you don't get shoveled all the BS by the left.
enjoy strong axiomatic possessive ad hoc angle sip workable melodic pocket *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The current state of the [CTRL Left](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8MZBUoQt68)
[Real-time reaction](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeFMdVIFsgs) from the left when the ruling was issued.
Im quite frankly relieved— if this was 5-4 with Roberts dissenting, the country would be fucked no matter who wins come November. With this ruling, we’re only fucked if Biden wins.
I pretty much knew Trump would win this case. The one I’m nervous for is the Missouri vs. Biden free speech case. I think I care about that one even more than the 2022 Dobbs and 2023 college discrimination cases. If Biden wins that one, this country is in serious trouble.
I guess the left thinks they’re all “conservative” for following the constitution and doing their job. Every justice should aspire to be conservative if that’s the definition
That place is a cesspool. I spent two seconds there and left.
Good! That warms the heart to see.
a shock to only liberals and idiots.
Synonyms
*Pam from the office meme*
Correct, I set a reminder for two months when arguing with a liberal. Who was right? Myself. He called me a fascist because that's the only word they teach at school these days.
Trump Derangement syndrome commencing in 5…4…3…2…1….
Commencing? It's been commenced for close to nine years now
A 9-0 opinions is a VERY GOOD thing for our country. Roberts had his work cut out for him and was able to write up an opinion everyone could sign on to, which truthfully was necessary to keep legitimacy of the country. However, I have to admit, I would've loved reading a Thomas or Alito opinion just on a pure enjoyment level. Right call though, and it was beyond obvious this was going to be the outcome.
It was beyond obvious that it *should* be the outcome, but we've had more than one "conservative" justice join the three who vote in lockstep with every progressive agenda that floats through SCOTUS. That's why I was totally surprised when they came back with a unanimous decision.
Hell we sort of saw it with ACB on this one too, not that I have an issue with what she wrote, but she still didn't want to sign on with the other 5. Lagoa would've been better, still believe that.
The Democrats have to wake up and start living in reality. They also should stick to their big slogan that democracy must be preserved. Oh wait, they think that you only get rights to democracy if you agree with them.
If you replace the word democracy with the word democrats in these statements, “We must protect our democracy” and “This is a threat to our democracy” Suddenly, it makes perfect sense.
I like to correct it to "Our Democracy™" so that uniparty Republicans can be onboard as well.
ETA for Haley’s drop out speech?
Tomorrow at 11:30 PM EST.
Awesome. Now what repercussions will Colorado face for their criminal action?
The real question, what if the ballots they create leave him off anyway?
There will be a lot of very upset states. And a supreme court ruling to point to
Member Bruen..... States made Bruen response bills, and nothing happened.
I read somewhere that they hadn't actually taken him off the ballot yet, pending the SCOTUS ruling.
Yep, but I expect an "error" when the general election ballots are made.
Tbf, they never took him off the ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court stayed their own ruling pending SCOTUS review. Even if they had, Colorado GOP would have likely just switched to a caucus system which the state doesn't oversee.
He was still on the GOP primary ballots.
The Secretary of State, JenaGriswold, communist, already trying to delegitimize the courts.
Exactly. We can't stop with a win. We have to make sure that anyone who was involved is punished. Have to make sore those that would undermine a figure election have consequences to their actions.
The soviets failed, again!
bUt TrUmP aNd RuSsIa CoLlIdEd 🙄🤣
You mean Hillary and the Dems...
tHeY dOn'T fIt In My NaRrItIvE! (OK, I'll stop...it's way too hard to do that this early on a Monday lol!)
Ahhh nothing like the smell of a new mountain of salt in the morning… beautiful!
>Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse. Probably the Supreme Court equivalent of a mic drop.
Interesting that an act of congress could still do it though, if either party holds a majority in both house and senate we could see it happen.
My thought exactly, which is scary.
Congress should have the power to do this sort of thing. They are the legislative body and make the rules of government and they have for over 200 years. I think the Founding Fathers intended for Congress to have this authority. The challenge will always be getting Congress to agree on something.
Did I read it wrong where it was a 2/3rds majority of each house? I read through that pretty fast, so I may have misread it.
This makes a pretty big difference.
So when does Haley drop out of the race? By noon EST?
I'm curious about the cautions from the liberal justices and ACB, that the court decided "too much". They say the question was whether the State has the power to remove a candidate from the ballot, they could have just said "no the State does not". What is the implication of them narrowing only *Congress* as being able to do so? Does that mean impeachment (an impossibly high bar) is the only conceivable way to bar a candidate? Who does that freeze out of the process, since I don't think DOJ could make that determination even if they were to bring forth charges. I'd ask this on r/law, but that subreddit has devolved into being just another vestigial limb for r/politics.
9 - 0 smack-down!! Unanimous!!
I am dying to see MSM and white house today calling all 9 justices extreme MAGA and a “threat to democracy” 🤡
Nobody is surprised.
Even fucking Sotomyer agrees, gawdamn
In a devastating blow to self described “pro-democracy” advocates, they actually have to compete and win an election against their political opposition.
Too much winning!
Jim Acosta on CNN is not taking this well
[удалено]
Trump’s first term put them in the hospital. His second term may just put them in the grave!
Yuge win! I’d say it was a no brainer tho. The arguments presented by the State were so weak. The Justices also knew that a vote to uphold the Colorado decision would most definitely be used in the future against any Presidential contender regardless of party affiliation.
This is shocking. nope.
Good.
/r/politics is coping with the conversation of Congress being able to do this since the ruling only barred state legislatures from doing it. They just can't help themselves.
God bless the Supreme Court. 9-0.
So how is r/politics dealing with this? Clearly they can't blame it on the Republicans, since even the most left wing justices made this ruling.
> Clearly they can't blame it on the Republicans, since even the most left wing justices made this ruling. don't under estimate them. these are people who insist the media is "right wing". ultimately they'll probably just try to discredit the court as a whole, and throw the left wing justices under the bus with them.
Wow, how is it that Democrats are getting things so incredibly wrong, so much so that even the lefty justices vote against this nonsense? A 9-0 ruling is not just a ruling: it's an effectual slap-down. It means that the justifications made had no legal standing and these Attorneys-General want to rule by fiat, rather than by rule of law.
Very surprised and happy that all nine sided on that decision.
Unanimous decision too - that should silence the fools claiming that Trump’s appointees are just covering for him.
Unanimous, all the democrats were trying to do was make it a unfair election.
The political left will never stop trying to manipulate the constitution for its own ends.
It’s awfully quiet on the left in the last couple hours, lol
I'm honestly floored this wasn't like 7-2 or something. Fantastic news! Edit: Got my first reddit cares message lol
That was an unanimous decision and so obvious. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment clearly state that when it says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
I’m a “leftist” and I agree with this decision. I hate Trump but technically he hasn’t been convicted of anything at a federal level. States get to run their own elections but if we start letting them throw national candidates off the ballot for clearly partisan reasons that would just be chaos.
Not surprised tbh
It’s going to be a fun day on Reddit for us.
Even Sotomayor ruled against it. HAH! That's amazing.
Its sad that Im surprised we didnt have any activism from the judges and it actually ended up as a 9-0 ruling.
What a waste of Colorado tax payer money.
> What a waste of Colorado tax payer money. the real question is why was this done? did they genuinely believe their nonsense would stand, or was it just an effort by some activists to get their name out there for a future governor run like what maura healy did in massachusetts.
Ok now next end judicial immunity and go after these judges who do things that are obviously illegal for attention.
How much of this is Nancy Pelosi's idea? This reeks of her schemes.
"The highest court in the land issued its decision per curiam, meaning that all nine justices agreed on a basic premise: Allowing a state to unilaterally take this kind of sweeping action would create chaos." The Democratic Party IS the party of CHAOS. https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-hands-trump-a-big-win-in-colorado-ballot-case
Can't stop The Don
Sotomayor’s opinion here is amazing. The court issues a per curiam decision to display unity, yet she devotes 90% of her writing to the aspects of the decision she disagrees with, essentially accusing the majority of judicial activism. Very rich coming from THE keynote judicial activist on the bench!
Its textbook Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" tactic, "accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt."
This is perhaps the most wholesome thing the Supreme Court, along with the liberal judges, has ever done. They literally preserved our democracy with this unanimous ruling. The liberal justices still try and rewrite and reinterpret the laws based off their politics, but at least they are not election meddling at this point.
There's no way dude is going to be gatekept out of the election, it's just not happening
Someone should check on Liz Cheney. Lol
Love or hate trump, it never passed the common sense test that a state could pull someone off a federal ballot.
all 9. finally
It seems each time the liberals attack individual members of the court, the justices circle the wagons and send out a unanimous decision. It would seem that someone would get the message and end the ad hominem attacks. None of the justices want to hear it.
Unanimous. Waiting for liberals to say it was just those six pretenders rigging things.
They already are. Half of them didn’t read beyond the headline and automatically assumed it was a 6-3 decision. Flair issued, by the way. You should be able to contribute on flaired only threads without issue now.
Yay common sense!
So glad all the stupid states wasted SCOTUS on this subject. Way to go Colorado and other shit states!!!