Officers of the United States: Neither the President nor Vice President are Officers of the United States

[KG1]

I guess the question now that the States have been excluded will there be a push for Congress to take it up? Even if they did would there be enough votes to enforce Sec. 3?

 

[JAL]

The decision doesn't just affect Colorado's ballot ban -- it encompasses all the states that have attempted to ban Trump from their ballots, whether they've already declared him banned, or have cases pending in them. Bottom line is no state can invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on a Federal Office (e.g. Senate, Congressman, etc.). Nor can they disqualify Trump by refusing to accept Electoral College results invoking the 14th Amendment claiming he can't hold office.

 

[JAL]

I guess the question now that the States have been excluded will there be a push for Congress to take it up? Even if they did would there be enough votes to enforce Sec. 3?

I believe it would still fail in Trump's case. The decision didn't address it. The concurring opinions apart from the majority stated the majority went too far answering issues and questions that weren't raised and therefore should not have been . . . not that they necessarily disagreed, just that decisions should be narrow to the questions and issues raised, and not go any farther. I believe that's why ACB wrote a separate concurrence.

I can only imagine what CNN and MSNBC will be screeching now, or maybe I can't. Joe and Mika should be quite entertaining.

 

[Ingomike]

Wouldn’t the fact he was impeached over this and it failed stop congress from doing it?

 

[chipbennett]

I guess the question now that the States have been excluded will there be a push for Congress to take it up? Even if they did would there be enough votes to enforce Sec. 3?

I suspect that such effort would result in yet another expedited challenge. This scenario was contemplated in the original filing, arguing that "hold office" is not the same thing as "run for office" or "elected to office". Under that argument, the current Congress would have nothing on which to act, since Trump does not presently hold office and is not attempting to hold an office currently.

(And should something like this happen, all the rest of the challenges not addressed in this decision would have to be addressed: i.e. does Section 3 apply to POTUS, did Trump engage in insurrection as defined by Section 3, etc.)

 

[JAL]

Wouldn’t the fact he was impeached over this and it failed stop congress from doing it?

No. I don't believe so. Impeachment and Trial is not a criminal trial. It would be argued, but I don't think it would hold up. I believe it would fail because POTUS and VPOTUS are not among the enumerated offices and Trump never held any office that is enumerated . . . making him unique compared to every other POTUS since the 14th Amendment was ratified who held an office that is enumerated prior to becoming POTUS. Thus IMHO any attempt by Congress to do something with Section 5 targeting Trump wouldn't succeed. With some other former POTUS it could.

 

[KG1]

This decision applies to all of the States. Stick a fork in it.

"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."

Sec. 5 carried the weight in this 9-0 decision to reverse.

"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."

 

[HoughMade]

Trying to keep Trump off of the ballots is done. They will pivot to another strategy, or rather, redouble on the strategies already being used.

Trump now has a much higher probability of being on the ballot in November than Biden does.

 

[chipbennett]

Trying to keep Trump off of the ballots is done. They will pivot to another strategy, or rather, redouble on the strategies already being used.

Trump now has a much higher probability of being on the ballot in November than Biden does.

This decision was a fait accompli. I suspect that's why the usual suspects have been so unhinged regarding SCOTUS actions in the pending trial and the immunity question.

 

[KG1]

I would just like to take the opportunity to say this. Suck it J. Micheal Luttig (Ret) you crusty old crank and former Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

 

[KellyinAvon]

9-0 is significant and good to see. Even the "wise Latina" couldn't come up with a dissent. I would've bet on 7-2.

 

[KG1]

This decision should also put the notion presented by the aforementioned crusty old crank to bed that the 14th Sec.3 is self-executing merely by just anyone declaring that Trump committed an act of "insurrection" therefore making it so. It is not. It's under the authority of congress thru legislation to execute sec 3 granted to them by Sec 5.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Fightin Joe Wheeler comes to mind. West Pointer, served the Confederacy as a Cavalry commander, US Rep for several terms, served with the US Volunteer Cavalry in the Spanish-American War and later the US Army in the Philippines.

Gary Busey played him in a movie, so I guess he was nuts based on Gary Busey.

 

[KG1]

I suspect that such effort would result in yet another expedited challenge. This scenario was contemplated in the original filing, arguing that "hold office" is not the same thing as "run for office" or "elected to office". Under that argument, the current Congress would have nothing on which to act, since Trump does not presently hold office and is not attempting to hold an office currently.

(And should something like this happen, all the rest of the challenges not addressed in this decision would have to be addressed: i.e. does Section 3 apply to POTUS, did Trump engage in insurrection as defined by Section 3, etc.)

You could be correct. This 9-0 decision was solely based on sec. 5. Next time the challenge could be based on the "officer" question and whether or not it applies to a POTUS and VP. Although the question was brought up by Justice Brown Jackson at oral arguments, the court ultimately put that question aside for now and just stuck with a Sec. 5 ruling.

 

[jamil]

The decision doesn't just affect Colorado's ballot ban -- it encompasses all the states that have attempted to ban Trump from their ballots, whether they've already declared him banned, or have cases pending in them. Bottom line is no state can invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on a Federal Office (e.g. Senate, Congressman, etc.). Nor can they disqualify Trump by refusing to accept Electoral College results invoking the 14th Amendment claiming he can't hold office.

And it was obvious. The dissenters on the CO SC pretty much said what SCOTUS said. And they were Democrats. It takes a special kind of ClownWorld™ nutter to not see how this was going to go.

 

[Expat]

I watched the chatter boxes at NBC talk about this live when the Breaking News Alert came on... they seemed absolutely mystified that they had "lost" 9-0...
I chuckled.

 

[KG1]

I saw the perpetual stupid ass left wing liberal MSNBC hack Kieth Olberdork's reaction where he was railing against SCOTUS including the liberal justices saying in part among other things that they have proven themselves to be inept at reading comprehension with their ruling.

That is the most asinine thing I've heard of because SCOTUS unanimously ruled precisely on the reading of the words of the Constitution in Sec.5.

The problem with the whiney liberal hacks is that they don't continue on with the reading of the 14th past Sec.3 where in Sec.5 the sole enforcement mechanism is bestowed upon congress thru legislation. They want to ignore that part, it's in there plain as day for anyone that has an ounce of reading comprehension to see. It's not complicated at all.

Not surprising that unhinged take came from him though because he has proven himself time and time again to be an ass.

 

[chipbennett]

I saw the perpetual stupid ass left wing liberal MSNBC hack Kieth Olberdork's reaction where he was railing against SCOTUS including the liberal justices saying in part among other things that they have proven themselves to be inept at reading comprehension with their ruling.

That is the most asinine thing I've heard of because SCOTUS unanimously ruled precisely on the reading of the words of the Constitution in Sec.5.

The problem with the whiney liberal hacks is that they don't continue on with the reading of the 14th past Sec.3 where in Sec.5 the sole enforcement mechanism is bestowed upon congress thru legislation. They want to ignore that part, It's in there plain as day.

Not surprising that unhinged take came from him though because he has proven himself time and time again to be an ass.

The Cope today on Twitter/X has been absolutely delicious.

 

[JAL]

The Cope today on Twitter/X has been absolutely delicious.

Twitter has exploded over it. That the Lefty Looneys are apoplectic is a gross understatement. Screeching tantrums. Play the video of the woman screaming at the sky again.

 

[jamil]

I watched the chatter boxes at NBC talk about this live when the Breaking News Alert came on... they seemed absolutely mystified that they had "lost" 9-0...
I chuckled.

It’s similar to the big nothingburger Mueller report reveal. Day befor coworkers were all happy. Trump was gonna be the first president jailed while in office. Somehow. I confidently told them it would be nothing. They laughed at me. Said I wasn’t living in reality.

Next day, weeping and gnashing of teeth. The Mueller report was a nothingburger. Toldjah. They’d been fed bubble news for months.

Same in this case. They live in a bubble. They have no sense. Kieth Oberman has just lost it. He’s ****ing insane. The progressives on the bench betrayed them. So they should disband the supreme court altogether.