politics

The dissenting opinion puts that into the spotlight. It really is dumb that they're saying even federal courts/administrative bodies can't make that determination.

They were probably all afraid that banning Trump on the ballot would tear so violently at the fabric of the country that it could end in a civil war with armed members of Trump's base roaming the streets creating chaos.

This ruling is very unsurprising to me. I'd been very surprised if they had gone the other way.

The US is a very unhealthy country.

Edit: Spelling

Unaminous, but the 3 Liberal judges wrote their own opinion saying while they agreed with the ruling, they feel it should have been narrower, and that the ruling cuts off some legitimate avenues for punishing insurrectionists.

states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

He prefers motorcoaches.

Unfortunately not a new power grab, they’ve long held that their judicial review is sacrosanct, and they get to pick and choose not just the cases they hear, but also what issues within that case they feel like ~~legislating~~ reviewing. Same again here, the RNC asked three questions and they left most of it wellll alone:

The Questions Presented are:

1. Whether the President falls within the list of officials subject to the disqualification provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment?
2. Whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing to the extent of allowing states to remove candidates from the ballot in the absence of any Congressional action authorizing such process?
3. Whether the denial to a political party of its ability to choose the candidate of its choice in a presidential primary and general election violates that party's First Amendment Right of Association?

#1 & 3 were completely ignored because they’re only willing to craft big ~~legislation~~ opinions on conservative/originalist topics, but “show respect for the lower courts” when it’s convenient for SCotUS

They focused in on the state w/o congress aspect of #2, because it’s the weakest part of the Colorado case unfortunately, and allowed this fig-leaf opt out on disqualification being kicked back to Congress

"If we do the right thing now, Republicans will act in bad faith to do the wrong thing later" is such a bullshit cop-out but it happens all the fucking time.

It comes down to just a handful of states anyway

The supreme court just ruled that either the 14th amendment somehow doesn’t apply to presidents, trump didn’t engage in insurrection, and/or Trump is just simply above the law.

That's quite literally not what they argued, even if you try to read it that way. You really should read the opinion before you tell people what it says.

edit: LOL! OP deleted the stupid argument and replaced it with one that sounds less stupid. My quote was lifted verbatim, and the stealth edit speaks volumes.

It was unanimous. Against constitutional precedent from the people who wrote the Amendment, btw.

So much for Originalism.