The justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow Colorado to bar the former president from the state’s primary ballot. The justices offered different reasons, but the decision was unanimous.
The Republicans basically said that congress has to pass laws detailing how candidates get disqualified in order for it to happen at all. This of course can’t happen because Republicans control thr house.
The Democrats said they don’t want different rules in different places.
Yes the ruling was “per curiam.” My understanding is the main ruling doesn’t technically have one author and is supposed to be from the entire court. Individual justices have written concurring opinions though with more thoughts or where they might differ on some points from the others.
At least the dumb “doesn’t apply to the president argument” is dead.
“President Trump asks us to hold,” the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion, “that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3."
I did a quick read on the NYT. And it sounds like the Court is saying that states are free to use that clause to disqualify candidates for State office, but cannot use it to disqualify candidates for national office. Only the Federal government has that power. So the place to enforce this would be in the counting of EC votes, for instance. Or, with Congress passing a law to that effect. It looks like the “self-executing” argument went nowhere.
The 3 Liberal justices agreed with the ruling but it looks like they thought it should be narrower.
Zero info about the rationale of why states can’t remove him from the ballot, you’d think they’d speak to that in the official ruling
Edit: AP reports that the official ruling is that it’s a matter for Congress, not the states. That makes things interesting.
The Republicans basically said that congress has to pass laws detailing how candidates get disqualified in order for it to happen at all. This of course can’t happen because Republicans control thr house.
The Democrats said they don’t want different rules in different places.
(Its in two different updates in the article)
Yes the ruling was “per curiam.” My understanding is the main ruling doesn’t technically have one author and is supposed to be from the entire court. Individual justices have written concurring opinions though with more thoughts or where they might differ on some points from the others.
At least the dumb “doesn’t apply to the president argument” is dead.
Supposed to, but there’s also a dissenting opinion, and it’s not actually signed. Hmmmm
Their rationale is they are corrupt as fuck.
I did a quick read on the NYT. And it sounds like the Court is saying that states are free to use that clause to disqualify candidates for State office, but cannot use it to disqualify candidates for national office. Only the Federal government has that power. So the place to enforce this would be in the counting of EC votes, for instance. Or, with Congress passing a law to that effect. It looks like the “self-executing” argument went nowhere.
The 3 Liberal justices agreed with the ruling but it looks like they thought it should be narrower.
Which is bullshit cuz states have always run their own elections and decided who can be on the ballot on a per state basis.
And Colorado did it in 2012 because Gorsuch said they could.