Constitutional arguments aside, this is ended up being the best decision.
In this era of Republicans drafted articles of impeachments despite having no legal basis to do so. Trump started accusing Biden of insurrection, using the name "insurrectionist Joe". Red states would've trumped-up insurrection charges and thrown Biden off the ballot.
SCOTUS' reasons may have been wrong but their ruling ended up being for the best
@vivify saidWith the exception of issues regarding the inalienable Natural Rights of the People, Constitutional questions should be decided on the intent of the Framers, not what judges now think is "best".
Constitutional arguments aside, this is ended up being the best decision.
In this era of Republicans drafted articles of impeachments despite having no legal basis to do so. Trump started accusing Biden of insurrection, using the name "insurrectionist Joe". Red states would've trumped-up insurrection charges and thrown Biden off the ballot.
SCOTUS' reasons may have been wrong but their ruling ended up being for the best
Maybe it would be "best" if we allowed someone under 35 or someone born in a foreign country to be President. But those options are precluded by the Constitution. Prior court decisions, including one written by a present justice of the SCOTUS, have allowed States in their Constitutional function of holding elections to enforce such qualifications even on primary ballots; why they cannot do so in the case of the "Insurrection" Clause of the 14th Amendment is not rationally explained in any of the three opinions.
@no1marauder
But it would have to be a political decision on both sides the tweed, it was a unanimous vote so representatives of both parties voted it down.
I would have thought a political decision would have been one by one party with objections by the other side but unanimous means libs and conservatives thought alike on this one, probably differing logical paths but leading to the same conclusion on both sides.
The bottom line is section 3 is buried in the dust bin of history.
I wonder if it could be used if there was like that dual from long ago or a plain old murder done by a sitting POTUS, could they invoke section 3 then?
307d
@sonhouse saidSpeculation is something I don't like to do, but it's quite possible the three justice concurrence was based on the same logic Vivify just stated.
@no1marauder
But it would have to be a political decision on both sides the tweed, it was a unanimous vote so representatives of both parties voted it down.
I would have thought a political decision would have been one by one party with objections by the other side but unanimous means libs and conservatives thought alike on this one, probably differing logical paths but le ...[text shortened]... dual from long ago or a plain old murder done by a sitting POTUS, could they invoke section 3 then?
307d
@no1marauder
In other words that protects any presidential candidate from being kicked off the ballot for just about any reason, making section 3 a moot issue. Goodbye section 3, nice knowing you.
307d
@averagejoe1 saidYour opinion is less than 0 in my books. I don't care what you have to say.
Doesn’t sound like one to me.
@AverageJoe1
What do you mean by "It doesn't sound like one to me''?
The context makes us think you were putting down #1 as a charlatan lawyer.
Doesn't sound like [insert name of lawyer] is a real lawyer to me.
@sh76 saidIs Hassan v. The State of Colorado overruled sub silentio?:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html
This applies also to Maine and all other states that were thinking of trying to keep Trump off the ballot.
Per Curiam unanimous decision. Everyone agreed that states can't enforce Section 3 to keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot. The Justices did disagree on whether Congress ...[text shortened]... can't do it and left it at that.
But all in all, this does not appear to have been a close case.
"Abdul Karim Hassan is a naturalized citizen who wishes to run for the Presidency of the United States. This even though the Constitution says “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.”"
"we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
"Entered for the Court
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge"
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/12-1190/12-1190-2012-09-04.html
EDIT: It seems that the case is not considered "binding precedent" anyway because there was no oral argument. However, "It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1."
Is Gorsuch's opinion in Hassan now incorrect?
306d
@no1marauder saidWhat?
With the exception of issues regarding the inalienable Natural Rights of the People, Constitutional questions should be decided on the intent of the Framers, not what judges now think is "best".
Maybe it would be "best" if we allowed someone under 35 or someone born in a foreign country to be President. But those options are precluded by the Constitution. Prior court d ...[text shortened]... Insurrection" Clause of the 14th Amendment is not rationally explained in any of the three opinions.
306d
@sonhouse saidYes, he might possibly be a paralegal, with access to Lexis Nexis. He may write decisions for judges, has good writing and research abilities. Most lawyers do not write such renderings. Their plebes do.
@AverageJoe1
What do you mean by "It doesn't sound like one to me''?
The context makes us think you were putting down #1 as a charlatan lawyer.
Doesn't sound like [insert name of lawyer] is a real lawyer to me.
306d
@no1marauder saidBy that metric SCOTUS would've never ruled in favor of gay marriage, or possibly women voting. It was that very metric that resulted in the Dred Scott decision.
With the exception of issues regarding the inalienable Natural Rights of the People, Constitutional questions should be decided on the intent of the Framers, not what judges now think is "best".
Don't get me wrong: I agree the decision of any judge should be based in law and not personal ideology. We're just not going to get that from SCOTUS for at least the next 20 years.
I was merely pointing out that this round partisan rulings was a lucky accident in that it prevents future political quackery with right-wingers trying to ban opposition from polls.
306d
@vivify saidI suggest you re-read the first half sentence of my post. No "metric" considering Natural Rights ever approved of slavery.
By that metric SCOTUS would've never ruled in favor of gay marriage, or possibly women voting. It was that very metric that resulted in the Dred Scott decision.
Don't get me wrong: I agree the decision of any judge should be based in law and not personal ideology. We're just not going to get that from SCOTUS for at least the next 20 years.
I was merely pointing out ...[text shortened]... n that it prevents future political quackery with right-wingers trying to ban opposition from polls.
306d
@sh76 saidWill you start a thread when the 'unconditional immunity' decision finally comes down?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/04/us/supreme-court-ruling-trump-colorado.html
This applies also to Maine and all other states that were thinking of trying to keep Trump off the ballot.
Per Curiam unanimous decision. Everyone agreed that states can't enforce Section 3 to keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot. The Justices did disagree on whether Congress ...[text shortened]... can't do it and left it at that.
But all in all, this does not appear to have been a close case.
306d
@no1marauder saidThe term "natural rights" doesn't appear in the Constitution.
I suggest you re-read the first half sentence of my post. No "metric" considering Natural Rights ever approved of slavery.