The US Supreme Court effectively nullified the #14thamendment today and paved the way for any insurrectionist to become president – as US Congress will never agree on rules how to enact the constitution, something the majority of judges defined as a condition for banning a candidate in its ruling.
A great day for #Trump, i.e. a black day for #democracy. #scotus
@christianschwaegerl No, not at all.
The ruling does nothing to nullify the 14th. It merely says that federal ballot access with regard to the federal question is a federal matter to be handled by federal law.
That doesn't mean an insurrectionist is qualified for office. It just means the balloting itself is a federal matter.
@volkris hence „effectively“ – Scotus requires federal law which so far doesn‘t exist in order to apply the 14th amendment. Which means the amendment has not been actionable so far and will never be as such legislation will never be crafted and put in place by Congress.
@christianschwaegerl only with regard to state ballot access.
A state cannot act based on this federal claim without federal authorization, but that doesn't mean the amendment can't come up in many different federal contexts.
For example, if Trump takes office and attempts to issue any order at all, that order could be challenged by the one impacted by it as invalid since the 14th says that Trump can't be president.
Or, the 14th still provides cover for the normal procedures to find the presidency vacant, triggering the normal line of succession.
This ruling doesn't nullify the 14th. It just limits what states can do.
NYT about the minority vote 1/2 :
“In doing so,” the three justices wrote, “the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.”
They gave some examples of ways in which the majority opinion undermined the force of Section 3. For instance, they wrote, the majority “forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score.”
@volkris 2/2
In requiring tailored legislation from Congress, the three justices wrote, the majority seemed to be “ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. “
In all, the three justices added, “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.”
@christianschwaegerl keep in mind that the minority dissent was not accepted by the Court, which is why it was a dissent.
You can't put too much stake in those claims on their face, as the Court didn't accept them as correct.
@christianschwaegerl but we can read for ourselves that it's wrong.
The ruling does not close the door on a circumstance where an insurrectionist does something, but rather it focuses on the question of determining insurrectionist in the first place. Once an insurrectionist has been determined, the majority ruling doesn't stop any action consistent with law.
The minority opinion is wrong. The whole court was correct in not taking up the incorrect opinion.
@volkris „Once an insurrectionist has been determined“ - the decision asks for a new federal law to make that decision instead of applying the 14th amendment directly. That law will never ever come to pass. Hence the 14th amendment was effectively nullified.
No, not nullified. Just because the judicial branch lacks authority doesn't mean the other two branches can't apply the amendment.
From Congress refusing to accept EC ballots listing Trump for the sake of the 14th amendment through executive agencies refusing to recognize Trump's authority due to the 14th, the amendment is certainly not null.
It's just that the court found that the state court lacked legal authority to make the determination which the still existing 14th amendment still provides to the Congress to give that power to the court should it wish.
It is BECAUSE the 14th is still in force, not null, that the Supreme Court recognized congressional ability to write such legislation.
@volkris Again, I wrote effectively nullified. Of course it’s still there as letters but they can’t be applied without a new federal law. Or do you think that Congress with its deep devisions and dysfunctional processes will have the majorities to pass a law which describes how to enact the 14th amendment within the next 10 or 20 years?
@christianschwaegerl I just listed different ways that the amendment can be applied even without a federal law.
It just can't be applied by a state looking to decide unilaterally without legal authority.
Yes, the law can be applied. It is not effectively nullified because it is still in effect, even if this one effect didn't pass muster.
If the people we elect to Congress decide that Trump is fine even considering the amendment, that doesn't mean the amendment is nullified, it means the Democratic process determined that it didn't apply.
And so let's stop electing idiots to Congress.
@volkris In your example you only refer to the consensus decision. On top, the majority decided that before any federal body applies the 14th amendment, a new federal law has to be passed describing the procedure. So no, neither Congress nor federal agencies can act directly on the amendment any more. Procedural law first, and the majority judges know well that this will never come to pass. It looks like even a criminal conviction as an insurrectionist would not lead to an automatic exclusion.
@volkris And regarding „let‘s vote in a better Congress“, do you assume Trump and his Maga fan will accept any outcome not in their favor? They will stage a second insurrection, this time better prepared and with lessons learned. That‘s the very reason why insurrectionists should not be on the ballot in the first place. Germany made that mistake once with a 1923 insurrectionist running ten years later.
@christianschwaegerl The thing is, we don't leave it up to losers to decide whether they have won or lost. It doesn't really matter what they think, when they lose they lose, and they don't have the option of just ignoring the loss.
If they don't accept it, well that's going to be pretty sad for them, because whether they accept it or not, they've lost.
We saw how utterly impotent the January 6th tantrum was, how there was no possible way that they were going to change anything. The real lesson is that, no, in the US system that sort of thing cannot work.
It's not as if they are going to find some magic loophole next time. Nope, they would be equally rebuffed next time because that's how the US government is designed.
There is no loophole.
So all of the claims that next time they are going to succeed, it's hysteria. They cannot succeed that way. It's just not part of the US system of government.
We don't let losers decide whether they've lost.
@volkris Then the non-Republican US better prepares for a much more brutal and organised Jan 6 event after a Trump defeat in fall. Either he wins or he will try to grab power, this time with his whole party, a well-oiled network, a majority of obedient Scotus judges and a huge populist movement behind him – all the forces that are now making him the candidate despite everything he has done. As Trump said, it “will be wild”.
@christianschwaegerl I often get the impression that my fellow Trump critics end up buying into his shtick way too much.
Trump says it will be wild? So? The guy's a moron. Why would we take his blather as valid or realistic?
Trump will try to grab power? That's nice. He'd fail, just like he did before, just like others failed, over and over again, because that's not how the US system is set up.
And all the while, treating Trump as a well-oiled anything just buys into his rhetoric and builds him up to his supporters.
The way to oppose Trump is to recognize him as a loser who will not offer his supporters success.
@christianschwaegerl That's not quite what the rulings said.
@volkris NYT quoting from the ruling: „But the five-justice majority, in an unsigned opinion answering questions not directly before the court, ruled that Congress must act to give Section 3 force. ‚The Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,‘ the majority wrote, 𝖺𝖽𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗅𝖾𝖽 𝖿𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗐𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝗐𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖾𝖽 𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇.“ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot.html?unlocked_article_code=1.aU0.rTSG.G9oq25MleXwd&smid=url-share
@christianschwaegerl there's a reason the quote is from a dissent, though: the Court didn't find the statement to be correct, or else it would be in the opinion itself.
So it's not authoritative.
In any case, far from Congress being unable to act, the opinion is all about Congress acting.
But yes, criminal conviction would lead to automatic exclusion, as the opinion itself cited the specific law, already on the books, that would cause that.
@volkris This is not about correct or not, but a simple question of majority or not. The minority describes the effects of the majority rule very well.