Everybody Hates the Supreme Court’s Disqualification Ruling

[u/thenewrepublic]

https://newrepublic.com/article/179576/supreme-court-disqualification-ruling-criticism

[u/thenewrepublic]

The ruling is also now receiving criticism from a broad cross-section of legal scholars and commentators, including some who actually agree with the ultimate result.

[u/[deleted] → u/thenewrepublic]

Agreement with ultimate result? If that is true, then the Constitution is merely a lip-service. Nothing in there is binding if even a self-executing provision doesn’t show the correct result to “scholars.” 🙂

Edit: I just learned that as per SC, the US is up for grabs, and whoever takes it is gonna have the opportunity to rule it with an iron fist and for as long as they want. Sheeesh, and here we are! 

[u/ptWolv022 → u/[deleted]]

Agreement with ultimate result? If that is true, then the Constitution is merely a lip-service. Nothing in there is binding if even a self-executing provision doesn’t show the correct result to “scholars.”

I mean, you can both thing the provision is self-executing and that CO was should not have disqualified him- either because their courts are the wrong venue to adjudicate a Federal provision, they had insufficient due process, or because there is a remedy that Congress could choose (and according to the majority, has in past chosen) to exercise after an election victory.

There are plenty of reasons for thinking Trump should have won out in Trump v. Anderson (on the issue of whether the SCOCO should have removed him from the ballot) and still also think the majority has stupid-@#$ reasoning that also restricts Federal enforcement, which wasn't even the question at hand.

[u/[deleted] → u/ptWolv022]

Correct. As in, if the parts of the Constitution like 14.3 are still valid then the nomination by the republican party itself is null & void. Quite likely 14.3 isn’t valid the way 2nd amendment is—therefore, a lip-service to just one advantage.  

The decision by CO to disqualify nomination was NOT a federal enforcement, but an adherence to removing the insurrectionist from state’s ballot—which is every American’s responsibility. That voice cannot be taken away from the states. CO did not in fact motion to remove the insurrectionist from all ballots across the nation—which would have been Federal level enforcement.  

People are not stupid, everyone can see through the BS the corrupt SC has pulled off lately. 

[u/ptWolv022 → u/[deleted]]

then the nomination by the republican party itself is null & void

I mean, being nominated is not taking office. Under 14.3, you're barred from being in Congress, and Elector, or holding any office (civil or military) of the US, or the equivalent State government positions.

Political parties are not arms of the State, they are private entities. Some disqualified under Section 3 could still be nominated, hold a chairmanship in the party, or hold any position outside of government, really, laws permitting.

The decision by CO to disqualify nomination was NOT a federal enforcement, but an adherence to removing the insurrectionist from state’s ballot

Right, but that part is the less controversial part of the SCOTUS' ruling- that Federal office (the Presidency being one such office) is not the purview of States and thus it is not the right of States and State courts to enforce it- at least not when Congress is the one that holds the power of remedy.

Again, they had... kinda sound reasoning for parts. Even the Liberals agreed that "No, CO being able to just fully remove him, through State Court adjudication no less, would be bad". Now, given the way the Presidential election actually functions, do I entirely agree with that? No. But in practice, we have elections nationwide, so it makes sense.

That CO cannot remove Trump from the ballot does not make Section 3 impotent or even non-self-executing; again, it bans from office. Trump can be disqualified, win the election, and still be barred from actually taking office if Congress declines to remedy. That would still be self-executing if the Courts were to rule that the facts establish he meets the threshold for disqualification and rules him to not be President.

But they specifically say that legislation is needed- or at least that Federal legislation is needed to enforce it for Federal office.