In more than two hours of oral arguments, almost all of the Supreme Court’s justices rejected the idea that the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be used to bar Trump from running for president.
Shocker, they did the wrong thing as usual: shocker.
Again, we all knew it, 11/24 is where this is decided period.
They also want no part of preserving our democracy
I find it odd that this amendment can be ignored so easily but the second has to be worshiped.
> The Supreme Court Wants No Part of the Constitution
FTFY. And… We know.
So biden can rig the election?
All they had to do was decline to hear the case
So we can pick and choose on the Constitution now?
the supreme court is trash. ginni thomas literally participated in the insurrection.
so if an insurrectionist can run, but just not hold office, doesn’t that open the door for literally anyone of any age from any country to also be able to run? i mean, they wouldn’t be eligible to hold the office, but they could still run, right?
> “The reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him,” he told the justices. “And the Constitution doesn’t require that he be given another chance.”
The way it’s written, the Constitution requires that we do not give him another chance.
I wish I could just not do my job and not get fired
They want to put it all on Congress. Which they will.
Then the flak from their corruption accusations will shift publicly to the failure of the GOP Congress to uphold states rights.
Misdirection stage show.
With no cameras allowed in, it’s like listening to a dystopian radio show hosted by Orson Welles. I’m just waiting for the hearing to be interrupted by an alien spaceship in Grover’s Mill, NJ.
But they were fine with ending a recount prematurely to hand the presidency over to the Rs…..
SCOTUS doesn’t want to touch disqualification in any way, it’s pretty clear.
Kav gave an out with “if convicted of insurrection” line, so it will be up to the DOJ to do it, THEN states might have the power to block an individual. Odd, given the previous individuals weren’t convicted, BUT were blocked.
Ultimately, SCOTUS is going to let Trump see the courts of law, and let the voters do with him what they will.
Why have words written in laws if we are scared to use them?
Look you can’t expect the Supreme Court to weigh in on Constitutional issues. Why can’t Americans just solve their own problems?
What’s the point of having a Supreme Court if they refuse to do what they are supposed to? I don’t get it.
Their argument of “let the voters decide” makes no sense when you can turn around and just ask if we should let the voters decide if Obama should be president again?
Let the voters decide if Putin, a non natural born citizen should be president?
Let the voters decide if Jenna Ortega, who is 21 years old, should be president?
No? All of them are barred from being on the ballot because of the constitution just like insurrectionists are? That’s what I thought.
Or should we just put Obama on the ballot for the foreseeable future even if it ends up just his VP being President?
It seems clear that the SCOTUS will let Trump be on the ballot and leave it to Congress to decide if he is disqualified. Which indicates they will take the exact same position regarding a third Trump term.
The only way to stop Trump is by voting for President Biden
SCOTUS bails him out? Shocked! Shocked, I say!
Then they shouldn’t have agreed to hear the case and let Colorado ruling stand.
The only amendment they uphold so vigorously is the 2nd, the rest don’t matter
CO should just ignore them and do it anyway. The court is illegitimate.
They don’t want the consequences
Merrick Garland is at fault here. He should have brought charges against Trump for the insurrection in year 1 of the Biden presidency. Instead, he sat on his ass to bring this last minute and not in time for the 2024 election. Trump should have been truly convicted by a jury before disqualifying him. Obviously anyone in this sub knows Trump is guilty of insurrection, but without an actual conviction, it just sets up conservative judges to declare democrats partook in an insurrection to get them off the ballot.
“I think the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” – Justice Elena Kagan
Disingenuous BS; the case is now before her at the SCOTUS. Either they uphold the Constitution or the court loses even more of its thinning legitimacy veneer
They wanted responsibility to make hard choices about the Constitution and now they will ignore the Constitution because the decision is too hard.
So states can decide on abortion but not on trumps 14th amendment section 3 disqualification? So the constitution isn’t the law of the land? Sounds like states can start banning guns then.
If this fails (and it probably will, and to a degree I agree, as it should be a all or nothing decision on the federal level to disqualify a candidate), then it needs to be known that if Trump wins, his right to “serve” will immediately be challenged because he is an insurrectionist. And this, of course, will head back to the SC.
Yeah I heard one of the justices being concerned about disenfranchisement. THATS THE FUCKING POINT OF THE AMENDMENT. It’s a special case outlined by the writers specifically saying when people *must* be disenfranchised, and they decided voters are not allowed to put traitors into office!
The Supreme Court presented a good argument for abolishing themselves.
Those people are garbage. Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the election are clear and obvious. He should be disqualified from running for office again but SCOTUS is either too partisan or spineless to do the right thing.
Lifetime appointments need to be scrutinized- obviously some have a broken moral compass
> “I think the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,”
Oh how quickly the court forgets its snap ruling in Bush v Gore
They want no part of upholding the US Constitution.
Given that quid-pro-quo Thomas didn’t recuse himself is proof of that.
Maybe we don’t need a supreme court anymore.
John Roberts will 100 percent go down as the worst Chief Justice of all time.
Who wants to step up and have the conversation with the Supreme Court that “Sometimes, when we do this thing called ‘work’, we have to do tasks that we may not like all the time.”
Maybe they should leave it up to the states, like they did with abortion 😉
“The Constitution specifically identifies what constitutes treason against the United States and, importantly, limits the offense of treason to only two types of conduct: (1) “levying war” against the United States; or (2) “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort.” Although there have not been many treason prosecutions in American history—indeed, only one person has been indicted for treason since 1954—the Supreme Court has had occasion to further define what each type of treason entails.
The offense of “levying war” against the United States was interpreted narrowly in Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), a case stemming from the infamous alleged plot led by former Vice President Aaron Burr to overthrow the American government in New Orleans.
The Supreme Court dismissed charges of treason that had been brought against two of Burr’s associates—Bollman and Swarthout—on the grounds that their alleged conduct did not constitute levying war against the United States within the meaning of the Treason Clause. It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans.
Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States.”
By actually amassing and inciting a group of supporters to attack the Nation’s Capital (“*actual assemblage of men*”), to prevent the certification of the election he knowingly lost (”*for the purpose of executing*”), combined with the multi-State fake elector scheme (”*a treasonable design*”), Trump and many in his Admin—*and including the spouse of a sitting SC Justice, [Ginni Thomas](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/ginni-thomas-tells-jan-6-committee-she-regrets-texting-with-meadows-about-2020-election/)*—‘levied war’ against the US on J6, committing treason as written in the Constitution and further defined by founding father and Chief Justice, John Marshall.
42 comments
In more than two hours of oral arguments, almost all of the Supreme Court’s justices rejected the idea that the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be used to bar Trump from running for president.
Shocker, they did the wrong thing as usual: shocker.
Again, we all knew it, 11/24 is where this is decided period.
They also want no part of preserving our democracy
I find it odd that this amendment can be ignored so easily but the second has to be worshiped.
> The Supreme Court Wants No Part of the Constitution
FTFY. And… We know.
So biden can rig the election?
All they had to do was decline to hear the case
So we can pick and choose on the Constitution now?
the supreme court is trash. ginni thomas literally participated in the insurrection.
so if an insurrectionist can run, but just not hold office, doesn’t that open the door for literally anyone of any age from any country to also be able to run? i mean, they wouldn’t be eligible to hold the office, but they could still run, right?
> “The reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him,” he told the justices. “And the Constitution doesn’t require that he be given another chance.”
The way it’s written, the Constitution requires that we do not give him another chance.
I wish I could just not do my job and not get fired
They want to put it all on Congress. Which they will.
Then the flak from their corruption accusations will shift publicly to the failure of the GOP Congress to uphold states rights.
Misdirection stage show.
With no cameras allowed in, it’s like listening to a dystopian radio show hosted by Orson Welles. I’m just waiting for the hearing to be interrupted by an alien spaceship in Grover’s Mill, NJ.
But they were fine with ending a recount prematurely to hand the presidency over to the Rs…..
SCOTUS doesn’t want to touch disqualification in any way, it’s pretty clear.
Kav gave an out with “if convicted of insurrection” line, so it will be up to the DOJ to do it, THEN states might have the power to block an individual. Odd, given the previous individuals weren’t convicted, BUT were blocked.
Ultimately, SCOTUS is going to let Trump see the courts of law, and let the voters do with him what they will.
Why have words written in laws if we are scared to use them?
Look you can’t expect the Supreme Court to weigh in on Constitutional issues. Why can’t Americans just solve their own problems?
What’s the point of having a Supreme Court if they refuse to do what they are supposed to? I don’t get it.
Their argument of “let the voters decide” makes no sense when you can turn around and just ask if we should let the voters decide if Obama should be president again?
Let the voters decide if Putin, a non natural born citizen should be president?
Let the voters decide if Jenna Ortega, who is 21 years old, should be president?
No? All of them are barred from being on the ballot because of the constitution just like insurrectionists are? That’s what I thought.
Or should we just put Obama on the ballot for the foreseeable future even if it ends up just his VP being President?
It seems clear that the SCOTUS will let Trump be on the ballot and leave it to Congress to decide if he is disqualified. Which indicates they will take the exact same position regarding a third Trump term.
The only way to stop Trump is by voting for President Biden
SCOTUS bails him out? Shocked! Shocked, I say!
Then they shouldn’t have agreed to hear the case and let Colorado ruling stand.
The only amendment they uphold so vigorously is the 2nd, the rest don’t matter
CO should just ignore them and do it anyway. The court is illegitimate.
They don’t want the consequences
Merrick Garland is at fault here. He should have brought charges against Trump for the insurrection in year 1 of the Biden presidency. Instead, he sat on his ass to bring this last minute and not in time for the 2024 election. Trump should have been truly convicted by a jury before disqualifying him. Obviously anyone in this sub knows Trump is guilty of insurrection, but without an actual conviction, it just sets up conservative judges to declare democrats partook in an insurrection to get them off the ballot.
“I think the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” – Justice Elena Kagan
Disingenuous BS; the case is now before her at the SCOTUS. Either they uphold the Constitution or the court loses even more of its thinning legitimacy veneer
They wanted responsibility to make hard choices about the Constitution and now they will ignore the Constitution because the decision is too hard.
So states can decide on abortion but not on trumps 14th amendment section 3 disqualification? So the constitution isn’t the law of the land? Sounds like states can start banning guns then.
If this fails (and it probably will, and to a degree I agree, as it should be a all or nothing decision on the federal level to disqualify a candidate), then it needs to be known that if Trump wins, his right to “serve” will immediately be challenged because he is an insurrectionist. And this, of course, will head back to the SC.
Yeah I heard one of the justices being concerned about disenfranchisement. THATS THE FUCKING POINT OF THE AMENDMENT. It’s a special case outlined by the writers specifically saying when people *must* be disenfranchised, and they decided voters are not allowed to put traitors into office!
The Supreme Court presented a good argument for abolishing themselves.
Those people are garbage. Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the election are clear and obvious. He should be disqualified from running for office again but SCOTUS is either too partisan or spineless to do the right thing.
Lifetime appointments need to be scrutinized- obviously some have a broken moral compass
> “I think the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,”
Oh how quickly the court forgets its snap ruling in Bush v Gore
They want no part of upholding the US Constitution.
Given that quid-pro-quo Thomas didn’t recuse himself is proof of that.
Maybe we don’t need a supreme court anymore.
John Roberts will 100 percent go down as the worst Chief Justice of all time.
Who wants to step up and have the conversation with the Supreme Court that “Sometimes, when we do this thing called ‘work’, we have to do tasks that we may not like all the time.”
Maybe they should leave it up to the states, like they did with abortion 😉
And based on the [Constitution](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39#:~:text=Treason%20against%20the%20United%20States,on%20Confession%20in%20open%20Court.) and the interpretation of founding father/original Chief Justice, [John Marshall](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall) (as *originalist* as it gets), Trump and co went well beyond insurrection and commit treason on J6–from the combination of engaging in insurrection to prevent the election certification along with their fake-electors scheme:
“The Constitution specifically identifies what constitutes treason against the United States and, importantly, limits the offense of treason to only two types of conduct: (1) “levying war” against the United States; or (2) “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort.” Although there have not been many treason prosecutions in American history—indeed, only one person has been indicted for treason since 1954—the Supreme Court has had occasion to further define what each type of treason entails.
The offense of “levying war” against the United States was interpreted narrowly in Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), a case stemming from the infamous alleged plot led by former Vice President Aaron Burr to overthrow the American government in New Orleans.
The Supreme Court dismissed charges of treason that had been brought against two of Burr’s associates—Bollman and Swarthout—on the grounds that their alleged conduct did not constitute levying war against the United States within the meaning of the Treason Clause. It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans.
Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States.”
By actually amassing and inciting a group of supporters to attack the Nation’s Capital (“*actual assemblage of men*”), to prevent the certification of the election he knowingly lost (”*for the purpose of executing*”), combined with the multi-State fake elector scheme (”*a treasonable design*”), Trump and many in his Admin—*and including the spouse of a sitting SC Justice, [Ginni Thomas](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/ginni-thomas-tells-jan-6-committee-she-regrets-texting-with-meadows-about-2020-election/)*—‘levied war’ against the US on J6, committing treason as written in the Constitution and further defined by founding father and Chief Justice, John Marshall.
“[Penalty:](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Penalty%3A%20Under%20U.S.%20Code%20Title,office%20in%20the%20United%20States.) Under U.S. Code Title 18, the penalty is death, or not less than five years’ imprisonment (with a minimum fine of $10,000, if not sentenced to death).
Any person convicted of treason against the United States also forfeits the right to hold public office in the United States.”
Well, the Constitution is more of a SUGGESTION than any kind of, you know, originalist document.
SMDH
ROFL
SSDD
WTF
AIGTG?