Supreme Court's liberal justices fault scope of Trump 14th Amendment decision

[riversedge]

Source: abc news



The court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Trump but disputes remained.
By Alexandra Hutzler March 4, 2024, 11:02 AM


..............

"Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President," the trio wrote. "Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision."

.................
However, they said that is where the decision should have ended.

"Yet the majority goes further ... They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy," they wrote. "Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so."


......................

"The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment," the three justices continued. "In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment."

Further, they objected to the fact that the decision rules out judicial enforcement of Section 3 and places limitations on how Congress can act.................................



Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-courts-liberal-justices-fault-scope-trump-14th/story?id=107774893

---

Read more--this a paragraph in which Amy Barret shots back at these 3 liberal justices

[ananda]

1. Just shut up Conehead.

You should not even be a judge, just like Aileen Cannon.

Too compromised and mean for words.

[Deminpenn]

15. ACB actually agreed with the 3 liberal justices that

that the 5 male justices ruled outside the bounds of the case. YMMV on what she wrote about turning the temp down, not up, but imho that was more to address the public than her fellow justices.

[spooky3]

2. I think the 3 reasonable justices are correct. The majority

Bends over backward to help TFG.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. GOP SCOTUS is in the weeds

14A Sec 3 describes how to reseat an insurrectionist with 2/3 vote to remove "disability". It does not deal with how to disqualify anyone or enforce disqualification.

SCOTUS majority has disqualified 14A Sec 3 instead.

[creeksneakers2]

14. Exactly!

The court ruled that only Congress can bar an insurrectionist. Here's what the amendment says:

" But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

The statement that the disability can be removed by a two thirds vote only makes sense if some other entity can find a person disqualified. If only Congress and disqualify someone then the framers would have had to been saying that Congress can disqualify someone and then turn around and vote by two thirds that the person could stay. It makes no sense at all. The Supreme Court can't possibly be right about this.

I notice too that the court was able to act quickly to bail Trump out but can't get Trump's meritless immunity claim out of the way with any speed at all . I fear that the court is in evil hands an will approve immunity for Trump next, leaving the country at the mercy of a habitually criminal president.

[onecaliberal]

4. No. Either they are states right or not. The inconsistency is how we know it's complete bullshit.

[Zeitghost]

13. The State's Rights doctrin

Is based on the 10th amendment which leaves all powers not delegated to the federal government in the constitution to the states or the people.

The constitution clearly gives power over presidential eligibility to the federal government.

There is no inconsistency with this ruling and states rights.

[standingtall]

21. I think there is

There is no reason for the amendment to state congress can remove a disability with a 2/3rds majority if congress could also determine disability. The constitution does not grant sole authority of the federal Government to determine


The problem with using section 5 of the 14th amendment to support the conservative justices opinion is article 1

Section 1 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


What does section 1 have to do with it? "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yes it says explicitly states should not make such laws, but it also says States explicitly says no State should enforce such laws either which is a permission slip for States to ignore the Federal Government.

I would say sections 1,2,3 and 4 are all self executing. The provisions section 5 refers too are what's already laid out in the articles. The Supreme court deciding Congress gets to decide a disability as well is editing of the constitution and adding a provision that isn't there.

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

5. IF WE WIN in Nov, Biden MUST appoint more justices to balance the court

They've shown us how "impartial" they are. Just in case you missed it

[onecaliberal]

6. But they won't. We fight AK's with a butter knife.

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

7. we'd better start not doing that or we're done

[onecaliberal]

10. We're already done.

[hamsterjill]

22. I agree.

n/t

[SunSeeker]

8. It was judicial activism on both the left and the right, choosing to eviscerate Section 3.

Albeit, they had different reasons.

The conservative justices did it to protect Trump.

The liberal justices did it because they were afraid corrupt red states would kick liberal candidates off the ballot using trumped up Section 3 charges.

It is such a sad commentary on where we are as a country.

[SouthernDem4ever]

9. Sure Amy, let's tone down the fact you allow insurrectionists to run for office

You stupid asshole.

[Joe Nation]

11. Couldn't a newly elected Congress with democrats

in majorities in both chambers pass a law disqualifying Trump if he were to win in November?

[FBaggins]

16. No

There's no way to pass such a law prior to the certification of the presidential election

Nor is there a plausible scenario in which TFG wins the election but we somehow win both houses of Congress. Right now a 50/50 senate is our best outcome... and the last time that happened it was a month before the Senate could pass an organizing resolution (let alone any actual legislation)

[BootinUp]

12. Barrett trying to teach submission to Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Good luck with that. nt

[Farmer-Rick]

17. But Congress has already passed insurrection laws

"The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in federal law at 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws."

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/rebellion-or-insurrection.html#:~:text=The%20prohibition%20on%20rebellion%20and,United%20States%20and%20its%20laws.

This law was passed during the civil war BEFORE the 14th Amendment was fully drafted.

The Constitutional Amendment was voted in to support the law. The Law was not created to support the Amendment.

There's no need to add more laws on how to enforce this federal law. It's already in the law.

This is so weird to tell Congress how to use their federal powers, when Congress has already created a path to enforce the law. The Supremes have overstepped their powers yet again.

The answers is convict Trump on the law. But Merrick Garland passed over that chance.

[FBaggins]

18. I'm not sure why your post begins with "but"

During oral arguments, it was accepted by all sides that if Trump were convicted of that federal crime... he would be ineligible to serve as president (absent Congress removing the disability). The majority isn't telling Congres how to use their federal powers. They're telling the states that any process other than what Congress has already created would have to be passed by Congress.

The three liberal justices leave open the possibility that there could be additional federal options that do not require additional legislation (though they don't speculate on a possibility)... and Barrett just said that there's no point in deciding that part unless/until a case appears raising that question.

[limbicnuminousity]

19. But CO didn't say Trump couldn't be president.

Just that he was prohibited from appearing on the CO state ballot.

Further muddying the waters, for me at least, there is a history of state and local governments abridged "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" while depriving citizens of "life, liberty, or property" when they rebelled. Greenwood, NY 1882 sticks out as does the Battle of Athens 1946. Athens may be particularly relevant since it involved election fraud. I'm just surprised there's no precedent there.

[FBaggins]

20. Actually they did

They said that he could not be on the ballot because he was ineligible to be president

[Farmer-Rick]

23. Well you just said what I said.

I'm not addressing what they said to the states.

You wrote "leave open the possibility that there could be additional federal options that do not require additional legislation - So, additional legislation is being propossed or suggested, otherwise the liberal judges wouldn't be addressing it. - (though they don't speculate on a possibility)..."

Also the post clearly stated the majority is restricting Congress.

From the post: "The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,"

That's exactly what the minority is arguing that the majority is telling Congres how to use their federal powers.

From the post: "Further, they (the minority) objected to the fact that the decision rules out judicial enforcement of Section 3 and places limitations on how Congress can act."

You need to take your argument to Alexandra Hutzler. He's the one who wrote the article.