General Discussion

gab13by13

(21,461 posts)

17. Explain enforcement legislation passed by Congress.

Mon Mar 4, 2024, 11:46 AM

Mar 4

What would that procedure look like? Did the ruling say that a federal court had to make the decision? Would the case automatically go to a District federal court and then to the Appeals court? The state Supreme court will have no jurisdiction.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Neal Katyal noting that SCOTUS did not clear Trump of insurrection as he requested [View all] Kennah Mar 4 OP

Bur they were unanimous in keeping the rapist, traitor on the ballot anyway. FalloutShelter Mar 4 #1

They concurred on the essential question before them, which was: Fiendish Thingy Mar 4 #3

Okay atreides1 Mar 4 #6

I haven't read the ruling Fiendish Thingy Mar 4 #9

Explain enforcement legislation passed by Congress. gab13by13 Mar 4 #17

I can only give an example of what I imagine the law could look like, not predict what it would actually be Fiendish Thingy Mar 4 #22

Congress would and has enforced this legislation Zeitghost Mar 4 #26

Yes, but . . . people Mar 4 #30

Bullshit. notKeith Mar 4 #28

In 1866, There was an enforcement act that was later repealed. Fiendish Thingy Mar 4 #33

Yep - you're right - I stand .. er.. sit.. corrected! notKeith Mar 4 #34

The SCOTUS ruled that only Congress could enable Section 3 of the 13th., as was done back in sinkingfeeling Mar 4 #13

For sure not being a lawyer here, but my thoughts are they are ruling that bluestarone Mar 4 #15

Exactly, gab13by13 Mar 4 #18

You misunderstand the question Fiendish Thingy Mar 4 #23

Their ruling argued that Constitution only allows congress to address that matter, and while Texin Mar 4 #32

Thanks. Actually it was a good decision in that think IF yes, Abortion laws to could apply to ALL States, but riversedge Mar 4 #11

Exactly, or think of the second amendment Fiendish Thingy Mar 4 #14

Except Colorado was not ruling for the entire nation, but just for the election being held in Colorado Dave says Mar 4 #36

But the constitution says if someone is disqualified, it is nationwide Fiendish Thingy Mar 4 #37

Hmmm. That seems correct. Thank you. Dave says Mar 4 #38

If states ran things independently they could set their own election days. former9thward Mar 4 #4

They do ITAL Mar 4 #5

Thanks. FalloutShelter Mar 4 #8

He hasn't been convicted of rape or insurrection. Let him run. And we'd better bring out a huge turnout. marble falls Mar 4 #7

defacto clearing DoBW Mar 4 #35

He may have requested that but that was not the issue the Court considered. former9thward Mar 4 #2

Unless it is the Immunity question where it is not narrow, but wide open (will take longer/more delay) Nictuku Mar 4 #10

The immunity issue as stated by the Court is limited onenote Mar 4 #20

So states don't have standing for federal candidates, gab13by13 Mar 4 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author onenote Mar 4 #21

Mr Drumpf, he gonna get convicted. Kid Berwyn Mar 4 #16

It doesn't matter. While the truth is still putting on its bunny slippers. Hugin Mar 4 #19

They will eventually. moniss Mar 4 #24

Right, didn't clear him of ANYTHING, did not address the substance at all, elleng Mar 4 #25

Screw the SCOTUS, we gotta keep him and as many repukes as possible out of office in Nov. Cheezoholic Mar 4 #27

It seems the only practical decision for elections for national office, but bucolic_frolic Mar 4 #29

Not yet... lame54 Mar 4 #31