Started By
Message

re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump

Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:41 am to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
423521 posts
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:41 am to
quote:

LOL, what?


I'm reading now, but I can just quote ACB to explain:

quote:

I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
Posted by Y.A. Tittle
Member since Sep 2003
101671 posts
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:45 am to
quote:

I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.



I reject the idea that they are somehow addressing an additional "complicated question" here.

I submit they are simply stating what is inherent in the rationale of actually reaching the decision that there is no way a state can unilaterally determine such a thing.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26653 posts
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:51 am to
Barrett's full concurrence:
quote:

I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced. The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 9:52 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram