- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
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
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:52 am to Indefatigable
Yeah I just posted the part to answer YA's question. It was concise and not posting most than necessary fit the theme of the response
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:57 am to Indefatigable
quote:
writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.
The "national temperature" should have no bearing on the courts writings. Curious what impact this standard will have on her immunity opinion.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News