Supreme Court stopped Colorado from disqualifying Trump's presidential run.

@LeopoldBloom That's very possible, and it is the more important of the two cases.

@LeopoldBloom Interestingly, [quote]The court did not reach some of the other issues that Trump had urged them to decide in his brief on the merits – such as whether Trump “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6.[/quote] In other words. SCOTUS let stand the Colorado ruling that Trump [i]had[/i] engaged in insurrection, but reserved to the federal government the power to take an insurrectionist off the ballot.

@ElwoodBlues The Colorado insurrection ruling against Trump was deemed nonsensical by SCOTUS when the latter struck down that ruling.

@sree251 WRONG!!

Trump asked SCOTUS to decide the insurrection question, and they passed on that part. What SCOTUS said was that it was not a state power to take insurrectionists off of ballots. SCOTUS said that was a federal power only. Hence, SCOTUS let stand the Colorado ruling that Trump had engaged in insurrection.

For verification, load
[b]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf[/b]
and search for "insurrection." SCOTUS did not rule either way on insurrection; only on the power to remove from ballots.

@sree251 The court did not opine on whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection. What they said was that the states cannot disqualify anyone under the 14th Amendment, only Congress can. This will at least prevent endless lawsuits over states arbitrarily disqualifying candidates for frivolous reasons.

On the other hand, by giving only Congress this authority, does this mean if in November we end up with a Democratic Congress, and Trump is elected, they can disqualify him at that point, (or a Republican Congress disqualifies Biden) and the Supreme Court would have no say? It sounds like the court opened themselves up to that possibility.

My theory is that the court gave Trump the win on this one, because they plan to rule against him in the presidential immunity case. So they will be able to say "see? We're non-partisan, we rule both ways."

@LeopoldBloom There is evidence the decision was in the process of coming down as a 6-3 ruling, with Sotomayor writing the dissent, but Chief Justice Roberts wanted a unanimous verdict. It was clear the Republican Justices were going to carry the day, so there was some horse trading resulting in the 9-0 ruling, with the dissents recharacterized as consents that laid out the differences of the liberal justices, and Justice Barrett's separate consent. The most likely scenario was for a ruling against Trump on the immunity issue, which is of greater importance in the long run.

@windinhishair I read about that. It just shows how sloppy they are if they allowed the version with the metadata to get out.

@LeopoldBloom Clearly they wanted the ruling out before Super Tuesday, so it was poorly written, poorly prepared, and poorly issued. Although we will have to wait for the immunity ruling, it will be worth it.

@windinhishair There was no reason to delay the immunity ruling. In fact, the lower court's opinion was so well-written and thorough, SCOTUS should have refused to hear the case and allowed the existing ruling to stand. It should be obvious that by delaying arguments and very likely issuing the ruling in June, they will give Trump another excuse to demand a delay until after the election. With Judge Cannon slow-walking the Florida case and the Georgia case in limbo, it doesn't look like any of them will be decided before November.

@LeopoldBloom They should have just affirmed the lower court ruling and refused to hear the case, as you suggest. Clearly the Republican majority wanted to help the Trump as much as possible even if they rule against him later. I still think at least one of the major trials will begin before the election.

@windinhishair Let us pray.

@sree251 Pray for what?

@sree251 [quote]Your wife tells your 15 year old son[/quote]
He still has the failed test on his record. That doesn't change. Or, in this case, A superior court ruling that he committed insurrection, which SCOTUS let stand. Legally speaking, Trump IS an insurrectionist, even if he attends some ballgames.

Do you get it now?

@ElwoodBlues You said: "Do you get it now?"

I get your point of view that the finding of the Colorado court has substance. It does not because Jan 6 was not a planned and premeditated coup d'é·ta. Such an event would have involved armed US military personnel loyal to Trump and resulted in the assassination of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directors of the CIA, FBI, and Attorney General. Armed US soldiers loyal to Trump would have surrounded the Capitol and the White House to protect him.

Insurrection is an uprising, a protest not amounting to a revolution resulting in the overthrow of the US Government. Jan 6 was just a gathering of Americans pissed off with the way the election was conducted. Typically, there is more physical violence and damage to public property at large sport events and rock concerts. It was not even an insurrection because there was no credible end game for the crowd gathered at the Capitol on Jan 6. They could not have taken over the US on Jan 6 even with the support of China and Russia.

The Colorado ruling was a farce, much too silly for SCOTUS to deal with. SCOTUS just ruled that Colorado had no business blocking a US citizen from running for federal elections.

@LeopoldBloom You said: "On the other hand, by giving only Congress this authority, does this mean if in November we end up with a Democratic Congress, and Trump is elected, they can disqualify him at that point, (or a Republican Congress disqualifies Biden) and the Supreme Court would have no say? It sounds like the court opened themselves up to that possibility."

SCOTUS is the referee and doesn't care what Congress (Democrat or Republican) does to the POTUS as long as it is in accordance with the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.

@sree251 [quote]I get your point of view that the finding of the Colorado court has substance. [/quote] Thank you.

[quote]It does not because Jan 6 was not a planned and premeditated coup d'é·ta. [/quote]
We'll have to wait and see Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election. We know several weeks of effort, masterminded by Kenneth Chesebro, went into recruiting seven slates of false electors; many with false (forged) paperwork; all of which Trump was kept informed of. That coup d'état failed because Mike Pence had the VP duties researched and realized he couldn't play ball.
[quote] Jan 6 was just a gathering of Americans pissed off [/quote]
Jan 6 was a quickly thrown-together followup to prevent the counting of electoral votes when they found Mike Pence wouldn't count fake electors. The fact that it was poorly organized and failed doesn't make it any less of an attempt. Jan 6 was part and parcel of the false electors plot. That's why the insurrectionists were chanting [b][i]"Hang Mike Pence."[/i][/b]

@sree251 I agree completely. Since [i]Marbury v. Madison[/i], SCOTUS has had the authority to interpret the Constitution, and what they say is by definition "constitutional." But that doesn't mean it's a good decision or even legally sound. This shoddy, rushed interpretation opens the door to chaos. Let's say Trump wins and the newly-elected Democratic Congress says he's an insurrectionist and they disqualify him. He appeals to the Supreme Court and they say nope, he's not an insurrectionist, let him be sworn in. Do we want every election from here on out to be litigated and decided by the Supreme Court?

None of this would be an issue if we had direct election of the president by popular vote, where the winner automatically took office without the involvement of Congress, the Supreme Court, or anyone else. The problem stems from the obsolete, slave-era electoral vote system we're stuck with.

@LeopoldBloom This is yet another good reason for abandoning the Electoral College, which outlived its usefulness back in the 1800s.

@LeopoldBloom You said: "Let's say Trump wins and the newly-elected Democratic Congress says he's an insurrectionist and they disqualify him.[b] He appeals to the Supreme Court [/b]and they say nope, he's not an insurrectionist, let him be sworn in. Do we want every election from here on out to be litigated and decided by the Supreme Court?"

There is no appeal against Congressional impeachment owing to the separation of powers. However, the President does have power over the armed forces. He can order a drone strike to take out those in Congress who want him impeached. Trump could also order Seal Team 6 to take out Jack Smith, Judge Engoron and Letitia James. Can that happen? I don't think so and neither do you. Not because Trump is honorable but because the system is a sham. The President doesn't have power over the armed forces. He is just a puppet, a good act for Americans, the dumb asses who believe in the USA.

@sree251 Congress declaring someone an insurrectionist is NOT an impeachment trial. They are two separate things. Actually, SCOTUS hasn't made clear HOW Congress would go about declaring someone an insurrectionist; they've left that muddled.

@ElwoodBlues You are WRONG!

The separation of powers is very clear. SCOTUS is the referee with the final say on what is ok and what is not in conformance with the rules in the Constitution.

SCOTUS doesn't either uphold or over-rule decisions of lower courts. It only decides on whether or not a lower court has constitutional power to preside on issues in question.

@sree251 Impeachment and 14th Amendment disqualification are completely different. The impeachment process is explained in detail in the Constitution. The president would not be able to appeal an impeachment to the Supreme Court; in fact, the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial in the Senate. The Senate's decision is then final. If the president is impeached and the trial results in his removal, that's the end of it.

A 14th Amendment disqualification would be a single vote, and it's not clear if it could be appealed to the Supreme Court or not as it's not a legal case. For example, if a bill is defeated, the bill's sponsor can't appeal to the Supreme Court.

@sree251 says [quote]SCOTUS ... decides on whether or not a lower court has constitutional power to preside on issues in question.[/quote]

And that is the Constitutional justification by which SCOTUS either upholds or overrules decisions of lower courts. Because the major power of SCOTUS is precisely either upholding or overruling (lower) circuit court decisions.

Except for presiding in an impeachment, the ONLY WAY that SCOTUS gets a case is via a lower court decision. And thus the only thing SCOTUS can do is either uphold or overrule lower court decisions.

@ElwoodBlues You said: "And thus the only thing SCOTUS can do is either uphold or overrule lower court decisions."

Yes. SCOTUS upholds lower courts' decisions, as well as, endorses their authority to preside when, in SCOTUS' opinion, the Constitution is not violated.