Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: A closer look at the governor’s pension proposals
Posted in:
* Rick Pearson…
Click here for the full SCOTUS ruling.
* AP…
The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states, without action from Congress first, cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.
The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. […]
Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. […]
Conservative and liberal justices questioned the case against Trump. Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke the 14th Amendment. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.
* Governor Pritzker this weekend…
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker: "We want [Trump] on the ballot, frankly, because he's a detriment to Republicans across the United States…" https://t.co/wNTnXTb0Du
— Mark Maxwell (@MarkMaxwellTV) March 4, 2024
…Adding…Pritzker was asked today about his thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling…
I’m an attorney, but I am not a constitutional law expert. I will say that as I have said before, this is a matter for the courts to decide. That seems like they’ve made that decision, although they made it just on the Colorado determination. But I think it will apply to Illinois.
As I have said publicly, my view is that we will beat him at the ballot box. There’s no reason why, you know, politically, someone should be thrown off the ballot. Having said that, there may be a constitutional reason. And once again, I wouldn’t know Opine about that.
We’re gonna win here in Illinois and beat Donald Trump. And I think I said yesterday, or the day before, I think it will help Democrats that he’s on the ballot.
posted by Isabel Miller
Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: A closer look at the governor’s pension proposals
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Called it.
Comment by Former ILSIP Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 9:53 am
Gotta love J.B.
Comment by Nick Name Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:02 am
So Pritzker gives a speech over the weekend saying that “this is an existential battle.” He and Democrats will constantly be making the argument that Trump poses an existential threat to America, that democracy itself is at stake, and that electing Trump will do irreparable harm to the very core of our nation.
Yet… “We want Trump on the ballot”
What a self-serving phony.
Comment by MacCalla Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:02 am
I find it hard to believe that anyone would be surprised about this ruling. It was a dumb thing to attempt in the first place.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:06 am
So if a 23-year-old from Russia wants to run for president she can unless Congress acts.
Comment by very old soil Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:06 am
@MacCalla
You’re an idiot when it comes to politics. Of course they want him on the ballot. They hope it will drive turnout for Democrats as well as independents who are vehement in their opposition to Trump and keeping him out of the White House.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:11 am
~It was a dumb thing to attempt in the first place.~
Exactly.
Comment by Which one is Pink Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:11 am
We want Trump on the ballot…because our feeble attempts to remove him are doomed to failure. The Democrats have been providing a master class in how make your opponent a more sympathetic figure. I am surprised they haven’t tried to impeach him again.
Comment by Captain Obvious Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:16 am
==So if a 23-year-old from Russia wants to run for president she can unless Congress acts.==
This ruling was limited solely to the insurrection clause.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:20 am
-So if a 23-year-old from Russia wants -
If you listened to the hearings, you would know that’s not the case.
Comment by Steve Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:28 am
So if a 23-year-old from Russia wants to run for president she can unless Congress acts.
No, because the constitution stipulates you need to be 35 and a natural born citizen. Perhaps read the constitution before posting, then you’d have your answer.
Comment by Steve Rogers Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:33 am
Thank you, Steve Rogers.
Comment by Jerry Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 10:42 am
To the post- Totally agree, this effort was doomed from the get go. I get it, but I would not have gone there.
=The Democrats have been providing a master class in how make your opponent a more sympathetic figure.=
Only to people who would vote for him no matter what(Literally no matter what, which says a lot). I don’t think polling of independents and uncommitted voters is supports your assertion substantively.
Reading the minority opinion was interesting. They agreed with the judgement, but not the reasoning which seemed to decide an issue not at hand (”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,”). I my reading of the constitution is correct, states are responsible for elections. This seems to change that and flies in the face of their “states rights” position from Dobbs. But maybe I am comparing apples and oranges.
I am far more interested in the immunity issue trump is pushing with the USSC. I don’t know that they (maga world) has really thought that one out. If trump has immunity from actions while in office then Biden will too. Not sure that was part of their math.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 11:02 am
==What a self-serving phony.==
On the contrary, this is incredibly honest of Pritzker to say out loud that dems want trump on the ballot because he brings dem voters out against him. Maybe some folks missed that message, but I can guarantee you that dem voters did not.
Comment by Travel Guy Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 11:08 am
Saw a comment on twitter along the lines of “Congress tries to pass enabling statutes for Reconstruction era amendments like the VRA, and SCOTUS says they can’t. Try to use the plain text of those amendments, and SCOTUS says you can’t do that either.”
Comment by Homebody Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 11:17 am
They looked the process that *SHOULD* happen right in the face and decided against it.
“The text of Section 3 reinforces these conclusions. Its final sentence empowers Congress to “remove” any Section 3 “disability” by a two-thirds vote of each house. The text imposes no limits on that power, and Congress may exercise it any time, as the respondents concede. See Brief for Respondents 50. In fact, historically, Congress sometimes exercised this amnesty power postelection to ensure that some of the people’s chosen candidates could take office.2 But if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring candidates from running in the first place, Congress would be forced to exercise its disability removal power before voting begins if it wished for its decision to have any effect on the current election cycle.”
Comment by Odysseus Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 12:03 pm
The Kagen et al concurrence also should have been more careful. I get their point–that when the constitutional clause requires a 2/3 vote to eject a member under the clause, how can you find that consistent with allowing Congress to write legislation that could also preclude seating, which requires 50% majority? Except that Section 5 has that boilerplate language found in the 13th and 15th as well for implementation. Why lay the seeds for a new reverse-interpretation theory that any legislation under the Section 5 clause language effectively requires 2/3 vote for Congressional legislation?
Comment by Mary Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 12:07 pm
So states can kick someone off the ballot for not having paperwork in order…not enough signatures, etc. But they can’t keep a candidate off the ballot if he or she engages in insurection. Am I getting this right?
Comment by Think about it Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 12:18 pm
^^Could be wrong, but this doesn’t seem to follow blog policy:
“You’re an idiot when it comes to politics.“
Just sayin’.
To the post: good move, let the voters decide.
Comment by Central Ill Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 12:19 pm
– Am I getting this right? –
No, you’re not.
Under the Constitution, there are certain limited powers delegated to the federal government. Everything else is reserved to the states.
The Supreme Court said the ability to declare someone ineligible to be president under the insurrection language of the 14th Amendment is reserved solely to Congress.
So state courts can’t decide the question.
To sum up: If Donald Trump wanted to run for governor of Colorado or Illinois, judges could say he’s ineligible under Amendment 14, because that decision would only apply to Colorado or Illinois. But they can’t make that ruling for president, because individual states don’t get to make that call for the rest of the country.
It’s really not as complex as some of you all want it to be. The outcome was staring you in the face from the moment the first challenge was filed.
Comment by JB13 Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 1:02 pm
I concur with the decision, but only as it relates to the Presidency. We cannot have individual states deciding who can run for president.
I disagree with the inference that other federal officers, specifically Senators and Representatives, require Congressional authorization for removal. Congress already has that authority through impeachment.
But as I read this opinion, it suggests states do not have authority over their representatives to Congress, without first receiving congressional permission.
The dissent raises an important question. As written the opinion seems to nullify Section 3 completely, given Congress already has that authority and power.
Comment by H-W Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 1:12 pm
“The dissent raises an important question.”
It was a 9-0 decision. Do you mean concurrence?
This was a dumb case that was always going to end this way. Said so from the get go. It’s not that the plaintiff’s are wrong about the 14th amendment. But it was never ever going to result in Trump getting booted from the ballot. What it does do is embolden he and his MAGA crowd. Anything that allows him to play the victim without actual consequence is good for him.
Comment by New Day Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 2:25 pm
Why is it that the most ridiculous hate-mongering gibberish from leftwingers always appears in comments, but most anything even slightly critical of a Dem is not allowed?
Comment by Lordy lordy Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 2:45 pm
JB is so trolling Trump. Nothing bugs him more than being called a loser.
Comment by Save Ferris Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 2:58 pm
==Do you mean concurrence?==
They made it clear that they agreed with the outcome but not the opinion written. So it was more of a dissent without using the term dissent because they agreed with the outcome.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 3:23 pm
==Why is it that the most ridiculous hate-mongering gibberish from leftwingers always appears in comments, but most anything even slightly critical of a Dem is not allowed? ==
Rich’s blog, Rich’s rules.
Comment by Papa2008 Monday, Mar 4, 24 @ 4:11 pm