The Supreme Court ruled in the Trump ballot eligibility case. Here's the full text of the opinion. - CBS News
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 47 commentsBy: Melissa Quinn (CBSPolitics)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Melissa Quinn
March 4, 2024 / 10:18 AM EST / CBS News
CBS News Live CBS News LiveLive
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday issued its highly anticipated decision siding with former President Donald Trump in a challenge to his eligibility for a second term in office, reversing a ruling from the top court in Colorado that ordered him to be excluded from the state's 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot.
The court ruled unanimously for the former president in the case brought last year by a group of six Colorado voters. The ruling means Trump's name will be listed on the primary and general election ballots in Colorado, and is expected to resolve challenges to his candidacy pending in several states.
Read the full text of the Supreme Court's opinion in the case known as Trump v. Anderson here:
Trump v. Anderson | PDF | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution | Supreme Court Of The United States (scribd.com)
Melissa Quinn
Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.
Tags
Who is online
281 visitors
As we all knew!
Yes and now comes the requisite wailing and gnashing of teeth ….
We'll have the so-called experts telling us why even the leftist justices were wrong.
Damn right wing Supreme court. S/
You mean they won't think this is a win for Democracy just because people they don't like can't be taken off the ballot?
Tomorrow they'll be demanding that the Court be packed with fresh lefties.
I look forward to this being described as a ruling by Trump justices, like the similar decision to hear his appeal on the immunity claim.
That's how this works. They either win or attack the legitimacy of the Court for being partisan by not doing exactly what the Democratic Party wants. Expect more attacks on the Court.
That's the beauty of having those three radical justices speaking in one voice via a 9-0 decision.
The so-called experts should be rejoicing. It was a resounding victory for the Constitution.
We did have one who told us he didn't know which way it would go. He likes to wait for the "facts" to come in.
Donald Trump's lawyers argued in court ,in the appeals court, that he could order the assassination of his political rivals, and have it carried out , and he would still be immune to prosecution as long as he had not been first impeached for it.
No they didn't, the judge on the appeals court asked them if he could, they didn't argue that. You should actually read the transcript. Only Obama has ordered the execution of American citizens, why weren't you outraged then?
Trump is still entitled to due process whether Democrats and never Trumpers like it or not.
When they answered yes in that court proceeding it became their argument. Everything lawyers say in court that is related to the case is part of their argument.
It's cute you think anybody would take you at your word on that. Now lets see the transcript / video of this.
I doubt you’ll find many informed legal analysts who don’t think the extent of presidential immunity for official acts (drone strikes on American citizens for example) is something that should be determined by the Supreme Court.
ask jack smith and every other democrat. It was their opinion as recently as about 60 days ago.
No they didn't answer yes, what they laid out was the proper procedure for holding a president accountable as laid out in the constitution, He isn't immune from prosecution, The house impeaches him, the Senate convicts him, and then the state that has jurisdiction would THEN indict him and prosecute him, that is the exact opposite of immunity.
@7.1
Keith Olbermann has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate, if anyone is wondering how the progressive left is taking it. He also said " Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension."
Which means, as Sunnyrigth tweeted: " All it took for the angry white leftist to go from a fan of the educated black woman to insisting the educated black woman can't read, was for the educated black woman to disagree with him once."
Who?
you dont understand the issue
By Trumps lawyers argument, Trump could murder someone while in office, and if it wasnt discovered until after he left office he would be immune from prosecution because he wasnt impeached for it.
That describes the position you are arguing perfectly.
Should stick to sportscasting because when he opens his mouth outside of that, he regularly inserts foot.
Olbermann = asshat
This can't get any funnier.
Have you noticed the accusations that it was an "orchestrated campaign event" and the SCOTUS was "bought and paid for"?
No, I haven't heard that one yet. That has to replace Trump wants to win so he can pardon himself.
I think they're in addition to that pardon nonsense.
well it didn't take very long for the orange menace's news conference to devolve into conspiracy and bullshit...
I was thinking an 8-1 decision. Guess I was wrong.
No surprise here. The Constitution does not permit a state to disqualify a presidential candidate from national office, that responsibility “rests with Congress and not the states.”
No surprise indeed. I said that I thought Section 5 would play a big part in this and was correct.
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the Court ruled.
Pretty obvious result. The only surprise was the unanimity. One need only look at the text of the Amendment and realize Section 5 exists to know what the result would be.
It never made any sense to believe the 14th Amendment was designed to give individual states the power to make this choice for federal elections.
And now we have to deal with the whining and crying from the left because they didn't find in concurrence with their hurt feelings.
Message sent to the TDS ridden.
Donald Trump will speak on this matter within the hour.
Stay tuned.
... it's a little early in the day for drinking games. I'll hit the vape pen instead. what's the shot word/phrase/gaffe?
I'm more interested in betting on which networks actually cover this orchestrated campaign event and how long before any covering networks cut away from trump's SCOTUS remarks and when turns into free campaign airtime.
Recuse herself from what?
[deleted]
Please flag rather than inflame
So there no recusing herself from anything. She has nothing to do with SCotUS rulings.
Every time Thomas comes up
Charles cook provided a great summary: