SCOTUS Unanimously Rules Trump Can Remain on Colorado Ballot; Barrett Says Court 'Should Turn The National Temperature Down'

Chris Menahan
Mar. 04, 2024

The US Supreme Court on Monday in a rare moment of sanity unanimously ruled that the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong to kick former President Donald Trump off their state ballot.

From ABC News, "Supreme Court rules Trump can stay on Colorado ballot in historic 14th Amendment case":
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic case challenging his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in "insurrection" on Jan. 6 through incitement.

"For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," the unsigned Supreme Court opinion read. "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result."
Amy Coney Barrett, who had major warning signs for all to see before she was appointed to the court by President Trump, unfortunately joined with the libs to say the ruling went too far by insulating Trump from other such witch hunts and claimed the court should seek to "turn the national temperature down, not up."
The three liberal justices -- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- in a concurring opinion, said while they agreed the Colorado decision couldn’t stand, they were at odds with the court's majority over their determination that only Congress can enforce Section 3.

Allowing Colorado to keep Trump off the ballot, they agreed, would "create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation's federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case."

"Yet the majority goes further," the liberal justices wrote. "They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy."

"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," they continued. "In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative appointed by Trump, held a similar view in her own brief concurring opinion.

"I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates," she wrote. "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."

But Barrett also sought to stress the court's unanimous agreement, saying now is not the time for strident disagreement.

"The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election," she wrote. "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."

Your job is supposed to be interpreting the law according to the vision of our Founders, not coddling libtards and giving half-hearted rulings to "turn the national temperature down."

As a reminder, Justice Sotomayor with backing from Justice Kagan argued in 2022 that anyone who is familiar with FBI crime stats must be banned from Capital case juries for "racial bias."

The judge who kicked Trump off the ballot in Illinois according to her own bio presides mainly over "minor traffic violations."

The Hawaii Supreme Court just last month cited an episode of "The Wire" to declare the Constitution invalid and strip a man of his Second Amendment rights.

If half the Supreme Court is concerned with "fairness" and "lowering the national temperature" while the other half is concerned only with their political and group self-interests the side which is "fair" is simply going to lose to the fanatics over time.

We've already seen multiple terrible decisions from Kavanaugh, Roberts and Gorsuch siding with the libs and delivering major losses to conservatives just to show how "fair" and "impartial" they are.

If Attorney General Merrick Garland was on the Supreme Court and libtards had the majority they'd be ruling in favor of hate speech laws and jailing their political opposition.

Fairness, impartiality and "lowering the national temperature" wouldn't even cross their mind!

Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab, Minds and Telegram.

All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0

About - Privacy Policy