If Congress must act to re instate a candidate but almost must act to bar a candidate, why was the amendment written the way it was? Pretty stupid they want Congress to make the determination.

Unanimous. Something we are missing?

Nice new yacht for a certain member of the court?

When do we decide the social contract has been broken?

Oh look another illegal power grab by the supreme dipshits. 14th amendment section 3 states only Congress may remove an insurrectionist's inability to hold office, not SCOTUS.

SCOTUS rules the Constitution unconstitutional.

Trump is never held accountable for his own actions and things will only get worse.

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” the chief justice, John Roberts, said during oral argument. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/04/trump-scotus-colorado-ruling)

Damn inconsistent of them, being concerned about consequences after the current court's previous rulings.

These.Mother.Fuckers...

amazing how quickly those states rights arguments evaporate when its not to the republicans benefits, huh

Where them "states' rights" advocates at?

This should be a surprise to nobody; the courts have been largely bending over backwards to accommodate Trump.

The supreme court just ruled that either the 14th amendment requires an act of Congress, despite no such requirement listed in the constitution.

Then you have Cannon, who has gone out of her way to rule in Trump's favor, up to and including the implication that Trump actually is above the law, and has shown she is hellbent on continuing to do so.

The supreme Court is also throwing Trump another bone by delaying his dc trial by 2 months, essentially giving Trump the win by running out the clock instead of ruling on presidential immunity.

The stormy Daniels case is of little legal and even less political consequence, as the case is weak already and Trump is not considered at significant risk.

The GA case is likely to get derailed because Willis couldn't keep her personal and professional life separate, and her handling of the affair puts her credibility in doubt.

At least we have the civil judgement. At least, until Trump finds another judge willing to throw that out too.

They won't, but Colorado should still keep him off the ballot. The ruling was clearly made in fear of chaos instead of what was correct, so they deserve chaos irregardless.

Or at least make a show about it, like all those states did when Texas was told to let the fed agents cut the razor wire.

The supreme court is anything but. They are traitors to the USA.

deleted by creator

Next obvious steps for Colorado should be;
Do nothing
Point finger at Texas

The Roberts court is illegitimate.

More proof.

As much as I hate Trump, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to allow a state to remove a candidate from the ballot pre-conviction. I hope he does get convicted and thus removed from the ballot however

All signs point to President Trump at the end of 2024. It was nice knowing ya.

this thing was doomed from the start and the unanimous vote of the Supreme Court shows that. Y'all are overlooking the fact that this keeps red states from taking Biden off the ballot too.

I told everyone for months that sec 5 clearly says ONLY Congress can remove him. I wish I had bookmarked everyone that old me I was a bot or Russian that doesn't know what they are talking about.

Just the latest reminder that the 3rd Clause of the 14th Amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Edit: Important from the Court's three liberal justices:

"The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an 'insurrection [and] rebellion' to defend slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment."