Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.

‘States rights only apply when not direct conflict with conservative views’

• John 22:16

The states explicitly have that determining power according to the constitution, specifically for insurrection.

Fuuuck the Supreme Cowards.

Unanimous? How?

Fascists use institutions to secure and entrench power. They are not restricted by them.

The question for those cheering this decision as a win for the rule of law or the institution is: how aware of this are you?

A nonsensical ruling.

The section specifically says congress can allow someone to hold office with a 2/3rds vote. How does it make any sense that it also takes specific congressional action to disqualify someone? A simple majority could stop that.

They even noted on a footnote a case where a 2/3rds majority voted to seat a former confederate. Yet they didn’t bother to outline how he was disqualified to start with. It wasn’t congressional action.

And they exceed legal thoughts as the suppose there needs to be uniformity so the president is president for all. History is filled with candidates that didn’t appear on the ballot is some states. Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in some southern states. Like it or not, that is how it works.

And while the majority was rightfully chided for going beyond the question presented, shame on the liberals for ruling to protect their federal power rather than protecting the integrity of elections. I hated the oral arguments where they were all saying it “feels” like a federal question. If you want it to be a federal question, amend the constitution so the feds are in charge of elections. Until then, states have the right to decide who is on their ballot.

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What happened to State's Rights? Oh, they only matter when they didn't benefit you. Got it.

It's so wild that the 'but the people have democratic rights to choose among candidates' crowd invoke that argument to make the candidate that's promised to end democracy and rights one of the options they can vote for

You know, because democracy

I thought a president can do anything with full immunity. So Biden could make it so, according to Trump’s own rules.

What I don't understand about the ruling is that congress has already exercised their power. Donald Trump was impeached by congress in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. The states are only enforcing the law based on the ruling a of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate.

Naturally

States rights only applies when it benefits the GQP

States rights!!!!! Sometimes.

Short term this is disappointing, but long term I think it is for the best. Being unanimous makes it less likely a state will ignore the rulling, and had they ruled against Trump, then we would have seen decades of retaliation from red states removing all democrats for any reason.

The root of the problem remains that nearly half our voting citizens support electing a violent and hateful criminal.

"It's not for us to decide. It's up to the Republican controlled Congress to decide to allow Trump and any other Republican candidate and not allow Democrat candidates the same luxury."

I mean, the whole argument hinges on the fact that the procedures around Section 3 are ambiguous, but clearly since states haven't tried to do it themselves before, that means they obviously don't have the authority. So, the precedent exists not because it has actually been set, but because it can be inferred to exist by the fact that it hasn't been set.

May as well have signed it in crayon, too. OH WAIT THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT

The US is a weird place. Why can't you just ignore your strange council of all powerful wizards that rule for life? Didn't some other state do that only a few months ago and face no repercussion? Just ignore the geriatric corrupt bastards.