Justice Barrett Explains the Message Americans
Should Take Away From the Trump Ballot Ruling
Townhall,
by
Katie Pavlich
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
3/4/2024 3:33:03 PM
As Spencer reported, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 9-0 Monday morning that states cannot take former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 presidential ballot. (X) In her written opinion on the ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained the message she believes Americans should take away from the decision.
"In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance,
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 3/4/2024 3:41:49 PM (No. 1670428)
So Barrett issues an opinion that basically cover-up how the 3 hardcore fascist in black robes were forced to agree to something. By the way, the 3 fascist issue a separate opinion saying they agreed that states shouldn't decide this but Congress (even though the amendment says only congress) should be the lone arbiter of the amendment. So they agreed to one thing, not the Constitution. And this separate opinion will be used to launch new law fare suits going forward.
30 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
smokincol 3/4/2024 4:00:40 PM (No. 1670431)
she doesn't have to explain anything to us ... this was a totally violation of the Constitution and reeked of sedition and Treason
- the hangman should be installed in D.C. when our President returns to office and, as in Paris during the French Revolution, the executions should begin ... immediately ... with comrade obama being the first to test the strength of the hangman's noose
45 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
SkyKing1222 3/4/2024 4:12:39 PM (No. 1670438)
FTA
"In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. “
Wrong ACB,
the Constitution dictates this ruling, no matter what the state of our Union is.
64 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
NeverVoteDem 3/4/2024 6:22:40 PM (No. 1670520)
The Cheat-o-cRats will drum up something else using our taxes and lawfare to get Trump. It is collusion of big media, big corporations, and the swamp.
29 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
HicoKid 3/4/2024 6:43:23 PM (No. 1670524)
ACB, we don't care about your views about "not amplifying our disagreement" or "the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up." That's not your job, dummy. Disqualification under the 14th Amendment explicitly does not pertain to the President.
32 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
tootall 3/4/2024 7:04:00 PM (No. 1670535)
The ruling should be tht President Trump did not incite an insurrection, and has not been charged with a crime that did not occur! Soryy, not sorry!
35 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Flyball Dogs 3/4/2024 8:22:58 PM (No. 1670572)
Justice Barrett is coming off as a lightweight.
Y’all help me: weren’t potential SCOTUS names given to PDJT via The Federalist and McConnell ?
21 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
stablemoney 3/4/2024 9:04:52 PM (No. 1670598)
The ruling was weak. It should have been overturned period!
25 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Rinktum 3/5/2024 7:39:54 AM (No. 1670791)
Agree #3, but if another case comes before the Court wherein the country is equally divided, is ACB going to get out her thermometer and measure the temperature of the country and decide to make a decision based on lowering the temperature of the country or will she abide by the Constitution regardless of the outcome? If she is afraid to decide based solely on the Constitution, then we have nothing more than a SCOTUS that makes decisions on feelings. So whomever makes the biggest fuss can sway a Supreme Court Justice? The SCOTUS should make decisions solely on the Constitution and the Law. They are not there to make sure the country is happy. There are there to make hard decisions. It’s why they are paid the big bucks.
22 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
happywarrior 3/5/2024 7:44:42 AM (No. 1670794)
Jamie Raskin and Eric Swalwell are already cooking up something in Congress to take him off the ballot everywhere.
11 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
planetgeo 3/5/2024 9:32:41 AM (No. 1670861)
This ruling actually gave the Democrats the new template for how to stop Trump "legally". They made Congress the final arbiter. Does that make you feel this issue has been settled? Now the Democrats have already started scurrying like crazy to make that happen, and not just before the election, but possibly even AFTER winning the election.
How does that grab you...a Democrat and RINO controlled Congress being able to create a law that can essentially limit who you can vote for not just in 2024 but in the future?
13 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Zigrid 3/5/2024 10:44:13 AM (No. 1670911)
I think Greg Kelly on Newsmax is right in being skeptical...barretts explanation to America is condescending and uncalled for...and it proves to me...men with clear thinking should be making these decisions....women think with their emotions...and that's not a good place for America to be...WE follow the constitution......
11 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Trapper 3/5/2024 11:10:41 AM (No. 1670931)
The Three Amigas aren’t happy because the majority saw through the Lawfare game and cut it all off at the knees. As a result of this decision:
1- In Justice Department prosecutions during Trump’s second term, no defendant can raise as a defense that the prosecution is illegitimate because Trump is/was/might have been an insurrectionist;
2 – A rogue Lawfare federal prosecutor can’t gin up a case against Trump (or anyone else) under any currently existing federal law, and then use it to bootstrap their way into an “insurrectionist” finding under Section 3; and
3 – The path to disqualification from federal office using ANY Article 3 argument has been completely cut off, and going forward would require Congressional legislation specifically authorizing and defining it.
The short of it is, these guys aren’t stupid. They got Lawfare’s number, understand exactly what they are up to, and pushed out an early decision that says “We’re not allowing ANY of this.” From her Concurrence, it appears that what the majority did in this case flew right over Barrett’s head.
7 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
MickTurn 3/5/2024 11:27:56 AM (No. 1670946)
This statement is OUT TO LUNCH...
The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up," Barrett wrote.
Leftists/Democrats/Communists, but I repeat myself, are totally Fuming about this. SO Much for your trying to turn down the temperature...you're exceedingly NAIVE. Commies NEVER like things unless they are in total CONTROL...Ms. Barrett!
6 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
EQKimball 3/5/2024 6:01:57 PM (No. 1671251)
The Court has several more major cases bearing upon the election. Draft memoranda are likely circulating on some or all of them. The "dissenters" sound angry. Enough said.
0 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
harold2002 3/5/2024 7:44:35 PM (No. 1671296)
So Keith Olbermann writes on X, obscenities "F##K" three times to attempt to deal with his disappointment in and anger at the three liberal female justices. The comment was allowed by the AI used by X to screen comments instantly. Amazing! When one of Klaus Schwabs advisors stated that there are too many people and we don't need all of these people I, too, got angry and commented on X that I thought that he might start the depopulation by committing suicide. The comment was instantly disallowed because of the word suicide and I am kicked off X unless I delete the comment and replace it with a different one. I assume it was automatically deleted anyhow....so crazy!
0 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
judy 3/6/2024 5:25:12 AM (No. 1671527)
Attempting to explain her vote made her look like a weak democrat.
0 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
FJB 3/6/2024 9:05:52 AM (No. 1671667)
If we only knew what Justice Thomas would have replied. MAGA
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)