There was never a chance.
Now they can concentrate on the important stuff.
And why not? Ignoring the supreme court has become acceptable. A long sorting-things-out line would begin with the initial violators in Alabama and Texas. No rules any more, and even a Supreme Court recusal, in a conflict of interest situation seems like a black-robe version of ignoring a disagreeable decision, doesn't it.
"Texas governor ignores Supreme Court ruling, adds more razor wire..." "Alabama Is Defying the Supreme Court on Voting Rights"
If it absolutely must come to including suspected insurrectionists , add Trump later as a write-in option. Not fair? I suppose it could be straightened out in time maybe 2025, and don'e through our court system, though it moves slowly, people say. Seems to be an accepted approach it. Delay,delay,delay: our theme of the day.
or control of Congress is in the hands of insurrection co-conspirators?
Just wondering.
...SCOTUS did not rule on the question of who is an officer of the U.S., whether Trump got due process, or whether there was or wasn't an insurrection--they ruled that this is a matter of federal jurisdiction, not state.
As the concurring three noted, there was no need for the per curiam group to then opine that Congress would have to pass legislation to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment; that finding seems gratuitous and if it were extended elsewhere in the Constitution might have unintended consequences.
And confuse the implications of the ruling for the specific case they ruled on with what the actual ruling means broadly applied.
(for clarification, I’m not talking about you, I am talking about how you were pointing out what the actual ruling is)
...so I'm confident I can get an answer to this question.
Is it possible for a state court to determine that someone is guilty of a Federal crime?
question just a bit. Only a Federal court can convict someone of a Federal crime. State courts can convict someone of the same crime, but under State law, not Federal law. As for "determining" someone violated Federal law short of conviction (for instance, as an evidentiary matter), that depends upon the circumstances, but I'm sure that can happen. For instance, a State court can take notice of a Federal conviction as evidence in aggravation or relevance to some other issue in the State case.
To the extent they intend to prove a federal election law crime was committed and being covered up in order to make the state law violation into a felony
federal criminal cases. the answer is generally no, and at most a state court would have concurrent jurisdiction where both the state and feds have criminalized something. There are no states that have criminalized insurrection against the US though there are states, including Colorado, who have criminalized insurrection against that state.
Jurisdiction in the case of treason and insurrection is still not cut and dry. Johnson wanted to try Davis in a us district court in Virginia following the civil war. An argument was made by then US AG Speed that Davis ought to be tried via military tribunal https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/11198/70_24YaleLJ669_1914_1915_.pdf?sequence=2
A state court ought not have jurisdiction over insurrection against the United states.
I have no issue with the primary finding, but I disagree with placing authority in Congress to determine who has violated the 14th amendment instead of the federal court. I wonder when we’ll see a challenge to regulate another amendment via Congress (like the 2nd.)
Also not a lawyer*
I will get their names and highlight them so I can remember who the dingii are
Lots of evidence for the horseshoe theory. "I'm just asking questions" is the height of weaseldom.
and the 3 liberal justices had a separate concurrence, claiming the majority decided more than it needed to in terms of the necessity of federal legislation.
ETA - Link to opinions.
The majority opinion tries to go so far as to eliminate anything but congress itself making such a determination, which the concurrence points out is not what was required to resolve this case. A federal court or agency could also possibly have the power to enforce this amendment, which they try to do away with.