Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

the 7 to 0 vote from SCOTUS speaks volumes IMHO

wonder why the other 2 justices didnt vote

It was 9-0. 

BTW you can read the court opinion, Barrett's concurrence, and Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson's concurrence here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

It's 20 pages in total, so nothing too crazy. I'm going to get to it a little later today (or tomorrow AM if I can't today)...

It's an interesting legal question. The counterargument would be that the states are not barring anyone from Federal office--they're barring them from the ballot in their own. States are allowed to conduct their own elections, and make their own qualification criteria for putting someone on a ballot. You see this all the time with third party Presidential candidates--most don't make it onto all 50 state ballots
most don't make it onto all 50 state ballots, with perhaps the Libertarian and Green parties, regularly or coming closest. 

So you could make an argument that the states themselves should be the one who determine whether someone participated in an insurrection. They can't bar someone from Federal office (that would violate the supremacy clause as I believe SCOTUS alleged), but MAYBE could be enough to allow them to bar someone from the ballot in their own state.

To me it was all a bit of a mess, because any state that would have the balls to remove that particular candidate from the ballot was a state that he had no chance to win, so it wouldn't meaningfully affect the outcome of anything except the popular vote.

Yeah I don't really have a problem with a state deciding who can and can not be on its ballot.  

In this case, as you point out, it makes no difference, because we all know how the state in question is going to vote anyway.

I think there should be some level of due process for removing a candidate, not just a decision by a single person, or small group, but due process.  If a person is convicted of a felony, fine with me.  If they just said mean things, well, no.

I think there should be some level of due process for removing a candidate, not just a decision by a single person, or small group, but due process.  If a person is convicted of a felony, fine with me.  If they just said mean things, well, no.

Colorado voters (interestingly, brought by four Republican voters and two unaffiliated) filed a petition, effectively suing, the Colorado State government and naming the Colorado Secretary of State in the proceedings. The matter was heard by a District Court who, after 5 days of trial, said that Trump engaged in an insurrection but that he was not named as an "officer" under the United States because the office of the Presidency was not named in the 14th Amendment. The matter was appealed (I think, I'm not sure exactly how it ended up in front of the Colorado Supreme Court), and Colorado SC reversed the decision and ordered him removed from the ballot (with the order stayed pending SCOTUS review). 

So, two questions...

• The matter was brought in a legal fashion, went through a Colorado District Court, found a decision after a 5-day trial, was appealed or somehow came before the Colorado Supreme Court, and was reversed upon decision of a more powerful court. Is this not due process? This wasn't a decision made by one person on a whim. It was a legal suit, learned judges made a decision based on their understanding of the facts and the law, and rendered an order enforcing their decision.
• Had SCOTUS affirmed, rather than overruled, the Colorado Supreme Court, would that in any way have changed your opinion that the actions of the Colorado District Court and Colorado Supreme Court were sufficient to be "due process"?

I think of due process as including both sides, maybe they did.  

yup, I understand the issue

I just wish there was a way to keep both of them off the ballot

obviously the parties they represent aren't willing to do it for the sake of the country or their own party

there is a way to keep both of them off....which is why we have these things called primaries....someone in their respective parties has to beat them at the ballot box. 

unfortunately the democratic party is nothing but a sewer of filth and wouldn't allow for even a split second a challenger to President Shits-his-Diapers and the major donors and establishment wing of the republican party have tried everything in their power to get anyone else but Trump and all they could muster was someone as daft and unimpressive as Nikki fcking Haley....

My understanding is that SCOTUS ruled as it did because a state has no authority under the amendment they based their opinion on to affect a federal election but only state elections due process or no due process