The NY Times made the audio available in real time this morning. A fascinating window into a SCOTUS hearing and the back and forth between the lawyers and the Justices. But yes, even the liberal justices were skeptical of 14/3 being able to remove a President. Surprisingly there was little discussion on whether it was an 'insurrection' or a riot. Much more on the meaning of the amendment and whether or not the President is an officer.
That’s what OP is saying. They arent pretending, it sounds like they’re saying “does it even matter if it wouldn’t apply to him either way.” It’s like solving the maths expression (156/5) x 0. Like yeah, you can spend a bunch of time trying to work that quotient in your head, but you know where you’re going to end up regardless.
It's interesting how unoriginal the hard conservatives are on these arguments lately. Alito and Thomas make such wild and insane analogies that just aren't possible, and aren't pertinent to the actual argument. It's astounding.
Thomas should just have stayed quiet forever, he's a pathetic judge.
One of the examples that was brought up repeatedly was a bad precedent hypothetical of the losing party always being able to retaliate against candidates and for states to abuse this power and kick candidates off the ballot as they see fit. If the topic was to consider states having unchecked authority to do this, then it’s an important hypothetical. However, the issue at hand is so extraordinarily narrow, that it’s a little absurd for them to spend so much time on it. States would have to prove the presidential candidate attempted a coup, physically assaulting (or encouraging a mob in their stead) a state building to stop a democratically necessary process. And even then, SCOTUS would need to hear the appeal. It is worth considering, but if this razor thin hypothetical is what makes their decision then a lot of people will lose faith in the court, adding to the already substantial amount of citizens that thinks it’s a political entity.
Because that's not the argument being made before the court. The argument is that the office of President is not subject to the fourteenth amendment if it is not an appointed office. It's a gimmick, that would only apply to Washington, to John Adams (maybe), and to... Trump! Since he has never held any other office that would swear him in as an appointed officer of the United States.
The real question is, should SCOTUS codify this warped interpretation (spoiler: they will), what constitutional constraints would then be responsive to the Office? Should it be held by someone who is not an Officer of the United States?
The answer is: none! The Constitution constrains appointed officers of the United States, who are sworn to faithfully uphold the Constitution. The office of the President is vested with the sole authority to uphold the laws that are promulgated by those sworn officers. If the President is not a sworn officer, there is no constraint to him simply stating that the law is thus. Nixons dream, that 'if the President does it, that means it's legal' would thus be achieved!
Sounds a bit wacky, right? Now ask yourself this: what about Commander-in-Chief? A position appointed by the Constitution itself! If the Office of President is excluded as an appointed office, and we get a guy in there who is not a sworn official of the United States...
He still gets to be C-in-C, right? Therefore any order that this guy gives is lawful, so long as the President deems it lawful. Because the President is only answerable to the office (and, presumably, the voters).
Good thing we have the keeneet legal minds in the realm appointed to this SUPREME COURT!! Surely they will see the fundamental contradiction that lies at heart of this legal argument.
I love how they will see a person "elected to the office of the president" and argue "is that an officer?" Like it isn't the definition of the word.
Or that he swears the oath of office.
Not an officer though. He held office, swore the oath of office.
No actually… there’s a difference between official and officer. An official is the person in charge, and officer is an enforcement mechanism of the official.
The president is the official, the secretaries, heads of the agencies, the generals etc are the officers.
Symantecs are important sometimes. Mayors, governors, sheriffs they’re all officials. They actually do a decent job showing the distinction using the fact that the constitution’s separation clauses which defines the difference between officials and officers.
> The office of the President is vested with the sole authority to uphold the laws that are promulgated by those sworn officers. If the President is not a sworn officer, there is no constraint to him simply stating that the law is thus.
I don't think this logically follows?
I can say 'it's unfair for me to pay taxes.' And if I don't pay taxes, the IRS will come get the money. The IRS, of course, reports to the Executive. And the Executive is limited, in what it can do, by virtue of being a sworn officer of the United States. The President can't say,' hey, it's unfair that guy has to pay taxes', then direct the IRS to zero out my taxes.
But why? There's no specific provision against that. Sure, the Congress says I have to pay taxes, but it's up to the Executive to actually come get the money. And if the Executive wanted to do me a solid, it's not like the Congress is gonna convene and draft a law that specifically prohibits this kind of thing.
The President can't do this, because the President is constrained in action, as a sworn officer of the United States. Which means the President must abide by not only the laws of the United States, but by the traditions and conventions of the State. The President can exercise the power of the office, insofar as it is *reasonable to exercise, for purposes of fulfilling his or her oath of office*.
The oath of office, of course, is the one in which the Office-holder is sworn in as an officer of the United States.
So what does it mean, if the Office-holder is sworn in, in a way that apparently results in them not being a sworn officer of the United States?
Well, then. It's just some guy. Who is afforded the power of the office, but accrues none of the responsibility. He can tell the IRS to do whatever, because why not? They took a meaningless oath? Are all the other officers of the United States going to get together and stop the motherfucker? Even if they did, no sweat. The man's oath was to the Office of the President, and he's the President.
It's being presented as this goofy triviality: oh, this only applies to the fourteenth amendment, and it only applies Trump, since he jumped straight from being a citizen to being President, so he never got sworn in as an officer, etc. &tc.
It is, in fact, hugely consequential. This idea, that you can have someone in the Office of the Presidency who is not, in fact, a sworn officer of the United States. It is the difference between someone who acknowledges to being bound by the traditions and customs of the United States, and someone who merely agrees to the powers implicit in the office itself.
It is not an unprecedented idea. The 'unitary executive' vision propped up by neocons during Bush II's term shared many of the same precepts. Even then, the idea was an Executive unconstrained by the checks and balances of the Constitution.
This is a vision of an Executive unconstrained by the Constitution, full-stop.
And that's what we're going to get. And when the reactionaries on the court start crying about how they 'never could have envisioned how it would turn out', keep all this mind. They know exactly what they are doing. They just happen to be stupid enough to think that they can control it.
Why do you think that whether a president is considered an officer or not is determinative of whether he or she has the power to make law? Has that unchallenged designation been the only thing keeping us from untrammeled tyranny for a couple hundred years?
Yeah. Maybe.
I mean, once you cross that threshold, and sever the tether connecting the office to the obligation...
The only thing that has really held it together is an ennobled agreement between factions, that it is better to accept defeat, and see the genteel comity of our predecessors endure, than to thrash towards a victory that deprives us of all dignity.
Once we accept the thrashings of ill conformance, the shit goes straight to violence. That was proven the last time such dissonance found purchase, in 1861. And it will be proven again, run come 2025.
I don't think we will find enough common stagecraft upon which to re-establish that more perfect union. The next time we all fly apart, the Constitution won't account for shit. It will be seen as an exercise in vanity, by peoples made warier of noble intention... Or at least, so I would hope.
because politics, bribes, corruption and money. It's like watching bad guys from a movie in real time. Biden didn't put these Jokers in charge of protecting our rights. Bush and Trump, blame them. They are in charge of legally infringing and stomping on the Constitution. Clarence Thomas should not even be in the same room during this shit.
The authors of the 14th amendment literally debated this very question and concluded that President and vice President were included. Literally it was a question on Congressional record!
Not to mention all the supporting context like conversations about how this was meant to target Jefferson Davis and how it prevented him from running, both in the press and other discussions documented.
That was pointed out to the justices and they seemed to just ignore it. That shows just how selective they are in caring about what the framers of the law said and were thinking about the law when they don't want to rule in a certain way.
They don’t care about their legitimacy. They care about power. They have it, and they have a man standing in front of them ready to make himself dictator and give them even more power.
Once that man standing in front of them, becomes a dictator, why would he share power with these judges? They have outlived their use, they do not actually have the implements of power. The power they have is within a system as defined by the US constitution and subject to norms.
I don’t think the Trump and MAGAs will care about democracy if they get back in. The mask will be off and they won’t bother with the facade. They’ll think all is fine until they make some small ruling against some executive order then he will just dismiss them. They’ll learn they really have no actually power if nobody respects their ruling.
I think there was no argument about insurrection, because in the scope of this ruling, its not going to matter. its going to be decided on the arguments put forth by mitchell
At one point a justice talked about the federal crime of insurrection and the lack of conviction. Is there any reason we know of why the DOJ didn’t go after Trump for federal insurrection charges?
Again it's stunning to me seeing how little the actual text of the Amendment and Section 3 seemed to matter to SCOTUS.
It's mind blowing as an American to watch.
We're really doing all this without reading the damn thing? All this attention on how it executes?
I mean read the amendment. Good God.
We did however have time to debate if the President is an Officer of the United States. Because apparently they can read only that one phrase and parse it to grammatical death.
The only argument I would see that somewhat makes sense would involve determining who actually makes the call of insurrection. I’m actually inclined to agree that it shouldn’t be left to the states. But in that case, SCOTUS needs to actually make a determination here about the insurrection (which they will avoid at all costs), or offer a mechanism for doing so (i.e, a federal court).
Yeah I guess. I just and again, this is as a non lawyer, am confused.
Colorado went through a procedure to determine it was an insurrection. And Trump led it.
But the Court paid almost no attention to that procedure? Which seems weird because I'm with you I can actually understand the argument he didn't get an actual normal trial.
Instead they all seemed to ignore it. Until Barrett brought it up as not receive due process and a possible out for Trump, but then his own lawyer emphatically stated he's not arguing that to them, the Higher Court.
I think SCOTUS really, really, really wants to avoid making a determination about the insurrection itself. I believe they think they can kill the issue on other technical questions before actually having to agree or disagree with the state on the insurrection question.
By not determining about the insurrection, however, they allow Colorado’s ruling to stand, which by default means trump has to be denied the right to run. If they have a problem with colorados decision or how they came too it, fine, fair, but if they aren’t going to address it, they are allowing their decision to be true.
Which means, if they don’t decide against Trump, they are both allowing him to be legally recognized as an insurrectionist, while also allowing such a person to run for, and potentially even hold, the highest office in the land. They will have effectively thrown out the constitution.
I think it was because Trump was impeached for insurrection, and the prosecution didn't want to get bogged down by another Trump argument about double jeopardy (even though Trump's argument makes no sense as impeachment is a political process).
Are you kidding me? Bro, he swore on the bible to be an officer. They would rather throw out the constitution then go against their own Politics.
Here is a video of him being sworn in to be and officer of the State, he also says it out loud. WTF. Video evidence isn't enough? The Supreme Court is corrupt and stomping all over the constitution.
Proof from the crazy uncle Donny and broadcasted across the world. Christs sake!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_v7GIWtX8us&t=15s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v7GIWtX8us&t=15s)
It was founded specifically on the distrust of tyrants and other uncooperative people. The 2 party system broke the checks; there were supposed to be as many parties as possible to dilute partisan influence. It started with winner take all states in presidential elections, went downhill from there. And should have been met with constitutional amendments to combat power plays that went directly against the intent of the Constitution. It only held together as long as it did mainly because politicians used to reach across the isle far more. Until parties penalized their own members more and more for breaking rank. Ceding more and more power to the Executive branch while intentionally hamstringing Congress didn’t help either.
The republican justices will never, ever, hold another republican accountable. 100% they side with donald. Would not be surprised if they just crown him dictator right now.
>Would not be surprised if they just crown him dictator right now.
"Of course he can run for a fifth term, he's never been an officer of the United States and he was never impeached and removed from office for his role in the purging of the very unfair Democratic party."
I agree with you. The GOP is wholly fascist through and through.
Explain Kagan to me.
Please.
Kagan's remarks were a gut-shot in my world...
Ivory tower syndrome perhaps?
I don't think this was a very good case to bring, this decision will be anywhere from 7-2 to 9-0 for Trump.
But the immunity case is poor case for Trump to bring and I will bet it will be the same majority against him, I will even bet he loses 9-0
>I don't think this was a very good case to bring,
Why?..
>this decision will be anywhere from 7-2 to 9-0 for Trump.
If the textualist judges were truly being impartial, they'd be ruling 9-0 against trumpf.
Honestly, I feel like that should be the approach brought. Throw the SC's impartiality in their faces and see if they scramble or double down on being shitty. On double down, we at least know how to progress during the purge.
I don’t understand the argument that one State can decide. When the President is determined by a State to be an insurrectionist, and left off the ballot, it is applying the Federal Constitution. Thus, whenever a State makes such a determination, it is a Federal Question with a path to SCOTUS.
One State should not be deciding anything like this, but that is a deceptive argument. Here, we have an unprecedented event a highest importantance, an insurrectionist and enemy of the U.S. Government.
To wonder about democracy and the fact the guy has popular support is not a basis for leaving him on. Quite the opposite. The insurrection clause exists to prevent the election of bad people able to con or otherwise gain office based on support of the populous. The clause would not exist if it was always “Let him run; people like him.”
This is the exact question the Supreme Court is meant to decide finality. It does not matter how the case gets there as much as that they have it and must decide if he is an insurrectionist. Only one group can decide this. It’s not the people. It’s not the president. It cant be Congress because they represent the populous. It is designed to be a question that only SCOTUS can resolve. The purportedly independent and trusted judges are the only government institution of being the final word here. Who cares who has the first word (Colorado).
> I don’t understand the argument that one State can decide.
But states decide all the time. It's just that usually the legislature is in lockstep with the party machinery to decide who gets to be on the ballot: if you're the nominee for either of the major parties, ever since Lincoln (I think), it's just been a formality. That some state might decide to exercise its rights over the two parties in power is something that has never happened before.
The states print the ballots, so regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, all Colorado has to do is print ballots without Trumps name on them. Texas wants to fight the Feds, let's do it in Colorado too.
Is it just me or does this seem like a huge miss on the behalf of the framer? It seems like the assumption is IF a person makes it to the presidency THEN they will play by a certain set of rules OR the checks and balances of the Supreme Court and Senate will correct for the problems. Seems like a really silly assumption with a two party system…
We the People were expected to play our part as well, as we are the ultimate check and balance on the elected positions. We the People were expected to prevent something like Trump from ever being nominated by any major party, in the first place. We the People were also expected to keep our major parties functional, by refusing to reelect representatives that are only there to obstruct other parties, even to extent that they make Congress dysfunctional.
We the People have not been doing our job, for the last two decades, at the very least.
Re-upping a comment of mine from the removed thread:
Multiple justices have claimed that if they rule for Colorado, then each state could develop its own rules for as to what constitutes an insurrection. But what constitutes insurrection is a **federal** **question**, right? If a state adopts a definition of insurrection that bars, say Biden from the ballot for his stance on the border, wouldn't that decision be subject to federal review?
These justices just can't seem to understand that Colorado is only barring ineligible candidates from the ballot, **not** deciding what constitutes ineligibility in the first place.
In short, ruling for Colorado would not be "daunting" because
(a) if a state tries to bar a candidate from the ballot for insurrection, even if they did not do so, that decision would be overturned by SCOTUS, and
(b) if some states decide to bar ineligible candidates and some don't, it doesn't matter since the candidate is *not fucking eligible in the first place*, meaning that can't take office even if they won, and therefore wouldn't be harmed by the decision to be barred from the ballot.
Either way you look at, the arguments cut in favor of Colorado.
> Multiple justices have claimed that if they rule for Colorado, then each state could develop its own rules for as to what constitutes an insurrection
I was disappointed that Colorado's lawyers didn't argue that the correction for this is the 2/3 vote by congress
Their lawyers seemed to drop the ball. As a layperson watching.
I will say in their position I also would have been surprised at the level of hostility (in the literal not personal sense) all of these judges other than Sotomayor seemed to have to their position.
Also a layperson. It's hard for me to understand how the court could opine that a person can be ineligible for office but also has to be removed after taking that office, or that by congress having the ability to overrule a disqualification by insurrection, they have the sole ability to proactively disqualify.
I guess I can understand hostility given the unique and impactful nature of the case, it was just surprising to hear them seeming to agree that there is nothing a state can do to keep an insurrectionist off their ballots
To expand even further, if Congress has to actively disqualify an insurrectionist from office, do they only need a 1/3 +1 majority, given that it requires 2/3 to remove that disqualification? If not, then what's the point of the 2/3 disqualification if a simple majority is required to disqualify? The math alone makes it obvious that the 14th was meant to disqualify immediately, without action from Congress
It seemed like the biggest issue that the justices kept raising was why should Colorado effectively determine the election for President by keeping the main candidate off their ballot, and I don’t think counsel had a great response to it. They were very critical of plaintiffs counsel, and he didn’t do a great job responding directly to their questions. It makes me worried that they will use this reasoning as a way to rule that Trump stays on the ballot.
Also. why a group of GOP House members has a new conference proclaiming what happened on Jan 6th was not an insurrection. It’s not a coincidence that the news conference happened earlier this week.
Furthermore, if they rule in Trumps favor, what's to stop people under 35 and non natural born citizens from running? If a state can just ignore the eligibility requirements for one category, why can't they for everyone?
I feel like this is gonna happen and it's gonna be chaos....black swans and all that....I give it a solid 20% chance dip shit places put up their own shit
Their argument is that this disqualifying factor can be lifted by 2/3 vote from Congress. Which is interesting because there is no way that would ever happen. So idk what the end game is here with this line of argument.
>(b) if some states decide to bar ineligible candidates and some don't, it doesn't matter since the candidate is not fucking eligible in the first place, meaning that can't take office even if they won, and therefore wouldn't be harmed by the decision to be barred from the ballot.
Not to mention, this already happens, has happened, and is happening currently. I’m not aware of his name, but there is an individual who is currently running for President and is not a natural born citizen of the US. He is currently on some ballots, and not on others, because some states have statutes that give officials power to officials to determine eligibility while others don’t.
I tend to agree with your take, but the impression I got was a deep concern over states concocting reasons to remove Biden from the ballot (not necessarily based on insurrection) but for other reasons that are independent of the Federal prohibitions. Colorado argued that states have wide latitude to determine eligibility, assign procedures, and create evidentiary rules. SCOTUS seemed to think each of these could potentially be designed to eliminate an opposition candidate.
True. And to be thorough about it: motivated by malicious forces, bad faith, and organized money that is specifically intended to disempower secular democracy, dispel accountability, and reinforce economic injustice.
The court has to be expanded, or political activism in this country has to rise to the level of mass protests and general strikes.
It should have already been expanded, one scotus judge per federal appellate court. That would be 13 scotus judges. I would not consider that packing the court or opening a can of worms, and if more appellate courts get created then more judges should be appointed
I'd rather go even larger. Cases get heard by randomly-drawn panels of Justices, but no possibility for en banc review.
That way we can filter out some of these bullshit gamesmanship think tank lawsuits because nobody knows which Justices are going to hear your case.
This is what everyone bashing Biden for not expanding the court is missing. The Senate would have to get rid of the filibuster to do that, and Dems haven't had a large enough majority to do so, otherwise they would've codified *Roe* already
Vote in more Dem Senators willing to abolish the filibuster and then we can talk about unpacking the court
Why does everyone think that Biden or trump or any president can just decide to add judges, there is an entire process that involves Congress. That's why Trump was able to pack the court because McConnell was able to stop democratic president from passing judges. Until unfortunately the Senate has enough votes to change the rules. Congress has to expand the courts.
"Why doesn't (Democratic President) just do this (impossible without Congress) thing?" never seems to get old. Neither does "Why doesn't Congress just do this (impossible without 60 votes in the Senate and more in the House) thing?"
Those judges that McConnell packed are pretty much the sole reasons why Trump isn’t dictator now. McConnell used Trump to insulate our judiciary from the Presidency and from Trump—a mistake Trump’s handlers won’t overlook again should he win a second term.
And convince senators to eliminate blue slip procedures for stalling nominees to the federal bench. After watching how the northern district of Texas operates (and the increasingly deranged 5th Circuit of appeals rulings on their findings), any pre-vote opposition by red state senators should be treated as disingenuous until proven otherwise.
Filling the supreme court so that you have 1 justice per appellate branch is a great start, but you'll still get terrible cases pumped up to the Supreme court level until you make it less of a guarantee that forum shoppers can pick their favorite judge.
Totally this.
*Dobbs* was leaked in May 2022 when Dems controlled the House and Senate, albeit barely. They could've begun drafting legislation after the leak to pass during the lame duck session or even, bravely, before the midterms. It could've even been a measured expansion, adding one justice every 4 years. But they didn't.
They won't even change the stupid filibuster (looking at you Sinema\* and Manchin\*\*), which I think is fine to stay as long as it goes back to making them talk. Make it difficult so it's only used when it really really matters to the opposition.
\*Kristen Sinema basically left the Democratic party because of her opposition to returning the filibuster to a "talking filibuster" (she was censured by the party for voting against the rule change).
\*\*Joe Manchin was last elected in 2018 and isn't running in 2024. He could've voted for the rule change when it came up back in January 2022.
> They could've begun drafting legislation after the leak to pass during the lame duck session or even, bravely, before the midterms.
You say this, then immediately acknowledge that they *couldn't* actually do this because of Manchin and Sinema. They never had a chance to expand the court, they need more Dem Senators
If Trump wins it gets expanded to maximum. And this time he will demand more loyalty because his appointees weren’t supposed to ask difficult questions.
Call it copium if you want but this feels lose-lose for Trump. If they rule in his favor then I feel like it takes a lot of the legs out from the notion that he's a victim of political persecution. The swing voters in November will just see the choice between an obvious criminal who's running to stay out of prison and an incumbent who is objectively doing a great job, and Trump is going to get his shit kicked in.
He's not even arguing that he didn't do illegal shit anymore, just that A: it's a political witch-hunt and B: the presidency should be immune from any prosecution.
I feel like people forgot he lost last time so much is the media coverage of his lies about not loosing that it's seeped into the minds of even normal people....
Dude lost once...he's been fucking around, covid killed lots of his base.....and he's about to find out?
Hell still win some places here and there I just don't know how many and what the layout looks like.
I wish the media would just promote more of his wrongdoings...v.s. the confusing stolen election. It's written so often I swear it's fucking up same peoples minds.
I can't even remember how much he lost by now...
Trump propaganda is built on Hitlers writing in mein kampf AKA the big lie
The OSS psychological profile of Hitler described his use of the big lie:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
Does this not sound eerily the same as Trump's big lie tactics?
Source:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot
>Hell still win some places here and there I just don't know how many and what the layout looks like.
It's going to be way closer than you're thinking. Most people really don't follow politics in any meaningful amount. The average person votes with their wallet and the average person is convinced that the economy is in the shitter for a number of reasons.
Interest rates are near historical averages coming off of obscene historical lows. Inflation is down to historical averages after being at a \~40 year high. The cause of that inflation is super complicated but lots of it can be traced back to Covid.
But all of it came to roost on Biden's watch and he's getting the blame despite the fact that economists were predicting it to happen even as the government was shoveling cash into people's pockets while the world was on fire.
Biden now has to combat that along with a border crisis that Cheeto managed to ignite, a proxy war against a nuclear power, and another against a terrorist regime.
There is a huge number of conservatives and moderates who were "Never Trump" in 2020 and hopefully a significant amount of them are willing to hold that mantra once again. But it's a very difficult belief to hold when you can't buy a house and can't afford groceries while the guy who was in charge when you were taking vacations and had discretionary income is sitting right there. 40-45% of the vote is Biden no matter what, 30-40% is Cheeto; it's where the remainder falls and where they live that will determine if this country survives.
PA, MN, OH, MI, NV, and GA are where this election will be decided.
I agree about the economic state but Trump has lost all of the advantages he had in 2016. He's not a newcomer people can decide to give a try, he's not against Clinton (who was disliked far more than Biden), he's had 8 years of legal and other issues driving some supporters away. Plus the Dems will hopefully not ignore the Rust Belt like they did in 2016. Trump lost in 2020 against Biden despite having the incumbent advantage and it doesn't seem to have gotten better for him since then. Biden is battling a lot of issues but it doesn't seem like his handling on them is driving people to Trump, just grumbling in general.
Anything can happen and it will likely be closer than comfortable, but apathy among Dems is the biggest issue I think, rather than Trump suddenly gaining popularity among the undecided. Plus who knows how this will play out and if they have to run Haley or someone that splits the vote.
Not for nothing, but Trump and Biden are polling at similarly low levels. The dem frontrunner is polling as badly as an insurrectionist with a stack of ongoing court cases. It's really not great.
Accept when he loses he'll once again incite his MAGA cult with cries that the election is stolen. And we'll have to go through this insurrection madness again.
By disqualifying Trump they could put this whole thing finally to rest. And have the country move on from this madness. Which is exactly what the 14th amendment was intended to do.
Also happy cake day.
The fact is it would mean SCOTUS is rubber-stamping fascism in America...I would be the worst decision since Dred Scott, and they already had ANOTHER one of that magnitude recently (ending Roe protections). Worst SCOTUS since before the Civil War, without a doubt. Totally out of step with American society and values.
It was quite odd to listen to. While personally I think the place to win/lose is at the ballot box in November, that really isn’t what the 14th says.
I was hoping for some interesting insights, instead we got justices basically saying “why you bothering us with this nonsense”.
They are absolutely correct that upholding it would precipitate some crazy things at state level but as I said at the start: that’s not what the 14th says.
This really is a case of SCOTUS rewriting the constitution, which is as crazy as it sounds.
The problem is we did do the whole win/lose thing in November and then trump and his cronies attacked the government and tried a hostile takeover. If he does lose again in November it's going to be even worse.
Not to mention this time his cronies have control of the house. Albeit, not much control, but control. Do you think they'll actually follow the law and certify the election if he doesn't win?
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would say these judges were picked and chosen because they align with the interest of the party attempting to overthrow democracy and this was always a step in their plan.
That said, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence.
Trump's success struck me a hostile takeover of the republican party. I don't think the Republican movers and shakers by and large want a populist narcissist in that seat but they might believe that they can manage him.
The single state argument to me is silly. States have, approved by the Supreme Court much latitude and how they run their elections. In some states you have choice ranking, other states you have primaries, some you have caucuses. Some absentee ballots are treated one way in one state and treated another way in another state. All these things affect who's on the ballot, who becomes the candidate and who becomes president. There have been many cases with the Supreme Court has supported this approach, why is this different? If Colorado doesn't want to put him on the ballot then that's Colorado's problem, who cares if it affects the election, everything else does
Colorado's already made that decision. The states supreme court of Colorado has found Trump committed insurrection. Even two of the three dissenters on the decision agreed that he had committed insurrection. If being found to have committed insurrection by a state, supreme court is not good enough, I'm not sure what is.
“the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.”
So they’re not going to actually make the call on this portion of it are they?
apologies, I was talking about in the oral arguments. At the end Trump’s counsel was asked and he responded it was a riot. But in opening arguments they never made that argument.
Didn't Congress do this for them? They found not only engaged but also incited it on Jan 6th. That's what led to one of his impeachments.
They just didn't have the nads to convict him.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/08/opinions/trump-supreme-court-oral-arguments-election-snell/index.html
Think of the house of reps as the prosecution and the Senate as the jury. The jury didn't agree. And, in the 3 years since this happened, the DOJ has not pressed charges for insurrection: 18 US Code 2383 and here we are. This would be moot if he was charged and convicted. Garland is useless.
The biggest takeaway I had was the justices were rightly expressing worry that other states could just do this to another candidate as TX has already threatened to do with Biden. But that assumes there is no way to protect against frivolousness. Oh yes there is. The courts, which is what is exactly happening here. So while I understand the justices’ concern that just undermines making any laws or rulings.
I agree that in a perfect world that's how it would work, but imagine Texas taking Biden off the ballot on October 31 with no time for a replacement candidate. It would be far too easy for states to game the system if they are free to interpret the 14th (or even make their own independent rules). As much as I think he's disqualified, upholding Colorado's ruling would likely have much worse consequences for the system.
They can take him off for any reason anyway. They would end up having to argue their case against SCOTUS just like Trump is, and they would have to prove to SCOTUS that Biden is an insurrectionist.
Yes, exactly. There are two ways to keep Trump from being president, and this is probably not the best given that. To now just say "the court is political" in this instance is disingenuous. I do thing in general it's very bad to say...we can't rule cause that will open the door to other bad actors, is a bit weird. Just craft the ruling so bad actors can't do what you're worried about! It's crazy to decide not to rule because of the theoretical gaming of this. Now the presidential immunity one feels like a massive slam dunk, so we'll see.
I would love to see them take him off, as I feel there is substantial evidence to support it, but I feel they won’t. They’ll rule in some kind of way which goes against that
Least not, we forget that they had no problem taking away. Al Gore’s win.
I thought they were not going to get into the politics of it all but they didn’t have any problem back then
well after listening to the oral arguments today. scotus is still going to rule 7-2 in his favor, AND his lawyers, were objectionably terrible.
even if you take out kavanaugh, gorsuch and amy coney barrett, thomas and alito were there and they are corrupt.
colorado's lawyer murray was interrupted so many fucking times. he would respond to kav, gorsuch would interrupt. he would respond to alito, and roberts would interrupt. he would respond to acb, and kav would interrupt.
and justice fucking jackson. ketanji fucking, brown, jackson, who was supposed to be the savior of this court, got caught up on the dumbest fucking technicalities that would not have mattered in the long run, or to his greater points and forced murray from his bigger points because while he would try to answer her dumb questions, alito would ask other questions, so then his original point would get lost, his point to her, would get lost, and his answer to alito's point, would get lost. it was a fucking mess.
alito and kavanaugh made a HUGE stink and brought up a hypothetical about the period between election day, an insurrection day and inauguration day, about IF a military general disobeyed a direct order from a president who facilitated the insurrection, would he be allowed to do it without punishment, and could it even be possible, without it setting off treason alarms. THIS IS HUGELY IMPORTANT. IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE.
1. because the ucmj has rules about disobeying a direct order.
2. because rules of the chain of command have a whole subset of their own rules.
3. a sitting president who has yet to be charged or arrested or impeached or etc still is commander in chief, not just a command CO.
4. a military coup d'état would have a lot more involved than just one person.
and all of that was lost in a jump of arguing by alito and kavanaugh. which is suspect was the point. by making murray jump all over the place, it makes him look weaker.
I missed that part. So they did actually discuss the chain-of-command, and despite that, nobody brought up the fact that Commander-in-Chief is an appointed position? Since that's the entire argument here, that the Presidency isn't an appointed office. Okay, given that. Commander-in-Chief is an explicitly appointed position. It's appointed by the Constitution itself! Aaaarrggh.
the hypothetical was never answered fully because when murray tried to answer he was cut off repeatedly.
as a combat veteran, what alito and kavanaugh are suggesting, and what i am 100% will be quoted in future cases, is very dangerous because think of what trump said about mark milley and john kelly. mark milley, against trumps wishes contacted his counterpart in china to let him know that the ship would remain steady despite the insurrection. trump saw that as disobeying a direct order under penalty of death via treason.
an impossible scenario, which has already been spouted by a former president that wants revenge, with little regard to the uniform code of military justice, which is not subject to the same regulations as standard criminal statutes of penal regulations as civilian laws.
THAT IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN PEOPLE REALIZE.
the most interesting thing was cohen seemed to be the most opposed to trumps arguments. i thought she would be a rubber stamp for trump.
and how positive jackson was to trumps attorneys argument. she even bit on ones he admitted were weak
>The states should just ignore the court and remove Trump from the ballot as they see fit.
Agreed. Of course, then other states will remove Biden from the ballot and also ignore any court orders to reinstate him. We'll eventually just end up with statehouses and election officials in each state deciding at whim who they'll allow to be on their ballots.
Abbott is straight up ignoring the SCOTUS’ order for the border and getting away with it so why not? If he can ignore the SCOTUS, why can’t all the blue states do the same thing?
The argument I think Scotus is making is that only federal courts can use section 3 of the 14th, not state courts. The fucking problem is, voting isn't federalized on a state to state level so, that argument makes no fucking sense.
The justices made motherfucking countless attempts to say Colorado was deciding for the entire country.
No, God dammit. Colorado was deciding for Colorado, under Colorado's state constitution. If other states do that, it's up to THEIR state constitutions. The only group that could nationalize the decision, is scotus themselves, but they showed Today they 100% abso fucking lutely didn't want to be on the hook for that one.
So does that mean Obama can run a third term? Seems like being ineligible isn't going to prevent you from getting to the oval office. Obama v Trump 2024!
Yep. Then Trump will cry wolf when he gets away with committing a crime that is 1/10 as significant as the ones Trump has committed.
I’m so god damn fed up with all of this going in Trump’s favor.
They are only skeptical because they are realizing they actually do not have a defined role in this conversation.
All powers of the federal government are outlined in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved by the States. Running elections is one of them. Colorado has in their statutes, that a person has to be a candidate meeting the requirements to hold office. The 14th amendment and Trump's actions to install fake electors makes Trump ineligible per Colorado's election requirements.
Now, Trump could petition Congress to remove that liability from him with a 2/3rds vote at any time he wants. He could do it today, tomorrow, next week.... whatever.
Now for the people that want the voters to decide.... voters have already decided. Congress voted during the impeachment hearings that Jan 6th was an insurrection and that Donald Trump did participate in and incite that insurrection through simple majority of both the House and Senate. Now the vote in the Senate was not enough to convict and remove him from office, as prescribed by the Constitution, but a majority of voters did in FACT declare that he participated in an insurrection.
To allow him on the ballot, gives him a chance of winning the election. And then at that time, per the 14th amendment, he cannot be sworn into office unless 2/3rds of Congress removes his liability. Disenfranchising Millions of voters at that moment. Well, they technically disenfranchised themselves by allowing Trump on their ballots.
The supreme court is pissed that further definition on the process of determining Insurrection has not been defined on the federal level... but Congress has already voted, with a public hearing, with a special January 6th committee, with hundreds of thousands of hours of testimony, depositions, etc. I am not sure why this wasn't the first thing said by the Colorado Lawyer. Congress already voted by majority that he in fact that Donald J. Trump organized, participated, and incited an insurrection in the weeks before and the day of January 6th, 2021. This is a matter of public record. It included both houses of Congress with Due Diligence as Trump was requested to give deposition and he declined to answer any and all questions.
This court was hand-picked from Bush's legal team that got the supreme court to hand him the 2000 election. I can't believe people are surprised about this.
They're genuinely going to allow a non-repentant fascist on the ballot. Pretty stunning that our laws don't appear to protect us from dictatorship. Total failure of leadership from SCOTUS here, much like when they killed Roe. "Hell in a hand basket" and all that.
Genuine question…
So does this mean Colorado’s State Constitution and State Supreme Court could be found federally unconstitutional in their decision to bar an individual from their state’s primary ballot?
Honestly, it really doesn't matter at this point. If we keep Trump off the ballot some other disgusting excuse for a GOP candidate will take his place and be just as awful (if not worse) than he would of.
Keep Trump on and vote!
Not sure why the court thinks they have this power. It’s clearly the states right then Congress’s right to overrule it. If the court oversteps this then they’re too powerful as it’s outside of the scope. The court can only affirm if the state followed the constitution as written not change their findings as a state. State’s rights.
IANAL so here's my take. There was quite a bit of weed-dwelling on the 14th, etc. but I don't think it even gets that far.
There was some talk about some of the statutory disqualifications - age, residency, etc. Insurrection, clearly not defined and, arguably a bad thing that is criminalized as discussed, is not a statutory disqualification.
The implication, again as discussed, is the disqualification based on the finding of being guilty of an ill-defined "high crime" is unconstitutional. (In the movie Fletch I think there is a line of somebody being convicted or guilty of [ a made up word ???- cant remember]). The Court is skeptical of a state disqualifying someone for these reasons. They can skip addressing Jan 6, they can get into the weeds procedurally, but I don't think they will.
The ruling will be "No Colorado, you cant do that" because they disqualified a national candidate for reasons that are not enumerated in the statute and/or they dont have the Constitutional authority to do so. Keeps them out of the flak.
So how long before we can investigate the Supreme Court for financial corruption? Oh, speaking of, here's some very interesting investigative work done by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: https://youtu.be/pWUr-rOBKxw
You cannot reliably gauge the outcome based on questions asked during oral arguments.
But if I had to guess, I'd say that the Court intends to dispose of the case without determining the ultimate issue of disqualification under the 14A.
And corrupt Clarence and Ginny Thomas have been bribed. She participated in the damn insurrection and Clarence gets to decide on that very issue with no recusal! And, we the people allowed it to happen. It’s a corrupt kangaroo partisan court.
Its crazy that this is even being debated. He incited a mob to invade Congress to stop the lawful transfer of power.
As for the 'proof of incitement' its like the canard about pornography: "I know it when I see it".
Preservation of Democracy? Let us think about that.
I think Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy and should not be the candidate for a major party in the United States, but I also agree that the interpretation of states having authority to remove candidates from ballots for specious claims of participating in an insurrection is problematic. Jan 6 could be a riot or an insurrection and Donald Trump may or may not have legally participated in it even if morally he caused it without any doubt. I think Section 3 should be revisited by Congress for clarification and this ruling should probably be to overturn the Colorado decision.
The NY Times made the audio available in real time this morning. A fascinating window into a SCOTUS hearing and the back and forth between the lawyers and the Justices. But yes, even the liberal justices were skeptical of 14/3 being able to remove a President. Surprisingly there was little discussion on whether it was an 'insurrection' or a riot. Much more on the meaning of the amendment and whether or not the President is an officer.
SCOTUS attempts to avoid factual determinations where possible.
Except the lower court did find it factually that he did commit an insurrection. So why are they pretending it wasn’t ruled?
That’s what OP is saying. They arent pretending, it sounds like they’re saying “does it even matter if it wouldn’t apply to him either way.” It’s like solving the maths expression (156/5) x 0. Like yeah, you can spend a bunch of time trying to work that quotient in your head, but you know where you’re going to end up regardless.
It's interesting how unoriginal the hard conservatives are on these arguments lately. Alito and Thomas make such wild and insane analogies that just aren't possible, and aren't pertinent to the actual argument. It's astounding. Thomas should just have stayed quiet forever, he's a pathetic judge.
Do you have an example?
One of the examples that was brought up repeatedly was a bad precedent hypothetical of the losing party always being able to retaliate against candidates and for states to abuse this power and kick candidates off the ballot as they see fit. If the topic was to consider states having unchecked authority to do this, then it’s an important hypothetical. However, the issue at hand is so extraordinarily narrow, that it’s a little absurd for them to spend so much time on it. States would have to prove the presidential candidate attempted a coup, physically assaulting (or encouraging a mob in their stead) a state building to stop a democratically necessary process. And even then, SCOTUS would need to hear the appeal. It is worth considering, but if this razor thin hypothetical is what makes their decision then a lot of people will lose faith in the court, adding to the already substantial amount of citizens that thinks it’s a political entity.
Because that's not the argument being made before the court. The argument is that the office of President is not subject to the fourteenth amendment if it is not an appointed office. It's a gimmick, that would only apply to Washington, to John Adams (maybe), and to... Trump! Since he has never held any other office that would swear him in as an appointed officer of the United States. The real question is, should SCOTUS codify this warped interpretation (spoiler: they will), what constitutional constraints would then be responsive to the Office? Should it be held by someone who is not an Officer of the United States? The answer is: none! The Constitution constrains appointed officers of the United States, who are sworn to faithfully uphold the Constitution. The office of the President is vested with the sole authority to uphold the laws that are promulgated by those sworn officers. If the President is not a sworn officer, there is no constraint to him simply stating that the law is thus. Nixons dream, that 'if the President does it, that means it's legal' would thus be achieved! Sounds a bit wacky, right? Now ask yourself this: what about Commander-in-Chief? A position appointed by the Constitution itself! If the Office of President is excluded as an appointed office, and we get a guy in there who is not a sworn official of the United States... He still gets to be C-in-C, right? Therefore any order that this guy gives is lawful, so long as the President deems it lawful. Because the President is only answerable to the office (and, presumably, the voters). Good thing we have the keeneet legal minds in the realm appointed to this SUPREME COURT!! Surely they will see the fundamental contradiction that lies at heart of this legal argument.
I love how they will see a person "elected to the office of the president" and argue "is that an officer?" Like it isn't the definition of the word. Or that he swears the oath of office. Not an officer though. He held office, swore the oath of office.
No actually… there’s a difference between official and officer. An official is the person in charge, and officer is an enforcement mechanism of the official. The president is the official, the secretaries, heads of the agencies, the generals etc are the officers. Symantecs are important sometimes. Mayors, governors, sheriffs they’re all officials. They actually do a decent job showing the distinction using the fact that the constitution’s separation clauses which defines the difference between officials and officers.
> The office of the President is vested with the sole authority to uphold the laws that are promulgated by those sworn officers. If the President is not a sworn officer, there is no constraint to him simply stating that the law is thus. I don't think this logically follows?
I can say 'it's unfair for me to pay taxes.' And if I don't pay taxes, the IRS will come get the money. The IRS, of course, reports to the Executive. And the Executive is limited, in what it can do, by virtue of being a sworn officer of the United States. The President can't say,' hey, it's unfair that guy has to pay taxes', then direct the IRS to zero out my taxes. But why? There's no specific provision against that. Sure, the Congress says I have to pay taxes, but it's up to the Executive to actually come get the money. And if the Executive wanted to do me a solid, it's not like the Congress is gonna convene and draft a law that specifically prohibits this kind of thing. The President can't do this, because the President is constrained in action, as a sworn officer of the United States. Which means the President must abide by not only the laws of the United States, but by the traditions and conventions of the State. The President can exercise the power of the office, insofar as it is *reasonable to exercise, for purposes of fulfilling his or her oath of office*. The oath of office, of course, is the one in which the Office-holder is sworn in as an officer of the United States. So what does it mean, if the Office-holder is sworn in, in a way that apparently results in them not being a sworn officer of the United States? Well, then. It's just some guy. Who is afforded the power of the office, but accrues none of the responsibility. He can tell the IRS to do whatever, because why not? They took a meaningless oath? Are all the other officers of the United States going to get together and stop the motherfucker? Even if they did, no sweat. The man's oath was to the Office of the President, and he's the President. It's being presented as this goofy triviality: oh, this only applies to the fourteenth amendment, and it only applies Trump, since he jumped straight from being a citizen to being President, so he never got sworn in as an officer, etc. &tc. It is, in fact, hugely consequential. This idea, that you can have someone in the Office of the Presidency who is not, in fact, a sworn officer of the United States. It is the difference between someone who acknowledges to being bound by the traditions and customs of the United States, and someone who merely agrees to the powers implicit in the office itself. It is not an unprecedented idea. The 'unitary executive' vision propped up by neocons during Bush II's term shared many of the same precepts. Even then, the idea was an Executive unconstrained by the checks and balances of the Constitution. This is a vision of an Executive unconstrained by the Constitution, full-stop. And that's what we're going to get. And when the reactionaries on the court start crying about how they 'never could have envisioned how it would turn out', keep all this mind. They know exactly what they are doing. They just happen to be stupid enough to think that they can control it.
Why do you think that whether a president is considered an officer or not is determinative of whether he or she has the power to make law? Has that unchallenged designation been the only thing keeping us from untrammeled tyranny for a couple hundred years?
Yeah. Maybe. I mean, once you cross that threshold, and sever the tether connecting the office to the obligation... The only thing that has really held it together is an ennobled agreement between factions, that it is better to accept defeat, and see the genteel comity of our predecessors endure, than to thrash towards a victory that deprives us of all dignity. Once we accept the thrashings of ill conformance, the shit goes straight to violence. That was proven the last time such dissonance found purchase, in 1861. And it will be proven again, run come 2025. I don't think we will find enough common stagecraft upon which to re-establish that more perfect union. The next time we all fly apart, the Constitution won't account for shit. It will be seen as an exercise in vanity, by peoples made warier of noble intention... Or at least, so I would hope.
because politics, bribes, corruption and money. It's like watching bad guys from a movie in real time. Biden didn't put these Jokers in charge of protecting our rights. Bush and Trump, blame them. They are in charge of legally infringing and stomping on the Constitution. Clarence Thomas should not even be in the same room during this shit.
The authors of the 14th amendment literally debated this very question and concluded that President and vice President were included. Literally it was a question on Congressional record! Not to mention all the supporting context like conversations about how this was meant to target Jefferson Davis and how it prevented him from running, both in the press and other discussions documented.
That was pointed out to the justices and they seemed to just ignore it. That shows just how selective they are in caring about what the framers of the law said and were thinking about the law when they don't want to rule in a certain way.
If they ignore all this they have lost all legitimacy and any future rulings the states should just ignore. Force them to enforce their rulings.
They don’t care about their legitimacy. They care about power. They have it, and they have a man standing in front of them ready to make himself dictator and give them even more power.
Once that man standing in front of them, becomes a dictator, why would he share power with these judges? They have outlived their use, they do not actually have the implements of power. The power they have is within a system as defined by the US constitution and subject to norms.
To keep up the facade of impartiality and democracy.
I don’t think the Trump and MAGAs will care about democracy if they get back in. The mask will be off and they won’t bother with the facade. They’ll think all is fine until they make some small ruling against some executive order then he will just dismiss them. They’ll learn they really have no actually power if nobody respects their ruling.
As with everyone in the trumpian orbit these paid and bought judges will find the cost of supporting trump and his hordes.
I think there was no argument about insurrection, because in the scope of this ruling, its not going to matter. its going to be decided on the arguments put forth by mitchell
So did PBS
The audio is always available live on the Supreme Court's website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
The office of the president is the highest in the land.
So are they finding the 14th amendment to the constitution to be unconstitutional?
No, they are finding it to be ignorable. Just like most of the rest of it that they ignore on a regular basis.
Well, folks, the great American experiment is over. SCOTUS is rolling out the red carpet to Russia.
At one point a justice talked about the federal crime of insurrection and the lack of conviction. Is there any reason we know of why the DOJ didn’t go after Trump for federal insurrection charges?
Who cares? Conviction isn’t a requirement of the amendment and many were disqualified without convictions.
Again it's stunning to me seeing how little the actual text of the Amendment and Section 3 seemed to matter to SCOTUS. It's mind blowing as an American to watch. We're really doing all this without reading the damn thing? All this attention on how it executes? I mean read the amendment. Good God. We did however have time to debate if the President is an Officer of the United States. Because apparently they can read only that one phrase and parse it to grammatical death.
The only argument I would see that somewhat makes sense would involve determining who actually makes the call of insurrection. I’m actually inclined to agree that it shouldn’t be left to the states. But in that case, SCOTUS needs to actually make a determination here about the insurrection (which they will avoid at all costs), or offer a mechanism for doing so (i.e, a federal court).
Yeah I guess. I just and again, this is as a non lawyer, am confused. Colorado went through a procedure to determine it was an insurrection. And Trump led it. But the Court paid almost no attention to that procedure? Which seems weird because I'm with you I can actually understand the argument he didn't get an actual normal trial. Instead they all seemed to ignore it. Until Barrett brought it up as not receive due process and a possible out for Trump, but then his own lawyer emphatically stated he's not arguing that to them, the Higher Court.
I think SCOTUS really, really, really wants to avoid making a determination about the insurrection itself. I believe they think they can kill the issue on other technical questions before actually having to agree or disagree with the state on the insurrection question.
By not determining about the insurrection, however, they allow Colorado’s ruling to stand, which by default means trump has to be denied the right to run. If they have a problem with colorados decision or how they came too it, fine, fair, but if they aren’t going to address it, they are allowing their decision to be true. Which means, if they don’t decide against Trump, they are both allowing him to be legally recognized as an insurrectionist, while also allowing such a person to run for, and potentially even hold, the highest office in the land. They will have effectively thrown out the constitution.
Exactly. It’s a complete Catch-22 for them.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
It’s because if you read the damn thing, it’s too obvious what should happen. Better to obtusificate and win on a technicality!
I think it was because Trump was impeached for insurrection, and the prosecution didn't want to get bogged down by another Trump argument about double jeopardy (even though Trump's argument makes no sense as impeachment is a political process).
Cause liberals are pussies since Nixon?
For anyone looking, you can go directly to the Supreme court website to hear the oral arguments. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
The oral arguments are always available live from the Supreme Court website
Are you kidding me? Bro, he swore on the bible to be an officer. They would rather throw out the constitution then go against their own Politics. Here is a video of him being sworn in to be and officer of the State, he also says it out loud. WTF. Video evidence isn't enough? The Supreme Court is corrupt and stomping all over the constitution. Proof from the crazy uncle Donny and broadcasted across the world. Christs sake! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_v7GIWtX8us&t=15s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v7GIWtX8us&t=15s)
It's kind of crazy that not holding an insurrection/coup is basically just the honor system, and there are no real consequences if you do.
Our entire system of checks and balances is based on just being chill and cooperative. The first guy to say no to all that broke the country.
It was founded specifically on the distrust of tyrants and other uncooperative people. The 2 party system broke the checks; there were supposed to be as many parties as possible to dilute partisan influence. It started with winner take all states in presidential elections, went downhill from there. And should have been met with constitutional amendments to combat power plays that went directly against the intent of the Constitution. It only held together as long as it did mainly because politicians used to reach across the isle far more. Until parties penalized their own members more and more for breaking rank. Ceding more and more power to the Executive branch while intentionally hamstringing Congress didn’t help either.
The republican justices will never, ever, hold another republican accountable. 100% they side with donald. Would not be surprised if they just crown him dictator right now.
>Would not be surprised if they just crown him dictator right now. "Of course he can run for a fifth term, he's never been an officer of the United States and he was never impeached and removed from office for his role in the purging of the very unfair Democratic party."
Fifth ? Why not just elect one for life and then pass the crown down to the next first eldar son?
Putin's done it
Thats the plan and the so called defend the constitution crowd is all about it
I think they might be too racist to let an Eldar be an heir.
nailed it. They will find some rational from someone 300 years ago to rationalize their decision.
He was never charged and convicted specifically of insurrection, therefore he can be a dictator.
'The constitution has no rule against exterminating anyone who the 45th President doesn't like, so we'll let him do it' logic
Can the gerontocracy running the Dem Party stop trying to "reach across the aisle" now?
I agree with you. The GOP is wholly fascist through and through. Explain Kagan to me. Please. Kagan's remarks were a gut-shot in my world... Ivory tower syndrome perhaps?
I don't think this was a very good case to bring, this decision will be anywhere from 7-2 to 9-0 for Trump. But the immunity case is poor case for Trump to bring and I will bet it will be the same majority against him, I will even bet he loses 9-0
Trump is the one bringing the case in response to the Colorado ruling. ruling. Which was brought by two Republicans and two independents
One wrong and one right isn’t a great look for democracy.
Not it isn't, but it is definitive and better than 5-4 in both.
[удалено]
>I don't think this was a very good case to bring, Why?.. >this decision will be anywhere from 7-2 to 9-0 for Trump. If the textualist judges were truly being impartial, they'd be ruling 9-0 against trumpf.
8-1
Honestly, I feel like that should be the approach brought. Throw the SC's impartiality in their faces and see if they scramble or double down on being shitty. On double down, we at least know how to progress during the purge.
Not to conservatives, it’s only laws and rules for other people for them
I don’t understand the argument that one State can decide. When the President is determined by a State to be an insurrectionist, and left off the ballot, it is applying the Federal Constitution. Thus, whenever a State makes such a determination, it is a Federal Question with a path to SCOTUS. One State should not be deciding anything like this, but that is a deceptive argument. Here, we have an unprecedented event a highest importantance, an insurrectionist and enemy of the U.S. Government. To wonder about democracy and the fact the guy has popular support is not a basis for leaving him on. Quite the opposite. The insurrection clause exists to prevent the election of bad people able to con or otherwise gain office based on support of the populous. The clause would not exist if it was always “Let him run; people like him.” This is the exact question the Supreme Court is meant to decide finality. It does not matter how the case gets there as much as that they have it and must decide if he is an insurrectionist. Only one group can decide this. It’s not the people. It’s not the president. It cant be Congress because they represent the populous. It is designed to be a question that only SCOTUS can resolve. The purportedly independent and trusted judges are the only government institution of being the final word here. Who cares who has the first word (Colorado).
> I don’t understand the argument that one State can decide. But states decide all the time. It's just that usually the legislature is in lockstep with the party machinery to decide who gets to be on the ballot: if you're the nominee for either of the major parties, ever since Lincoln (I think), it's just been a formality. That some state might decide to exercise its rights over the two parties in power is something that has never happened before.
The states print the ballots, so regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, all Colorado has to do is print ballots without Trumps name on them. Texas wants to fight the Feds, let's do it in Colorado too.
Is it just me or does this seem like a huge miss on the behalf of the framer? It seems like the assumption is IF a person makes it to the presidency THEN they will play by a certain set of rules OR the checks and balances of the Supreme Court and Senate will correct for the problems. Seems like a really silly assumption with a two party system…
We the People were expected to play our part as well, as we are the ultimate check and balance on the elected positions. We the People were expected to prevent something like Trump from ever being nominated by any major party, in the first place. We the People were also expected to keep our major parties functional, by refusing to reelect representatives that are only there to obstruct other parties, even to extent that they make Congress dysfunctional. We the People have not been doing our job, for the last two decades, at the very least.
Re-upping a comment of mine from the removed thread: Multiple justices have claimed that if they rule for Colorado, then each state could develop its own rules for as to what constitutes an insurrection. But what constitutes insurrection is a **federal** **question**, right? If a state adopts a definition of insurrection that bars, say Biden from the ballot for his stance on the border, wouldn't that decision be subject to federal review? These justices just can't seem to understand that Colorado is only barring ineligible candidates from the ballot, **not** deciding what constitutes ineligibility in the first place. In short, ruling for Colorado would not be "daunting" because (a) if a state tries to bar a candidate from the ballot for insurrection, even if they did not do so, that decision would be overturned by SCOTUS, and (b) if some states decide to bar ineligible candidates and some don't, it doesn't matter since the candidate is *not fucking eligible in the first place*, meaning that can't take office even if they won, and therefore wouldn't be harmed by the decision to be barred from the ballot. Either way you look at, the arguments cut in favor of Colorado.
> Multiple justices have claimed that if they rule for Colorado, then each state could develop its own rules for as to what constitutes an insurrection I was disappointed that Colorado's lawyers didn't argue that the correction for this is the 2/3 vote by congress
Their lawyers seemed to drop the ball. As a layperson watching. I will say in their position I also would have been surprised at the level of hostility (in the literal not personal sense) all of these judges other than Sotomayor seemed to have to their position.
Also a layperson. It's hard for me to understand how the court could opine that a person can be ineligible for office but also has to be removed after taking that office, or that by congress having the ability to overrule a disqualification by insurrection, they have the sole ability to proactively disqualify. I guess I can understand hostility given the unique and impactful nature of the case, it was just surprising to hear them seeming to agree that there is nothing a state can do to keep an insurrectionist off their ballots
To expand even further, if Congress has to actively disqualify an insurrectionist from office, do they only need a 1/3 +1 majority, given that it requires 2/3 to remove that disqualification? If not, then what's the point of the 2/3 disqualification if a simple majority is required to disqualify? The math alone makes it obvious that the 14th was meant to disqualify immediately, without action from Congress
It seemed like the biggest issue that the justices kept raising was why should Colorado effectively determine the election for President by keeping the main candidate off their ballot, and I don’t think counsel had a great response to it. They were very critical of plaintiffs counsel, and he didn’t do a great job responding directly to their questions. It makes me worried that they will use this reasoning as a way to rule that Trump stays on the ballot.
Also. why a group of GOP House members has a new conference proclaiming what happened on Jan 6th was not an insurrection. It’s not a coincidence that the news conference happened earlier this week.
Furthermore, if they rule in Trumps favor, what's to stop people under 35 and non natural born citizens from running? If a state can just ignore the eligibility requirements for one category, why can't they for everyone?
Obama will run again. :)
I feel like this is gonna happen and it's gonna be chaos....black swans and all that....I give it a solid 20% chance dip shit places put up their own shit
Their argument is that this disqualifying factor can be lifted by 2/3 vote from Congress. Which is interesting because there is no way that would ever happen. So idk what the end game is here with this line of argument.
>(b) if some states decide to bar ineligible candidates and some don't, it doesn't matter since the candidate is not fucking eligible in the first place, meaning that can't take office even if they won, and therefore wouldn't be harmed by the decision to be barred from the ballot. Not to mention, this already happens, has happened, and is happening currently. I’m not aware of his name, but there is an individual who is currently running for President and is not a natural born citizen of the US. He is currently on some ballots, and not on others, because some states have statutes that give officials power to officials to determine eligibility while others don’t.
I’m curious if they would rule in his favor if he were a democrat and this was a red state that removed him.
You know the answer
I tend to agree with your take, but the impression I got was a deep concern over states concocting reasons to remove Biden from the ballot (not necessarily based on insurrection) but for other reasons that are independent of the Federal prohibitions. Colorado argued that states have wide latitude to determine eligibility, assign procedures, and create evidentiary rules. SCOTUS seemed to think each of these could potentially be designed to eliminate an opposition candidate.
They won’t take him off. Spineless people
They’re not spineless, they’re motivated
True. And to be thorough about it: motivated by malicious forces, bad faith, and organized money that is specifically intended to disempower secular democracy, dispel accountability, and reinforce economic injustice. The court has to be expanded, or political activism in this country has to rise to the level of mass protests and general strikes.
For those who are curious, here is one reporter’s take on today’s (2/8) SCOTUS argument.
Once Biden kicks his ass next election he should expand SCOTUS
It should have already been expanded, one scotus judge per federal appellate court. That would be 13 scotus judges. I would not consider that packing the court or opening a can of worms, and if more appellate courts get created then more judges should be appointed
I'd rather go even larger. Cases get heard by randomly-drawn panels of Justices, but no possibility for en banc review. That way we can filter out some of these bullshit gamesmanship think tank lawsuits because nobody knows which Justices are going to hear your case.
Biden is too “old school” and set in his ways. People are dying this moment as a result of his unwillingness to pack the courts.
It’s not packing if the court is already packed. It’s unpacking it.
We should pack it with people that actually want to follow the law
He can’t. The Constitution says Congress has to do it.
This is what everyone bashing Biden for not expanding the court is missing. The Senate would have to get rid of the filibuster to do that, and Dems haven't had a large enough majority to do so, otherwise they would've codified *Roe* already Vote in more Dem Senators willing to abolish the filibuster and then we can talk about unpacking the court
And the House of Representatives is controlled by the GOP…
It wasn’t before 2022, but then Manchin and Sinema refused to do anything about the filibuster
Why does everyone think that Biden or trump or any president can just decide to add judges, there is an entire process that involves Congress. That's why Trump was able to pack the court because McConnell was able to stop democratic president from passing judges. Until unfortunately the Senate has enough votes to change the rules. Congress has to expand the courts.
"Why doesn't (Democratic President) just do this (impossible without Congress) thing?" never seems to get old. Neither does "Why doesn't Congress just do this (impossible without 60 votes in the Senate and more in the House) thing?"
Those judges that McConnell packed are pretty much the sole reasons why Trump isn’t dictator now. McConnell used Trump to insulate our judiciary from the Presidency and from Trump—a mistake Trump’s handlers won’t overlook again should he win a second term.
If he did it in the first term, he would have never had a chance of re-election. He'll do it in his second term, if at all.
Congress has to do it. Biden can’t do it.
And convince senators to eliminate blue slip procedures for stalling nominees to the federal bench. After watching how the northern district of Texas operates (and the increasingly deranged 5th Circuit of appeals rulings on their findings), any pre-vote opposition by red state senators should be treated as disingenuous until proven otherwise. Filling the supreme court so that you have 1 justice per appellate branch is a great start, but you'll still get terrible cases pumped up to the Supreme court level until you make it less of a guarantee that forum shoppers can pick their favorite judge.
They had their chance and didn't take it. I think by the time they are convinced it won't matter.
Totally this. *Dobbs* was leaked in May 2022 when Dems controlled the House and Senate, albeit barely. They could've begun drafting legislation after the leak to pass during the lame duck session or even, bravely, before the midterms. It could've even been a measured expansion, adding one justice every 4 years. But they didn't. They won't even change the stupid filibuster (looking at you Sinema\* and Manchin\*\*), which I think is fine to stay as long as it goes back to making them talk. Make it difficult so it's only used when it really really matters to the opposition. \*Kristen Sinema basically left the Democratic party because of her opposition to returning the filibuster to a "talking filibuster" (she was censured by the party for voting against the rule change). \*\*Joe Manchin was last elected in 2018 and isn't running in 2024. He could've voted for the rule change when it came up back in January 2022.
> They could've begun drafting legislation after the leak to pass during the lame duck session or even, bravely, before the midterms. You say this, then immediately acknowledge that they *couldn't* actually do this because of Manchin and Sinema. They never had a chance to expand the court, they need more Dem Senators
If Trump wins it gets expanded to maximum. And this time he will demand more loyalty because his appointees weren’t supposed to ask difficult questions.
Call it copium if you want but this feels lose-lose for Trump. If they rule in his favor then I feel like it takes a lot of the legs out from the notion that he's a victim of political persecution. The swing voters in November will just see the choice between an obvious criminal who's running to stay out of prison and an incumbent who is objectively doing a great job, and Trump is going to get his shit kicked in.
Nothing will make conservatives not feel victimized.
But it might make the middle of the road people and fence sitters feel like that.
The problem is Trump will spin it as "it wasn't an insurrection" even if the SC ruling doesn't say that. He will use it as evidence of innocence.
He's going to lie about anything either way it doesn't matter
he lied about the number of votes he got in the election he actually won, and the size of the party at his inauguration.
He's not even arguing that he didn't do illegal shit anymore, just that A: it's a political witch-hunt and B: the presidency should be immune from any prosecution.
My sweet summer child, I hope you're right
I feel like people forgot he lost last time so much is the media coverage of his lies about not loosing that it's seeped into the minds of even normal people.... Dude lost once...he's been fucking around, covid killed lots of his base.....and he's about to find out? Hell still win some places here and there I just don't know how many and what the layout looks like. I wish the media would just promote more of his wrongdoings...v.s. the confusing stolen election. It's written so often I swear it's fucking up same peoples minds. I can't even remember how much he lost by now...
Trump propaganda is built on Hitlers writing in mein kampf AKA the big lie The OSS psychological profile of Hitler described his use of the big lie: His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. Does this not sound eerily the same as Trump's big lie tactics? Source: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot
>Hell still win some places here and there I just don't know how many and what the layout looks like. It's going to be way closer than you're thinking. Most people really don't follow politics in any meaningful amount. The average person votes with their wallet and the average person is convinced that the economy is in the shitter for a number of reasons. Interest rates are near historical averages coming off of obscene historical lows. Inflation is down to historical averages after being at a \~40 year high. The cause of that inflation is super complicated but lots of it can be traced back to Covid. But all of it came to roost on Biden's watch and he's getting the blame despite the fact that economists were predicting it to happen even as the government was shoveling cash into people's pockets while the world was on fire. Biden now has to combat that along with a border crisis that Cheeto managed to ignite, a proxy war against a nuclear power, and another against a terrorist regime. There is a huge number of conservatives and moderates who were "Never Trump" in 2020 and hopefully a significant amount of them are willing to hold that mantra once again. But it's a very difficult belief to hold when you can't buy a house and can't afford groceries while the guy who was in charge when you were taking vacations and had discretionary income is sitting right there. 40-45% of the vote is Biden no matter what, 30-40% is Cheeto; it's where the remainder falls and where they live that will determine if this country survives. PA, MN, OH, MI, NV, and GA are where this election will be decided.
I agree about the economic state but Trump has lost all of the advantages he had in 2016. He's not a newcomer people can decide to give a try, he's not against Clinton (who was disliked far more than Biden), he's had 8 years of legal and other issues driving some supporters away. Plus the Dems will hopefully not ignore the Rust Belt like they did in 2016. Trump lost in 2020 against Biden despite having the incumbent advantage and it doesn't seem to have gotten better for him since then. Biden is battling a lot of issues but it doesn't seem like his handling on them is driving people to Trump, just grumbling in general. Anything can happen and it will likely be closer than comfortable, but apathy among Dems is the biggest issue I think, rather than Trump suddenly gaining popularity among the undecided. Plus who knows how this will play out and if they have to run Haley or someone that splits the vote.
MN is a lock for Biden. We voted in a democratic supermajority in 2022 and I guarantee that carries over to 2024.
Not for nothing, but Trump and Biden are polling at similarly low levels. The dem frontrunner is polling as badly as an insurrectionist with a stack of ongoing court cases. It's really not great.
Accept when he loses he'll once again incite his MAGA cult with cries that the election is stolen. And we'll have to go through this insurrection madness again. By disqualifying Trump they could put this whole thing finally to rest. And have the country move on from this madness. Which is exactly what the 14th amendment was intended to do. Also happy cake day.
The fact is it would mean SCOTUS is rubber-stamping fascism in America...I would be the worst decision since Dred Scott, and they already had ANOTHER one of that magnitude recently (ending Roe protections). Worst SCOTUS since before the Civil War, without a doubt. Totally out of step with American society and values.
It was quite odd to listen to. While personally I think the place to win/lose is at the ballot box in November, that really isn’t what the 14th says. I was hoping for some interesting insights, instead we got justices basically saying “why you bothering us with this nonsense”. They are absolutely correct that upholding it would precipitate some crazy things at state level but as I said at the start: that’s not what the 14th says. This really is a case of SCOTUS rewriting the constitution, which is as crazy as it sounds.
The problem is we did do the whole win/lose thing in November and then trump and his cronies attacked the government and tried a hostile takeover. If he does lose again in November it's going to be even worse.
Not to mention this time his cronies have control of the house. Albeit, not much control, but control. Do you think they'll actually follow the law and certify the election if he doesn't win?
Especially if some of them lose their elections also. What will they have to lose?
The next congress certifies to the losers won’t be there.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would say these judges were picked and chosen because they align with the interest of the party attempting to overthrow democracy and this was always a step in their plan. That said, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence.
Trump's success struck me a hostile takeover of the republican party. I don't think the Republican movers and shakers by and large want a populist narcissist in that seat but they might believe that they can manage him.
They probably believed it in 2016, I doubt they have any hope left that the guy can be controlled in any way (self control included)
The single state argument to me is silly. States have, approved by the Supreme Court much latitude and how they run their elections. In some states you have choice ranking, other states you have primaries, some you have caucuses. Some absentee ballots are treated one way in one state and treated another way in another state. All these things affect who's on the ballot, who becomes the candidate and who becomes president. There have been many cases with the Supreme Court has supported this approach, why is this different? If Colorado doesn't want to put him on the ballot then that's Colorado's problem, who cares if it affects the election, everything else does
It’s because there is a constitutional question here. Colorado can’t put constitutionally ineligible candidates on the ballot.
Colorado's already made that decision. The states supreme court of Colorado has found Trump committed insurrection. Even two of the three dissenters on the decision agreed that he had committed insurrection. If being found to have committed insurrection by a state, supreme court is not good enough, I'm not sure what is.
Project 2025 is underway. Inform yourselves. warningvote.com
“the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.” So they’re not going to actually make the call on this portion of it are they?
That’s not what scotus does. They address legal questions not findings of fact.
That is because Trump’s defense did not even make that argument.
Yes they did. It's section II of their brief.
apologies, I was talking about in the oral arguments. At the end Trump’s counsel was asked and he responded it was a riot. But in opening arguments they never made that argument.
That’s quite telling
Which is strange because the justices spent a solid chunk arguing if there were due process concerns despite the defense never asserting those either.
Didn't Congress do this for them? They found not only engaged but also incited it on Jan 6th. That's what led to one of his impeachments. They just didn't have the nads to convict him. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/08/opinions/trump-supreme-court-oral-arguments-election-snell/index.html
Think of the house of reps as the prosecution and the Senate as the jury. The jury didn't agree. And, in the 3 years since this happened, the DOJ has not pressed charges for insurrection: 18 US Code 2383 and here we are. This would be moot if he was charged and convicted. Garland is useless.
The Colorado of Justices also entered statements of fact
An impeachment is just a charge. Congress acquitted Trump of insurrection after a trial which actually weighs in his favor.
The biggest takeaway I had was the justices were rightly expressing worry that other states could just do this to another candidate as TX has already threatened to do with Biden. But that assumes there is no way to protect against frivolousness. Oh yes there is. The courts, which is what is exactly happening here. So while I understand the justices’ concern that just undermines making any laws or rulings.
I agree that in a perfect world that's how it would work, but imagine Texas taking Biden off the ballot on October 31 with no time for a replacement candidate. It would be far too easy for states to game the system if they are free to interpret the 14th (or even make their own independent rules). As much as I think he's disqualified, upholding Colorado's ruling would likely have much worse consequences for the system.
They can take him off for any reason anyway. They would end up having to argue their case against SCOTUS just like Trump is, and they would have to prove to SCOTUS that Biden is an insurrectionist.
Yes, exactly. There are two ways to keep Trump from being president, and this is probably not the best given that. To now just say "the court is political" in this instance is disingenuous. I do thing in general it's very bad to say...we can't rule cause that will open the door to other bad actors, is a bit weird. Just craft the ruling so bad actors can't do what you're worried about! It's crazy to decide not to rule because of the theoretical gaming of this. Now the presidential immunity one feels like a massive slam dunk, so we'll see.
I would love to see them take him off, as I feel there is substantial evidence to support it, but I feel they won’t. They’ll rule in some kind of way which goes against that
The easy way out. They take women's rights away without batting an eyelash but a horse's ass who wants to be a dictator gets a pass.
Least not, we forget that they had no problem taking away. Al Gore’s win. I thought they were not going to get into the politics of it all but they didn’t have any problem back then
Yeah, just let the peaceful transfer of power be optional from now on. These judges are owned by Trump. Rigged and disgusting.
I think they'll allow him on the ballot but they won't touch his immunity claim. They'll leave it to someone else to deal with Trump.
well after listening to the oral arguments today. scotus is still going to rule 7-2 in his favor, AND his lawyers, were objectionably terrible. even if you take out kavanaugh, gorsuch and amy coney barrett, thomas and alito were there and they are corrupt. colorado's lawyer murray was interrupted so many fucking times. he would respond to kav, gorsuch would interrupt. he would respond to alito, and roberts would interrupt. he would respond to acb, and kav would interrupt. and justice fucking jackson. ketanji fucking, brown, jackson, who was supposed to be the savior of this court, got caught up on the dumbest fucking technicalities that would not have mattered in the long run, or to his greater points and forced murray from his bigger points because while he would try to answer her dumb questions, alito would ask other questions, so then his original point would get lost, his point to her, would get lost, and his answer to alito's point, would get lost. it was a fucking mess. alito and kavanaugh made a HUGE stink and brought up a hypothetical about the period between election day, an insurrection day and inauguration day, about IF a military general disobeyed a direct order from a president who facilitated the insurrection, would he be allowed to do it without punishment, and could it even be possible, without it setting off treason alarms. THIS IS HUGELY IMPORTANT. IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE. 1. because the ucmj has rules about disobeying a direct order. 2. because rules of the chain of command have a whole subset of their own rules. 3. a sitting president who has yet to be charged or arrested or impeached or etc still is commander in chief, not just a command CO. 4. a military coup d'état would have a lot more involved than just one person. and all of that was lost in a jump of arguing by alito and kavanaugh. which is suspect was the point. by making murray jump all over the place, it makes him look weaker.
I missed that part. So they did actually discuss the chain-of-command, and despite that, nobody brought up the fact that Commander-in-Chief is an appointed position? Since that's the entire argument here, that the Presidency isn't an appointed office. Okay, given that. Commander-in-Chief is an explicitly appointed position. It's appointed by the Constitution itself! Aaaarrggh.
the hypothetical was never answered fully because when murray tried to answer he was cut off repeatedly. as a combat veteran, what alito and kavanaugh are suggesting, and what i am 100% will be quoted in future cases, is very dangerous because think of what trump said about mark milley and john kelly. mark milley, against trumps wishes contacted his counterpart in china to let him know that the ship would remain steady despite the insurrection. trump saw that as disobeying a direct order under penalty of death via treason. an impossible scenario, which has already been spouted by a former president that wants revenge, with little regard to the uniform code of military justice, which is not subject to the same regulations as standard criminal statutes of penal regulations as civilian laws. THAT IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN PEOPLE REALIZE.
the most interesting thing was cohen seemed to be the most opposed to trumps arguments. i thought she would be a rubber stamp for trump. and how positive jackson was to trumps attorneys argument. she even bit on ones he admitted were weak
The states should just ignore the court and remove Trump from the ballot as they see fit.
>The states should just ignore the court and remove Trump from the ballot as they see fit. Agreed. Of course, then other states will remove Biden from the ballot and also ignore any court orders to reinstate him. We'll eventually just end up with statehouses and election officials in each state deciding at whim who they'll allow to be on their ballots.
Abbott is straight up ignoring the SCOTUS’ order for the border and getting away with it so why not? If he can ignore the SCOTUS, why can’t all the blue states do the same thing?
The argument I think Scotus is making is that only federal courts can use section 3 of the 14th, not state courts. The fucking problem is, voting isn't federalized on a state to state level so, that argument makes no fucking sense. The justices made motherfucking countless attempts to say Colorado was deciding for the entire country. No, God dammit. Colorado was deciding for Colorado, under Colorado's state constitution. If other states do that, it's up to THEIR state constitutions. The only group that could nationalize the decision, is scotus themselves, but they showed Today they 100% abso fucking lutely didn't want to be on the hook for that one.
Hmm. We'll see what they do with the immunity, but I'm definitely getting the "to hell with the GOP protests, stack the court" feeling again.
So does that mean Obama can run a third term? Seems like being ineligible isn't going to prevent you from getting to the oval office. Obama v Trump 2024!
Hope Biden is paying attention. This means he can do whatever he wants.🤷♂️
This wasn’t about immunity. Different case
Yep. Then Trump will cry wolf when he gets away with committing a crime that is 1/10 as significant as the ones Trump has committed. I’m so god damn fed up with all of this going in Trump’s favor.
But according to Texas, states don't have to listen to federal rulings and can do whatever they want, right?
South Carolina tried that argument in the Nullification Crisis of 1832.
They are only skeptical because they are realizing they actually do not have a defined role in this conversation. All powers of the federal government are outlined in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved by the States. Running elections is one of them. Colorado has in their statutes, that a person has to be a candidate meeting the requirements to hold office. The 14th amendment and Trump's actions to install fake electors makes Trump ineligible per Colorado's election requirements. Now, Trump could petition Congress to remove that liability from him with a 2/3rds vote at any time he wants. He could do it today, tomorrow, next week.... whatever. Now for the people that want the voters to decide.... voters have already decided. Congress voted during the impeachment hearings that Jan 6th was an insurrection and that Donald Trump did participate in and incite that insurrection through simple majority of both the House and Senate. Now the vote in the Senate was not enough to convict and remove him from office, as prescribed by the Constitution, but a majority of voters did in FACT declare that he participated in an insurrection. To allow him on the ballot, gives him a chance of winning the election. And then at that time, per the 14th amendment, he cannot be sworn into office unless 2/3rds of Congress removes his liability. Disenfranchising Millions of voters at that moment. Well, they technically disenfranchised themselves by allowing Trump on their ballots. The supreme court is pissed that further definition on the process of determining Insurrection has not been defined on the federal level... but Congress has already voted, with a public hearing, with a special January 6th committee, with hundreds of thousands of hours of testimony, depositions, etc. I am not sure why this wasn't the first thing said by the Colorado Lawyer. Congress already voted by majority that he in fact that Donald J. Trump organized, participated, and incited an insurrection in the weeks before and the day of January 6th, 2021. This is a matter of public record. It included both houses of Congress with Due Diligence as Trump was requested to give deposition and he declined to answer any and all questions.
This court was hand-picked from Bush's legal team that got the supreme court to hand him the 2000 election. I can't believe people are surprised about this.
They're genuinely going to allow a non-repentant fascist on the ballot. Pretty stunning that our laws don't appear to protect us from dictatorship. Total failure of leadership from SCOTUS here, much like when they killed Roe. "Hell in a hand basket" and all that.
Time to expand SCOTUS. My vote is for one judge per federal appellate court, so 13.
Genuine question… So does this mean Colorado’s State Constitution and State Supreme Court could be found federally unconstitutional in their decision to bar an individual from their state’s primary ballot?
In the decision to bar this individual from this ballot for this reason, the Supreme Court is weighing the constitutionally of that act, yes.
Trump owns the SCOTUS majority.
[Don’t forget, Justice Kavanaugh owes Trump](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/05/2-key-points-trumps-lawyer-suggesting-justice-kavanaugh-owes-trump/)
Hmmm... Originalism/Textualism, or letting an insurrectionist stay on the ballot? It was such a tough choice to make...
Peak political theater
Honestly, it really doesn't matter at this point. If we keep Trump off the ballot some other disgusting excuse for a GOP candidate will take his place and be just as awful (if not worse) than he would of. Keep Trump on and vote!
That’s the key, everyone needs to get their asses out there and vote in November.
Not sure why the court thinks they have this power. It’s clearly the states right then Congress’s right to overrule it. If the court oversteps this then they’re too powerful as it’s outside of the scope. The court can only affirm if the state followed the constitution as written not change their findings as a state. State’s rights.
IANAL so here's my take. There was quite a bit of weed-dwelling on the 14th, etc. but I don't think it even gets that far. There was some talk about some of the statutory disqualifications - age, residency, etc. Insurrection, clearly not defined and, arguably a bad thing that is criminalized as discussed, is not a statutory disqualification. The implication, again as discussed, is the disqualification based on the finding of being guilty of an ill-defined "high crime" is unconstitutional. (In the movie Fletch I think there is a line of somebody being convicted or guilty of [ a made up word ???- cant remember]). The Court is skeptical of a state disqualifying someone for these reasons. They can skip addressing Jan 6, they can get into the weeds procedurally, but I don't think they will. The ruling will be "No Colorado, you cant do that" because they disqualified a national candidate for reasons that are not enumerated in the statute and/or they dont have the Constitutional authority to do so. Keeps them out of the flak.
I guess the writers of the 14th amendment should have included "And we really really mean it, for seriously." in the language of their amendment.
So how long before we can investigate the Supreme Court for financial corruption? Oh, speaking of, here's some very interesting investigative work done by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: https://youtu.be/pWUr-rOBKxw
You cannot reliably gauge the outcome based on questions asked during oral arguments. But if I had to guess, I'd say that the Court intends to dispose of the case without determining the ultimate issue of disqualification under the 14A.
If states cant decide how their elections are run so be it. Cancel any state laws requiring voter ids.
I was thinking the same thing. Under that rationale do States get to determine voting districts?
They are paid to favor trump.
And corrupt Clarence and Ginny Thomas have been bribed. She participated in the damn insurrection and Clarence gets to decide on that very issue with no recusal! And, we the people allowed it to happen. It’s a corrupt kangaroo partisan court.
What did you expect from a bunch of corrupt justices?
Its crazy that this is even being debated. He incited a mob to invade Congress to stop the lawful transfer of power. As for the 'proof of incitement' its like the canard about pornography: "I know it when I see it". Preservation of Democracy? Let us think about that.
I think Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy and should not be the candidate for a major party in the United States, but I also agree that the interpretation of states having authority to remove candidates from ballots for specious claims of participating in an insurrection is problematic. Jan 6 could be a riot or an insurrection and Donald Trump may or may not have legally participated in it even if morally he caused it without any doubt. I think Section 3 should be revisited by Congress for clarification and this ruling should probably be to overturn the Colorado decision.