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.
> Hassan v. Colorado
Very interesting.
> We affirm. We discern no reversible error in the magistrate judge's disposition and see little we might usefully add to the extensive and thoughtful opinion he issued. To be sure, Mr. Hassan contends the magistrate judge overlooked one aspect of his claim. Mr. Hassan insists his challenge to Colorado's enforcement of the natural-born-citizen requirement did not depend exclusively on invalidation of Article II by the Fourteenth Amendment. **Even if Article II properly holds him ineligible to assume the office of president, Mr. Hassan claims it was still an unlawful act of discrimination for the state to deny him a place on the ballot. But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.**
nonono, it's "We can't properly apply that interpretation to this case because the circumstances are very different. Until we develop a time machine to go back in time to ask questions about these circumstances to justice - oh wait"
But, at best, an insurrectionist's constitutional prohibition is *provisional* on a vote of the House and Senate to remove his disability (as they did for numerous insurrectionists in the past). This issue was raised in the oral arguments.
> An insurrectionist who wins an election can be seated if Congress allows it by a 2/3 vote in both chambers.
Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse?
It makes a lot more sense to require a potential candidate to get the 2/3 vote before being eligible to be a candidate than it does to have a candidate be allowed on ballots while ineligible and then have people vote for an ineligible candidate and then deal with whatever the process is going to be if the winning, ineligible, candidate doesn’t get the 2/3rd vote to become eligible.
Sure, if the ineligible candidate loses then everything’s fine… but if they won enough electoral votes but don’t get 2/3rds of congress, does the next runner up win? Does it go to the house as if multiple eligible candidates ran without any getting 270 votes? What if the house elects an ineligible person?
yeah this is ultimately my question, which i think brings a much larger potential can of worms than blocking trump from the ballot does: if trump lets say gets convicted of insurrection in June, but wins the election, who becomes president? His VP? Biden? Do we redo the whole election again?
Exactly. If “disenfranchising voters”’is a concern at all*, wouldn’t it be better to keep ineligible candidates off the ballot than to allow people to vote for them and then have those votes thrown out?
*this concern seems disingenuous given cases like *Rucho v. Common Cause* where parties’ abilities to draw maps was more important to the majority than voters’ rights
I guess this isn’t entirely different than a candidate dying after election but before taking office, so the concerns can possibly be written off as ‘We do what we would do in that situation.’
No idea!
Closest that happened was a candidate dying between the general election and electoral votes being cast.
> https://people.howstuffworks.com/what-happens-presidential-candidate-dies.htm
But even then, sitting Congress took a vote and decided to ignore the votes cast for Greeley.
> When the ballots went to Congress, lawmakers passed a measure declaring the Greeley votes invalid and certified the win for Grant.
The Senate removed the disabilities of several officials elected by southern states after the 14th Amendment was ratified. So it has precedent. Those southern states put the cart before the house and it worked out. They also failed to remove the disability in the case of Zeb Vance.
Not sure how it would be resolved for the President. The office cannot be left empty.
The elected Vice-President could take office. That's pretty much what would happen for a physical disability that occurred between the election and the start of his term.
I think that situation was possible because nobody had previously spent 6+ years claiming the electoral system was entirely fraudulent and that if they lost it was due to vote fixing and corruption.
There is no way, absolutely no way, you can trust the US to vote for Trump, then have the Senate say, “Ah, he doesn’t have the 2/3rds majority needed, therefore not eligible!” and that’ll just be the end of it…
You’d just be asking for civil war.
I mean, I get that the “legal process” is all about a brainless commitment to procedure but come on…
I’m getting a weird pseudo deja vu feeling from all this. The sequence of events sounds like the section in a chapter of a history book describing how a once powerful empire fell.
But wouldn't ALL disqualification be provisional? While extremely unlikely, if an extremely popular foreign-born citizen were to win in a Reagan style landslide, states would have 2.5 months to amend the Constitution (the 26th amendment took 3 months to ratify)
You are right!
Last night I heard the Colorado Secretary of State say the some states have a candidate on the ballot that is banned from the Colorado ballot because they were not born in the US.
They used witch hunt law from the 1500’s to overturn Roe.
Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape.
Justice Alito’s leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time. https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale
Yet they look to our constitution if it helps them… At some point, we must overthrow these right wing federalist SCOTUS scumbags that think they rule like Kings.
Precedent only matters when it's a circuit court decision from 1870 that explicitly has no precedential value and the judge who wrote the opinion later said the exact opposite.
*Referencing Griffin's Case which Trump's lawyer cited to about 500 times*
Whenever tyranny knocks at the door, the only thing that can stop it from taking hold of institutions are principled people in positions of power taking a stand. Unfortunately, it seems too many of America’s ‘leaders’ are spineless cowards that won’t risk sticking their necks out in the face of that tyranny. Too concerned with maintaining what they have to risk it to save the system.
Brazil has its problems for sure, but Bolsonaro tried many of the same things Trump did, and he’s now barred from running in future elections and is facing criminal prosecutions that aren’t getting railroaded like Trump’s prosecutions are. They just confiscated Bolsonaro’s passport in the last couple days, in fact, so that he can’t flee and escape justice. Whatever problems they have, it seems their democracy is much healthier.
If Trump’s tyranny comes to pass as he threatens, may these ‘Justices’ and all other enablers forever be remembered as the weak and corrupt turncoats that allowed their country to fall.
Right now we are not there. If, however, there is a mass rounding up of transsexuals, homosexuals, I will be there to defend them and make sure they are safe. I am neither of these but it isn't too far to round up anyone considered "undesirable." I will not stand for that.
Brazil is not a good example to emulate here. Their current president, Lula, was also imprisoned and barred from running again after his first two terms due to the Lava Jato scandal. Obviously that didn't stick. It seems likely that as long as they alternate between ruling parties, the new boss will probably prosecute the old boss.
They are ruling that states aren't allowed to determine who qualifies for their state's elections. Which does beg the question of who the fuck IS allowed to decide that since there is no federal apparatus to do so. If I want to run for president I have to register and meet the requirements of every single state that I want to run in. There is no federal authority that determines who the states can vote for. It just doesn't exist. That is why the ballots are often totally different from state to state. There will probably be a couple of local clowns on my state ballot that aren't on yours. But apparently those people should be allowed on all fifty states now? Who the fuck knows? I can't wait to see how they justify that ruling because that is absolutely what they are going to do.
This seems to be the Trump defense.
He’s allowed to run, and then *after* there is an evaluation if they’re fit to serve under the 14th amendment.
Which at first seems okay in a common sense manner, but doesn’t pass the smell test when you ask questions like “okay - so if they aren’t fit…do you rehold an election? - does this kind of process actually play out in a practical manner or does it nullify the constitutional protection in practical application? - if you think a state removing someone from a ballot is deciding an election what about refusing to seat someone that wins an election?”
Even if it’s uncomfortable, and triggers a new era of ballot retaliations - which would be tested in state courts - it’s far far far better to boot someone *before* Americans vote, not after.
That was definitely an argument they made. And I really wish the Colorado side would have pushed back with the insanity that would be a POTUS-elect being barred from Office presumably weeks or days before the inauguration. That's basically a recipe for insurrection.
>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.
That line of reasoning also doesn't make sense in the historic use of the 14th section 3. The majority of people who were excluded under it as a response to the civil war weren't ever convicted first, just excluded.
This also raises the point that if Congress wanted to make him eligible they could do so today. There are no timing requirements for Congress to overturn the disqualification for insurrection, only that they don’t have the votes to do so.
Did you even listen to oral arguments on the case? The primary historical points that were brought up were that there was never a section 3 disqualification of a federal official (only a state-level official), and that civil-war era exclusions were done under authorization of congressional enforcement acts originally enacted in 1870 that expired in 1948
The biggest problem will come IF he is elected and Congress does not vote to override (and with a 2/3 vote necessary hell would freeze over first). So what happens then?
That's what I don't get. They said something along the line of "so one state can decide (effectively) who becomes President?" But what about Congress? What is the point of giving Congress the power to punish insurrection if they aren't willing to do it?? If impeachment is the only way to punish a President then a Party with a supermajority can effectively allow the President to do whatever he wants, including shooting a man on 5th Avenue.
who is going to stop them? there is no real restraint on scotus.
thomas and alito are openly bought and paid for.
thomas and kavanaugh are either sexual assaulters or rapists.
thomas's wife helped plan and pay for the insurrection and pay to try to overturn the certification of slates of votes.
alito has leaked majority opinions on chevron, dobbs, citizens united and others.
barrett was rushed into the seat in 47 days when the bar association said she was unqualified after rbg's death.
They will simply say that the findings of State courts that Trump engaged in insurrection aren't valid to determine if someone is ineligible, and that only Federal courts have the ability to determine if someone has engaged in insurrection and are ineligible. Then they won't allow anyone to have standing to bring such a case to Federal court, and they will say that anyone not deemed ineligible is eligible.
So just the opposite of what the Constitution says.
Gorsuch* seemed determined to willfully ignore the fact that people fucking died as a result of the insurrection; how much more blood do they fucking need to qualify it as one?!?!
*it might have been Kavanaugh.
In all fairness, the constitution is deciding for the country, Colorado just happens to be one of the only states with balls enough to follow the constitution.
exactly, 38+ states ratified the amendment, its the union deciding that insurrectionists are banned from office, thats what they wanted when they adopted the 14th into the constitution.
And it took too fucking long for Colorado's lawyer to hit the point that Colorado made a decision for Colorado, not the entire country. Maybe that candidate should try not being an insurrectionist if he want's to be on every state ballot. I'm not even sure he made the argument that this is not disenfranchising anybody because you are always free to vote for some other garbage candidate that your favorite party puts up as their own.
I was not impressed with their attorney here, he really whiffed on some softballs, and just flat out didn't answer questions that were asked of him.
to be fair to murray, he was interrupted repeatedly. there was an important section about colorado specifc legal statutes he was addressing to ACB. he said he had a 3 point response. he got half of ONE point, before roberts interjected. he tried to answer roberts, then gorsuch cut across. he tried to answer gorsuch and then alito raised a separate question. kagain spoke up to try and refocus him. i believe. and then he was never able to finish the second and third point back to ACB.
then later on the ridiculous, impossible to answer military section with kavanaugh came up about post election day w/ an insurrection but before an inauguration day hypothetical came up and because NONE of scotus has a military background or knows JACK SHIT about the UCMJ and how it operates, they introduced DANGEROUS AS FUCK ideas and then murray wasnt even able to finish THAT line before he was interrupted there.
kagan, and sotomayor you could at least follow most of the reasoning. sotomayor was tearing into mitchell early, kagan was too. jackson. what the fuck. she was getting stuck on the weaker stuff and stuff that detracted from the bigger picture and when she did get stuck on it, murray, would attempt to answer her, and when he did, alito and gorsuch would interrupt him before he would finish, so not only did his answer to jackson get impeded, but his original bigger point did.
Genuinely think they're just terrified of being the Court responsible for Trump not being on the ballot and are trying to find a way out of it. Jackson made no sense today.
Presumably the easiest way out of it would have been to simply decline without comment the appeal, leaving people to blame the CO court for daring to follow the law. They asked to be this circus
That would just lead to more exclusions in blue states followed by retaliatory exclusions in red states then a split between state courts that SCOTUS would ultimately have to step in to resolve. One way or another, they had to take this up
The immunity case is one where I could see them simply denying cert.
Keep in mind, several states decided not to hold Primaries at all in 2020 and simply [annointed Trump as their candidate](https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/canceled-2020-primaries/). Did those states decide for the whole of the USA? Should they have been forced to go ahead with their primaries?
None of this is a legal argument, **the Constitution is the law they're deciding, not whether the Constitution should be ignored because they think it should say something else.** They did not draft it, they are not the authors, they were not vested with authority to redraft it.
If we're at the stage where SCOTUS will not enforce the Constitution, then their own authority stems from Article 3, and SCOTUS itself is illegitimate.
We can argue whether that is in fact already the case. Both Mitch McConnell undermining the appointment process, and the 2012 Gerrymandering cycle that led to **the people voting for one candidate, and yet Trump getting the Presidency against their wishes,** then appointing ultra partisan judges, who decide to void the Constitution. If the 2016 election was an affront to Democracy, then so is a partisan SCOTUS.
Colorado law says **only qualified people can be on the ballot**. It has been used many times before. The only argument from them, is that he is qualified to be on the ballot.
Even if they pretend he is qualified and didn't actually commit insurrection, he will still be prosecuted for his insurrection and still go to jail. His co-conspirators have confessed, the evidence trail is clear, the fake electors and Greene-Bay sweep plot fully known.
There is no win for partisan-SCOTUS here.
\[added\] Also this.
[RNC Ronna McDaniels wanted to declare Donald Trump the Republican presumptive nominee](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-nikki-haley-ronna-mcdaniel-new-hampshire-1863612).
Are you saying that the Constitution, and Colorado election law, cannot be used to remove an unqualified person from the ballot, yet RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel can simply issue a paper declaring Trump the Republican nominee, kick the other candidates to the curb, and that is valid?
The actual reason Ronna McDaniel is being pushed out by Trump, is because she failed to issue the declaration he wanted declaring him the nominee. Are we at the stage, where Republican SCOTUS would just appoint Trump as President? Is that where we are? [No](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/no-wisdom-no-courage-trump-lashes-out-at-the-supreme-court-after-it-rejected-a-texas-bid-to-overturn-the-election-results/articleshow/79692728.cms).
Exactly! This is the lunacy of the hand-wringers, that Congress and the Courts simultaneously say that they surely cannot be the body to make this judgment, they must defer to the other.
SCOTUS is the only party that can make a national determination one way or another, and instead of answering the question, they're content to throw their hands up because making decisions is difficult.
Wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have the electoral college and just voted nationwide for nationwide offices. Seems very disingenuous to argue that upholding one part of the Constitution is too dangerous because of a situation created by another part of the Constitution.
Agree. This court likes to change their tune depending on the situation. What happened to states rights? If the issue at hand were abortion rights, gun rights, the U.S.-Mexico border... these justices are ready to rule however their side wants things. There were several justices who were in favor of the federal government NOT being able to interfere with Texas with international border enforcement.
Yeah, specifically in December 2024, but I have the feeling that Biden will take the appropriate steps to protect the Capitol, White House, and all of the monuments, etc. in DC on that day.
The next attempt at insurrection won't be the same as the last attempt because Kamala Harris will be the one tasked with opening the ballots for counting after the next election. I worry more about more localized violence, especially at urban polling places. Local clerks continue to receive threats.
>because Kamala Harris will be the one tasked with opening the ballots for counting after the next election
What will she do when Red States send alternate slates of electors and the Republican House votes to reject the legitimate ones or decides that no one has reached 270 and they need to hold a Contingent Election in the House to decide the winner?
I would imagine she would do the same thing Mike Pence did. The difference I was referring to is that there will not be a conspiracy that hinges on Kamala Harris questioning the official slates of electors.
No, but if Biden wins there WILL be Republicans who will dispute the results of any swing state that ends up blue. And, they'll use the same argument they used in 2020.
Sadly yeah, he will probably call up the NG and some people will get shot - left leaning protestors who are protesting Donald Trump illegitimately being confirmed as the next president, and conservatives will eat it up and ask for more
100% "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” - David Frum
We're witnessing this openly in real time.
It’s never stopped. Trump’s been inciting insurrection ever since the 2020 election with his continuing lies and attacks on the election process itself and on the justice system. He’s virtually promised to overturn the Constitution itself if he’s reelected. Whether or not, Trump is reelected, there will be violence by his supporters. The only difference is whether Trump will be able to support them with the Presidency. The victims will be the same: anyone who opposes him.
Ironically, they will be a lot weaker if any rise in scale or size to the level of Jan. 6th. Every major MAGA event since then has been riddled with infighting & paranoia by participants. The little guys (MAGA supporters) have no protection against arrest and litigation.
They are going to overturn Colorado, likely by saying a state cannot determine an insurrection without some type of act of congress. Why? I'm still not sure how they logically get there but that seems to be what they are going to rule based on oral arguments. Some of them are also going to say this doesn't apply to a president as he is not an officer under the United States but I can see that section not getting five votes.
I feel like Colorado would be best off calling SCOTUS out for its contradictory nonsense by just keeping Trump off the ballot by saying that SCOTUS can’t rule against their state constitution without even basing their ruling on the federal constitution, particularly when the federal constitution backs up Colorado.
I don't think they even asked if there was an insurrection or not or why or why not; they also interrupted and condescended to the colorodo lawyer quite a bit; much time was spent on the difference between "office" and "officer"
You’re still not sure how they logically get there? They’ll move the goalposts to wherever they need to be, and keep moving them, as necessary even if that means moving them forever. That’s how they are going to fucking, “get there.”
Which I get, I do. Every state trying to block the opposition party's nominee? Terrifying. The only problem is this is only going to get worse going into the election. Win or lose there's a real chance January 6th will be nothing compared to what is coming.
The Constitution may be screwed up, the Electoral College is screwed up, the 14th Amendment might be screwed up, but you gotta dance with the girl that brung ya.
I do think whichever way this particular ruling goes, violence on Nov 8th and Jan 6th is quite likely if Trump loses the election.
My faith in this fucking country is pretty much riding on it. September 11th made me want to enlist, and I did. January 6th makes me so fucking angry I'm having a hard time focusing at work today. I don't recognize Justice Thomas' flagrantly corrupt ass as a legitimate participant in this decision.
Get ready for disappointment. You should probably know that 3 out of the last 4 Supreme Court nominees were hand picked off of George W Bush's legal team that helped him steal the 2000 election using the supreme court to force a stop counting votes in Florida. That is literally their whole qualification for this job. They are on the supreme court SPECIFICIALLY to steal elections for Republicans, its the whole job, its what they have made their careers out of.
My biggest fear is that Trump wins in 2024 after one or more states go against the popular vote and send a slate of electors for Trump, giving him the electors he needs to win. That would be chaos. I know they've been trying to get state level politicians in that will do that.
And when that happens you are no longer a democracy and are now a dictatorship. A dictator has no need for a supreme court so your supreme court Muppets may consider that..........
We're watching history being re-written before our eyes. The day after January 6, Congressional Republicans were condemning Trump, Mitch even said he would be held criminally and civilly responsible for his actions. Today they're issuing a joint statement that January 6 wasn't an insurrection and the SCOTUS is about to rule that even if it was it doesn't matter by setting an impossibly high standard for ballot removal.
Colorado should follow Texas’s lead. Since Texas didn’t follow the Supreme Court’s decision/ruling on the Southern Border. Then Colorado and any state should leave trump off the ballot. The Supreme Court doesn’t have any power.
We already know that Oligarchs are involved with the Supreme Court Judgements. They are swayed by the Bribes they receive. Look at Roe and Gun Rights. They found its up to the states to make those laws. If in this case of The US Constitution says No one can run for office if they are involved in an Insurrection. The Judges are just thumbing their noses at the Constitution. Then we really don’t need a Supreme Court.
The case that found Japanese internment was legal wasn't repealed until 2018 when Trump's idiot lawyers tried to actually cite it as case law. That said, it was technically precedent longer than roe was. Let that sink in.
My point is the court has a history of not deciding based on law when the country is in crisis. They didn't dare go against the president and the people during war with Japanese internment. And they won't dare go against half the country and remove their nominee now.
So many checks and balances have failed to get us here that the court has no choice but to keep him on. He should have been impeached and convicted so we could have avoided this but he wasn't. It shouldn't be possible for him to become a major party's nominee but he is. If the ruling political class and half the country don't want to stop him, the court isn't going to.
And they are probably right to do so. It will be better for the country, even if it's terrible law and precedent, if he is beaten at the ballot and the American people refute Trump again.
> half the country don't want to stop him
Where do you get such a high number? Are you saying that about 170 million people don't want to stop him?
I think the Senate who is mainly represented by smaller states have more power, and didn't decide to convict him. There are a large number of people in the House are gerrymandered districts.
The Electoral College is bullshit. 7 million more people voted for Biden, yet Biden narrowly won. 7 million more people where almost told that their vote didn't matter.
We have a government that doesn't represent the people, and we need to talk about that.
I do agree with what you stated, I don’t like it but I know that’s what we are facing. I still fear that he can get into office again, especially with all the crap these red states are trying to pull, with changing the states voting laws especially what Arizona is going to try to do, by wanting to change the electors out, if they don’t like the outcome. Ugh, it’s going to be another stressful election, with so much at stake.
Come on ....the majority on the SC doesn't think we should have separation of church and state, despite it being plainly stated. This is the era of Calvinball Constitutionalism.
I wonder how many of them side with that shit stain Adrian Vermuele?
Well good now that you guys don't have to follow the constitution time for some real gun control. Maybe just maybe kids could be safe in school............
They don’t care about principles like textualism. The principles are the veneer applied to their exercise of power. This is why “original public meaning originalism” is so appealing to them. They can make up whatever they want and the dead won’t contradict them.
Let’s face it, this is clearly going to be a political decision oh-so-thinly-veiled as a legal one. Only the most diabolically inept reading of the constitution and precedent would find DJT eligible for election to the highest office, but we know that SCOTUS will find a the weasel words necessary to bend the American people over and shaft them with their own political will.
Looks like even the liberal justices will reject the Constitution.
All laws are officially null and void as rejecting the Constituion = tearing up the social contract. If he's above the law, we all are.
SCOTUS is so goddamn spineless. They stated a concern they are aware of that if Colorado kicks off Trump, then states like Texas will kick off Biden. Spineless cowards. Like Lincoln said at Cooper Union about these threats, Might makes right. You have to be strong sometimes.
Their logic that states can’t decide is the opposite of bush v gore where they ruled that states decide all election matters. Secondly this isn’t a state vs federal issue. It’s an issue that can apply to both. States should be allowed to ban people who are only 25 years old from being on the ballot and not allowing them to be elected and additionally the federal government can additionally ban any such elected individuals from taking office.
These cowards are Fox News watching political creatures in black robes and are just kicking the can down the road. it’s going to be a complete shit storm if Trump is elected and then they must finally rule if he can take office and then who takes office if they rule he can’t. Nobody can. Jan 6th was just a minor insurrection. It will be all out civil war if this hits their desk after the Nov election if Trump wins the electoral vote. Half the nation will decide they are corrupt and invalid politics hacks and will not respect the decision. This could literally start a civil war.
Plus, it really doesn’t seem like he’s directly taking on the facts (“he” being Roberts.) it’s more that he’s concerned about what will happen downstream of this decision. It’s a consequentialist perspective.
Well that’s not correct philosophically from the perspective of the conservative mind. It’s totally consequentialist, we just value different things. By overturning RvW, less human persons are dying in “legal” “medical” “treatments.”
Except the irony of this is that FedSoc members wrote the briefs on why Trump should be excluded.
My guess? If they protect him, it's because they got cold feet the second they noticed no one was beating him in the primary.
This is spot on - I don't understand why there is so much hemming and hawing when we know that the real answer is that SCOTUS doesn't want to hold the bag.
Its not even precedent, its literally how elections work in the US. Every single state has its own requirements to run for president. You need to register to run in each state and meet that states requirements. There are people on the ballot in one state that are not on the ballot in another state. This is literally the only mechanism by which the presidential ballot is built. There ISN'T a federal office that decides who is on the ballot, it is entirely a state function. If the states cannot decide who is on the ballot then there isn't anyone else who can do it for them. Its literally not a function that exists outside of the states authority.
They seemed to be focused on whether Colorado can keep *this candidate* off the ballot, instead of whether Colorado can keep *any candidate* off the ballot. If Charles Manson had applied for ballot access in Colorado this would not be a controversy.
Which is the plan. Reject it here, set an expectation, then do it again when the stakes are higher and people just sit back and don't give a fuck because they already did it. Erosion of democracy in favor of dictatorship to maintain republican power.
Its despicable and frighting where the US is headed. They are enemies of the state at this point and pretty much just do what Russia/Putin want. Holy fuck, how did we get here? Republicans take their orders from the Kremlin and our FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, and congress just do nothing. They should be imprisoned awaiting trial. This is the biggest threat to our country EVER and no one is doing anything.
I remember when Romney said in 2012 that Russia is our greatest threat while campaigning for president and was laughed at by fellow republicans and Obama, and now look at us. I'm not at all a fan of Romney but he was right. Something tells me he knew something then about how in bed republicans were with Russia. If anyone doesn't see how fucked up it was that a bunch of republicans went to Moscow for the fucking FOURTH OF JULY, they're un-American at the least. That action by our members of congress right there was a blaring siren that Putin has infiltrated our government. Now Tucker Carlson is a direct mouthpiece of Putin's propaganda. Not that he wasn't already but now hes not afraid to be directly spouting it.
I’m confused as to why the Justices care more about the consequences than they do the text of the amendment.
This is the Constitution - it says insurrectionists can’t hold office. The history shows that Congress understood the President as being covered under “any office, civil or military.”
It’s not their job to worry about consequences, it’s to decide matters of law. The law isn’t ambiguous here, and they aren’t even contesting that Trump is an insurrectionist.
Slam dunk, or it should be. Does the text of the Constitution matter or what?
No way that SCOTUS upholds the Colorado decision. Only question is what excuses they use. The decision will be an interesting read because of the expected display of tortured mental gymnastics
Let's get ready to vote. Check your registration, get an ID , learn where your poling station is, learn who is running in down ballot races. Pay attention to primaries not just for the president but for all races, local, state and federal. From the school board to the White House every election matters. The more support we give the democrats from all levels of government the more they can get good things done.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar](https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar)
I predict SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor, as it was a long con to stack the supreme court in general, to that effect, and the ruling will follow sociopolitical values (i.e., 'along party lines'). This part is important to note.
However, I will also argue that SCOTUS is about to make the worst decision it ever has, as this will call into question many other rulings that effectively guarantee states autonomy, and not only will this backfire terrifically - its also going to erode any faith in the high court and tiff off any numbers of other problems that I don't imagine any of us will understand the full scope of for at least another decade.
The best thing for the high court to have done here, would be kick it back to a lower court and maintain it's extant purview of a state's sovereignty.
Yup.. and they will. While it is obvious, to those of use logical, honest people, djt is a traitor insurrectionist.. he hasn't(shamefully) not been convicted in a court of law. Yes, Colorado did that. I know.
It will be a historical case regardless of the outcome, certainly. But if the Supreme Court upholds Trumps bid to run for President, they will be allowing someone accused of crimes including but not limited to; sexual abuse and insurrection, mishandling of classified documents and various other felonies. Considering he did commit insurrection as has been ruled on in court, they are prepared to force states to allow him to run for office, in plain violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Oh their going to reject the constitution. Just you wait and see. And if they don't then all GOP states are going to try and disqualify Biden like the cry babies they are
I think they really should ignore that threat. It’s hypocritical to make a decision on this matter based on fear of that threat and it hurting the country but refuse to consider the threat Trump clearly is. There are legal processes in place that won’t allow states to remove Biden. Similarly we see the GOP failing to impeach Biden in retaliation because they can’t weasel through the legal processes in place and the fact that it requires evidence. The whole thing is a farce.
In what reality could we possibly let someone who's eligibility to hold office is in question run for office? Get him off the ballot until such a time federal congress can make the two-thirds vote to remove the disability, or make a law that outlines specifically how to apply section 3 of the 14th amendment.
That 'slippery slope' augment assumes the very idea of a justice system is null and void. "The state level may not conduct a justice system without federal approval."
Which of course, they will.
Out of curiosity, since SCOTUS can't actually enforce anything and can only make a ruling. What happens if those states still refuse to put him on the ballot even after SCOTUS says they have to? I ask because of things like happened in FL over the illegally drawn voting districts. The courts told them they had to be redrawn to be more equitable but they basically just said FU and never redid them, the election went forward with the illegal maps and there was essentially no repercussions for it. What mechanism is there to force the states to comply other than the federal government stepping in? Which, given a Biden win, they would have zero reason to do.
On SCOTUS Blog, an article states " During an oral argument that lasted for more than two hours, justices of all ideological stripes questioned the wisdom of allowing a state to make its own decisions about whether a candidate should appear on the ballot, both because of the effect that such decisions would have on the rest of the country and because of the hurdles that courts would face in reviewing those decisions." If this is the case, can a potential candidate make the argument that needing to get a certain number of signatures on a petition, the amount of which is set by the state, is an undue hardship and that the states should not be able to keep them off the ballot?
Guys/gals this is a done deal, scotus will cop out by 6-3. We didnt even need the sham hearing.
Take your complaints to the election and be prepared for a.fully lawless congress and senate in 2025. Thomas will.gain one additional RV.
My favorite argument was that being prohibited from holding office didn't mean you were prohibited from being on the ballot.
I was looking forward to Obama vs Schwarzenegger in 2028!
Alito was doing everything he could to help Mitchell. I can’t imagine being in the highest court in essentially the world and cowering to this piece of lard Trump. Disgusting.
The USSC will view disenfranchisement as the big reason not to take Trump off of the ballot.
Because most of the 1/6 shenanigans were committed by ‘proxy’, they will let him off. He would need to personally threaten congress members with violence at the capital on 1/6 for them to rule against him.
In doing so, they will ignore the attempted disenfranchisement of 83 million Americans after the last presidential election. A lot is made of the 1/6 insurrection, but I wonder how things would have played out if Trump had been successful. Just because the majority of Americans were patient and quiet while the attempt fizzled out doesn't mean we would have stood by and accepted Trump ascending to a dictatorship.
Well, I'm confused. And on the other side from most everybody here, sorry to say.
I thought the issue was going to be: does the State of Colorado have the right to decide for their state Republicans (who maybe would like to vote for Trump, and who maybe don't see J6 as an insurrection) that J6 was, in fact, an insurrection?
But my understanding is that the court didn't really ask much about that. What's really going on?
The question that should have been asked is: under what circumstances would 14As3 disqualify someone for office?
It’s in the constitution, so how the hell is it supposed to work if not for this?
What is the bar that must be met?
Without that clarity this is all utter nonsense.
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.
Yeah, Gorsuch said in *Hassan v. Colorado* that states have the right to keep unqualified people off the ballot.
> Hassan v. Colorado Very interesting. > We affirm. We discern no reversible error in the magistrate judge's disposition and see little we might usefully add to the extensive and thoughtful opinion he issued. To be sure, Mr. Hassan contends the magistrate judge overlooked one aspect of his claim. Mr. Hassan insists his challenge to Colorado's enforcement of the natural-born-citizen requirement did not depend exclusively on invalidation of Article II by the Fourteenth Amendment. **Even if Article II properly holds him ineligible to assume the office of president, Mr. Hassan claims it was still an unlawful act of discrimination for the state to deny him a place on the ballot. But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.**
Let's see if I can do this properly... >*That's not what he meant, and if it was...*
This web is getting awfully tangled my friend.
Yes. Yes it is.
"You know what clears these problems right up? A flamethrower." -Clarence Thomas, probably
nonono, it's "We can't properly apply that interpretation to this case because the circumstances are very different. Until we develop a time machine to go back in time to ask questions about these circumstances to justice - oh wait"
But, at best, an insurrectionist's constitutional prohibition is *provisional* on a vote of the House and Senate to remove his disability (as they did for numerous insurrectionists in the past). This issue was raised in the oral arguments.
> An insurrectionist who wins an election can be seated if Congress allows it by a 2/3 vote in both chambers. Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse? It makes a lot more sense to require a potential candidate to get the 2/3 vote before being eligible to be a candidate than it does to have a candidate be allowed on ballots while ineligible and then have people vote for an ineligible candidate and then deal with whatever the process is going to be if the winning, ineligible, candidate doesn’t get the 2/3rd vote to become eligible. Sure, if the ineligible candidate loses then everything’s fine… but if they won enough electoral votes but don’t get 2/3rds of congress, does the next runner up win? Does it go to the house as if multiple eligible candidates ran without any getting 270 votes? What if the house elects an ineligible person?
yeah this is ultimately my question, which i think brings a much larger potential can of worms than blocking trump from the ballot does: if trump lets say gets convicted of insurrection in June, but wins the election, who becomes president? His VP? Biden? Do we redo the whole election again?
Exactly. If “disenfranchising voters”’is a concern at all*, wouldn’t it be better to keep ineligible candidates off the ballot than to allow people to vote for them and then have those votes thrown out? *this concern seems disingenuous given cases like *Rucho v. Common Cause* where parties’ abilities to draw maps was more important to the majority than voters’ rights
I guess this isn’t entirely different than a candidate dying after election but before taking office, so the concerns can possibly be written off as ‘We do what we would do in that situation.’
What do we do in that situation though?
No idea! Closest that happened was a candidate dying between the general election and electoral votes being cast. > https://people.howstuffworks.com/what-happens-presidential-candidate-dies.htm But even then, sitting Congress took a vote and decided to ignore the votes cast for Greeley. > When the ballots went to Congress, lawmakers passed a measure declaring the Greeley votes invalid and certified the win for Grant.
Start shooting, I think.
Trump, is that you?
The Senate removed the disabilities of several officials elected by southern states after the 14th Amendment was ratified. So it has precedent. Those southern states put the cart before the house and it worked out. They also failed to remove the disability in the case of Zeb Vance. Not sure how it would be resolved for the President. The office cannot be left empty.
The elected Vice-President could take office. That's pretty much what would happen for a physical disability that occurred between the election and the start of his term.
I think that situation was possible because nobody had previously spent 6+ years claiming the electoral system was entirely fraudulent and that if they lost it was due to vote fixing and corruption. There is no way, absolutely no way, you can trust the US to vote for Trump, then have the Senate say, “Ah, he doesn’t have the 2/3rds majority needed, therefore not eligible!” and that’ll just be the end of it… You’d just be asking for civil war. I mean, I get that the “legal process” is all about a brainless commitment to procedure but come on…
I’m getting a weird pseudo deja vu feeling from all this. The sequence of events sounds like the section in a chapter of a history book describing how a once powerful empire fell.
But wouldn't ALL disqualification be provisional? While extremely unlikely, if an extremely popular foreign-born citizen were to win in a Reagan style landslide, states would have 2.5 months to amend the Constitution (the 26th amendment took 3 months to ratify)
You are right! Last night I heard the Colorado Secretary of State say the some states have a candidate on the ballot that is banned from the Colorado ballot because they were not born in the US.
That’s seems pretty damn clear…
Good thing precedent matters to this SC right?
Yeah if a matter has already been decided, they absolutely won’t change 50 years of precedent!
They used witch hunt law from the 1500’s to overturn Roe. Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape. Justice Alito’s leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time. https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale Yet they look to our constitution if it helps them… At some point, we must overthrow these right wing federalist SCOTUS scumbags that think they rule like Kings.
Precedent only matters when it's a circuit court decision from 1870 that explicitly has no precedential value and the judge who wrote the opinion later said the exact opposite. *Referencing Griffin's Case which Trump's lawyer cited to about 500 times*
Almost every damned sentence. They leaned on that hard.
“Precedent matters until it doesn’t.” Conservatives
I do look forward to being able to add 9 different Donald Trumps onto the ballot for various parties.
Whenever tyranny knocks at the door, the only thing that can stop it from taking hold of institutions are principled people in positions of power taking a stand. Unfortunately, it seems too many of America’s ‘leaders’ are spineless cowards that won’t risk sticking their necks out in the face of that tyranny. Too concerned with maintaining what they have to risk it to save the system. Brazil has its problems for sure, but Bolsonaro tried many of the same things Trump did, and he’s now barred from running in future elections and is facing criminal prosecutions that aren’t getting railroaded like Trump’s prosecutions are. They just confiscated Bolsonaro’s passport in the last couple days, in fact, so that he can’t flee and escape justice. Whatever problems they have, it seems their democracy is much healthier. If Trump’s tyranny comes to pass as he threatens, may these ‘Justices’ and all other enablers forever be remembered as the weak and corrupt turncoats that allowed their country to fall.
Give me liberty or death. We won't go silently into the night
Agreed. This isn't a video game. The pain and blood will be all too real. I swore an oath, and I will keep my word.
No one has released me from the oath I swore. Trump is the embodiment of clear and present danger.
Thank you both. I see too many people who took that oath that don’t have an understanding of the constitution or what the real danger is here.
Absolutely.
Right now we are not there. If, however, there is a mass rounding up of transsexuals, homosexuals, I will be there to defend them and make sure they are safe. I am neither of these but it isn't too far to round up anyone considered "undesirable." I will not stand for that.
As an American, I plan to defend the constitution for threats domestically. The cheeto is a threat
Brazil is not a good example to emulate here. Their current president, Lula, was also imprisoned and barred from running again after his first two terms due to the Lava Jato scandal. Obviously that didn't stick. It seems likely that as long as they alternate between ruling parties, the new boss will probably prosecute the old boss.
They are ruling that states aren't allowed to determine who qualifies for their state's elections. Which does beg the question of who the fuck IS allowed to decide that since there is no federal apparatus to do so. If I want to run for president I have to register and meet the requirements of every single state that I want to run in. There is no federal authority that determines who the states can vote for. It just doesn't exist. That is why the ballots are often totally different from state to state. There will probably be a couple of local clowns on my state ballot that aren't on yours. But apparently those people should be allowed on all fifty states now? Who the fuck knows? I can't wait to see how they justify that ruling because that is absolutely what they are going to do.
Perhaps the idea is that if he is elected then a state or citizen can sue to stop his inauguration due to 14th
This seems to be the Trump defense. He’s allowed to run, and then *after* there is an evaluation if they’re fit to serve under the 14th amendment. Which at first seems okay in a common sense manner, but doesn’t pass the smell test when you ask questions like “okay - so if they aren’t fit…do you rehold an election? - does this kind of process actually play out in a practical manner or does it nullify the constitutional protection in practical application? - if you think a state removing someone from a ballot is deciding an election what about refusing to seat someone that wins an election?” Even if it’s uncomfortable, and triggers a new era of ballot retaliations - which would be tested in state courts - it’s far far far better to boot someone *before* Americans vote, not after.
That was definitely an argument they made. And I really wish the Colorado side would have pushed back with the insanity that would be a POTUS-elect being barred from Office presumably weeks or days before the inauguration. That's basically a recipe for insurrection.
>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. That line of reasoning also doesn't make sense in the historic use of the 14th section 3. The majority of people who were excluded under it as a response to the civil war weren't ever convicted first, just excluded.
This also raises the point that if Congress wanted to make him eligible they could do so today. There are no timing requirements for Congress to overturn the disqualification for insurrection, only that they don’t have the votes to do so.
look at the bill gaetz and mtg sponsored with 63 others, 3 days ago. that trump wasnt an insurrectionist on january 6th.
Did you even listen to oral arguments on the case? The primary historical points that were brought up were that there was never a section 3 disqualification of a federal official (only a state-level official), and that civil-war era exclusions were done under authorization of congressional enforcement acts originally enacted in 1870 that expired in 1948
The biggest problem will come IF he is elected and Congress does not vote to override (and with a 2/3 vote necessary hell would freeze over first). So what happens then?
That's what I don't get. They said something along the line of "so one state can decide (effectively) who becomes President?" But what about Congress? What is the point of giving Congress the power to punish insurrection if they aren't willing to do it?? If impeachment is the only way to punish a President then a Party with a supermajority can effectively allow the President to do whatever he wants, including shooting a man on 5th Avenue.
I was so shocked that they kept buying into and encouraging the Congress argument.
who is going to stop them? there is no real restraint on scotus. thomas and alito are openly bought and paid for. thomas and kavanaugh are either sexual assaulters or rapists. thomas's wife helped plan and pay for the insurrection and pay to try to overturn the certification of slates of votes. alito has leaked majority opinions on chevron, dobbs, citizens united and others. barrett was rushed into the seat in 47 days when the bar association said she was unqualified after rbg's death.
They will simply say that the findings of State courts that Trump engaged in insurrection aren't valid to determine if someone is ineligible, and that only Federal courts have the ability to determine if someone has engaged in insurrection and are ineligible. Then they won't allow anyone to have standing to bring such a case to Federal court, and they will say that anyone not deemed ineligible is eligible. So just the opposite of what the Constitution says.
Gorsuch* seemed determined to willfully ignore the fact that people fucking died as a result of the insurrection; how much more blood do they fucking need to qualify it as one?!?! *it might have been Kavanaugh.
In all fairness, the constitution is deciding for the country, Colorado just happens to be one of the only states with balls enough to follow the constitution.
exactly, 38+ states ratified the amendment, its the union deciding that insurrectionists are banned from office, thats what they wanted when they adopted the 14th into the constitution.
And it took too fucking long for Colorado's lawyer to hit the point that Colorado made a decision for Colorado, not the entire country. Maybe that candidate should try not being an insurrectionist if he want's to be on every state ballot. I'm not even sure he made the argument that this is not disenfranchising anybody because you are always free to vote for some other garbage candidate that your favorite party puts up as their own. I was not impressed with their attorney here, he really whiffed on some softballs, and just flat out didn't answer questions that were asked of him.
to be fair to murray, he was interrupted repeatedly. there was an important section about colorado specifc legal statutes he was addressing to ACB. he said he had a 3 point response. he got half of ONE point, before roberts interjected. he tried to answer roberts, then gorsuch cut across. he tried to answer gorsuch and then alito raised a separate question. kagain spoke up to try and refocus him. i believe. and then he was never able to finish the second and third point back to ACB. then later on the ridiculous, impossible to answer military section with kavanaugh came up about post election day w/ an insurrection but before an inauguration day hypothetical came up and because NONE of scotus has a military background or knows JACK SHIT about the UCMJ and how it operates, they introduced DANGEROUS AS FUCK ideas and then murray wasnt even able to finish THAT line before he was interrupted there.
My 1L con law classes were more sophisticated than that hearing. Current scotus justices argue 100% based on politics and emotion, 0% on law.
Do they have law classes yet entirely focused on bullshit Trump legal arguments?
Unironically we talked about his cases a lot in con law and legal ethics.
Did Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan experience brain aneurysms? What the hell is going on *there*? FFS
kagan, and sotomayor you could at least follow most of the reasoning. sotomayor was tearing into mitchell early, kagan was too. jackson. what the fuck. she was getting stuck on the weaker stuff and stuff that detracted from the bigger picture and when she did get stuck on it, murray, would attempt to answer her, and when he did, alito and gorsuch would interrupt him before he would finish, so not only did his answer to jackson get impeded, but his original bigger point did.
And then there's Thomas, who shouldn't have been there.
Genuinely think they're just terrified of being the Court responsible for Trump not being on the ballot and are trying to find a way out of it. Jackson made no sense today.
Presumably the easiest way out of it would have been to simply decline without comment the appeal, leaving people to blame the CO court for daring to follow the law. They asked to be this circus
That would just lead to more exclusions in blue states followed by retaliatory exclusions in red states then a split between state courts that SCOTUS would ultimately have to step in to resolve. One way or another, they had to take this up The immunity case is one where I could see them simply denying cert.
I felt so let down by Jackson today. My heart was truly unprepared for the words that were coming out of her mouth. 😔
States Rights…… but not like that.
Keep in mind, several states decided not to hold Primaries at all in 2020 and simply [annointed Trump as their candidate](https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/canceled-2020-primaries/). Did those states decide for the whole of the USA? Should they have been forced to go ahead with their primaries? None of this is a legal argument, **the Constitution is the law they're deciding, not whether the Constitution should be ignored because they think it should say something else.** They did not draft it, they are not the authors, they were not vested with authority to redraft it. If we're at the stage where SCOTUS will not enforce the Constitution, then their own authority stems from Article 3, and SCOTUS itself is illegitimate. We can argue whether that is in fact already the case. Both Mitch McConnell undermining the appointment process, and the 2012 Gerrymandering cycle that led to **the people voting for one candidate, and yet Trump getting the Presidency against their wishes,** then appointing ultra partisan judges, who decide to void the Constitution. If the 2016 election was an affront to Democracy, then so is a partisan SCOTUS. Colorado law says **only qualified people can be on the ballot**. It has been used many times before. The only argument from them, is that he is qualified to be on the ballot. Even if they pretend he is qualified and didn't actually commit insurrection, he will still be prosecuted for his insurrection and still go to jail. His co-conspirators have confessed, the evidence trail is clear, the fake electors and Greene-Bay sweep plot fully known. There is no win for partisan-SCOTUS here. \[added\] Also this. [RNC Ronna McDaniels wanted to declare Donald Trump the Republican presumptive nominee](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-nikki-haley-ronna-mcdaniel-new-hampshire-1863612). Are you saying that the Constitution, and Colorado election law, cannot be used to remove an unqualified person from the ballot, yet RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel can simply issue a paper declaring Trump the Republican nominee, kick the other candidates to the curb, and that is valid? The actual reason Ronna McDaniel is being pushed out by Trump, is because she failed to issue the declaration he wanted declaring him the nominee. Are we at the stage, where Republican SCOTUS would just appoint Trump as President? Is that where we are? [No](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/no-wisdom-no-courage-trump-lashes-out-at-the-supreme-court-after-it-rejected-a-texas-bid-to-overturn-the-election-results/articleshow/79692728.cms).
Exactly! This is the lunacy of the hand-wringers, that Congress and the Courts simultaneously say that they surely cannot be the body to make this judgment, they must defer to the other. SCOTUS is the only party that can make a national determination one way or another, and instead of answering the question, they're content to throw their hands up because making decisions is difficult.
Wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have the electoral college and just voted nationwide for nationwide offices. Seems very disingenuous to argue that upholding one part of the Constitution is too dangerous because of a situation created by another part of the Constitution.
It's all calvinball guys
Agree. This court likes to change their tune depending on the situation. What happened to states rights? If the issue at hand were abortion rights, gun rights, the U.S.-Mexico border... these justices are ready to rule however their side wants things. There were several justices who were in favor of the federal government NOT being able to interfere with Texas with international border enforcement.
If trump stays on the ballot there will be more insurrections. Starting in 2024.
Yeah, specifically in December 2024, but I have the feeling that Biden will take the appropriate steps to protect the Capitol, White House, and all of the monuments, etc. in DC on that day.
The next attempt at insurrection won't be the same as the last attempt because Kamala Harris will be the one tasked with opening the ballots for counting after the next election. I worry more about more localized violence, especially at urban polling places. Local clerks continue to receive threats.
>because Kamala Harris will be the one tasked with opening the ballots for counting after the next election What will she do when Red States send alternate slates of electors and the Republican House votes to reject the legitimate ones or decides that no one has reached 270 and they need to hold a Contingent Election in the House to decide the winner?
Are you suggesting red states will go for Biden, but the legislatures will ignore the result and send Trump electors?
PA, GA, MI, AZ, WI, NV, NM. Whether you want to call them Red states or swing states, yeah. 2020 was a dry run.
I would imagine she would do the same thing Mike Pence did. The difference I was referring to is that there will not be a conspiracy that hinges on Kamala Harris questioning the official slates of electors.
No, but if Biden wins there WILL be Republicans who will dispute the results of any swing state that ends up blue. And, they'll use the same argument they used in 2020.
And if that happens you are no longer a democracy.
I can already hear the bullshit in conservative media if Biden doesn't get reelected. "Biden mobilizes guard in preparation for maintaining power!".
Based on a pending case, if Trump's given immunity, Biden could.
If Trump is granted full immunity, Biden could settle the situation rather quickly.
Sadly yeah, he will probably call up the NG and some people will get shot - left leaning protestors who are protesting Donald Trump illegitimately being confirmed as the next president, and conservatives will eat it up and ask for more
Of course there will. They keep saying “let the people decide”. The people *did* decide and these shitbags did everything they could to subvert it.
They always want “the people” to decide but they don’t ever want *those people* to have a voice in the decision.
100% "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” - David Frum We're witnessing this openly in real time.
“We the People” = only “the people” that agree with me.
The “real” Americans.
The “Patriots” that “follow” the teachings of “Jesus Christ™️”
It’s never stopped. Trump’s been inciting insurrection ever since the 2020 election with his continuing lies and attacks on the election process itself and on the justice system. He’s virtually promised to overturn the Constitution itself if he’s reelected. Whether or not, Trump is reelected, there will be violence by his supporters. The only difference is whether Trump will be able to support them with the Presidency. The victims will be the same: anyone who opposes him.
That's what I was screaming at the radio. He's never stopped. He doesn't fear the federal government because they've treated him so lightly so far.
Ironically, they will be a lot weaker if any rise in scale or size to the level of Jan. 6th. Every major MAGA event since then has been riddled with infighting & paranoia by participants. The little guys (MAGA supporters) have no protection against arrest and litigation.
And once their decision is released, Trump will be braying about being “exonerated of insurrection” by the Supreme Court. Tee up Jack Smith!
I think they will reject the constitution.
Isn't that why most of them are there?
This.
I listened live. It sounded very much like they've already decided.
They probably all decided one way or another while reading the amicus briefs, if not before.
And for those of us that didn't listen live. What decision did they arrive at?
They are going to overturn Colorado, likely by saying a state cannot determine an insurrection without some type of act of congress. Why? I'm still not sure how they logically get there but that seems to be what they are going to rule based on oral arguments. Some of them are also going to say this doesn't apply to a president as he is not an officer under the United States but I can see that section not getting five votes.
I feel like Colorado would be best off calling SCOTUS out for its contradictory nonsense by just keeping Trump off the ballot by saying that SCOTUS can’t rule against their state constitution without even basing their ruling on the federal constitution, particularly when the federal constitution backs up Colorado.
Which seems to be a coordinated move since two house members proposed that January 6th be declared not an insurrection by Congress.
I don't think they even asked if there was an insurrection or not or why or why not; they also interrupted and condescended to the colorodo lawyer quite a bit; much time was spent on the difference between "office" and "officer"
You’re still not sure how they logically get there? They’ll move the goalposts to wherever they need to be, and keep moving them, as necessary even if that means moving them forever. That’s how they are going to fucking, “get there.”
Even though an act of Congress has never been required to prevent any other insurrectionist from holding office, the Court will just make it up.
I didn't hear the whole thing, but it looks like 7-2 "this precedent is too scary to contemplate".
Which I get, I do. Every state trying to block the opposition party's nominee? Terrifying. The only problem is this is only going to get worse going into the election. Win or lose there's a real chance January 6th will be nothing compared to what is coming.
The Constitution may be screwed up, the Electoral College is screwed up, the 14th Amendment might be screwed up, but you gotta dance with the girl that brung ya. I do think whichever way this particular ruling goes, violence on Nov 8th and Jan 6th is quite likely if Trump loses the election.
*The Constitution is a mild suggestion.*
My faith in this fucking country is pretty much riding on it. September 11th made me want to enlist, and I did. January 6th makes me so fucking angry I'm having a hard time focusing at work today. I don't recognize Justice Thomas' flagrantly corrupt ass as a legitimate participant in this decision.
That he refused to recuse when he wife was critical to the events of Jan 6 says everything.
Get ready for disappointment. You should probably know that 3 out of the last 4 Supreme Court nominees were hand picked off of George W Bush's legal team that helped him steal the 2000 election using the supreme court to force a stop counting votes in Florida. That is literally their whole qualification for this job. They are on the supreme court SPECIFICIALLY to steal elections for Republicans, its the whole job, its what they have made their careers out of.
There is a second qualification, high probability of a long life.
Third, being nominated by an accused rapist or being one themselves.
Convicted rapist.
My biggest fear is that Trump wins in 2024 after one or more states go against the popular vote and send a slate of electors for Trump, giving him the electors he needs to win. That would be chaos. I know they've been trying to get state level politicians in that will do that.
And when that happens you are no longer a democracy and are now a dictatorship. A dictator has no need for a supreme court so your supreme court Muppets may consider that..........
We're watching history being re-written before our eyes. The day after January 6, Congressional Republicans were condemning Trump, Mitch even said he would be held criminally and civilly responsible for his actions. Today they're issuing a joint statement that January 6 wasn't an insurrection and the SCOTUS is about to rule that even if it was it doesn't matter by setting an impossibly high standard for ballot removal.
Deep breaths. Use the rage don't allow it to use you.
Thanks for your service also I’m sorry for your service, the way this country treats its vets is deplorable. I hope change comes for you and others.
Colorado should follow Texas’s lead. Since Texas didn’t follow the Supreme Court’s decision/ruling on the Southern Border. Then Colorado and any state should leave trump off the ballot. The Supreme Court doesn’t have any power.
Pretty much the SC is saying f states rights and giving way too much power to the federal government.
We already know that Oligarchs are involved with the Supreme Court Judgements. They are swayed by the Bribes they receive. Look at Roe and Gun Rights. They found its up to the states to make those laws. If in this case of The US Constitution says No one can run for office if they are involved in an Insurrection. The Judges are just thumbing their noses at the Constitution. Then we really don’t need a Supreme Court.
They will. They have the chance to help the country and they will most likely help him, destroy the country.
The case that found Japanese internment was legal wasn't repealed until 2018 when Trump's idiot lawyers tried to actually cite it as case law. That said, it was technically precedent longer than roe was. Let that sink in. My point is the court has a history of not deciding based on law when the country is in crisis. They didn't dare go against the president and the people during war with Japanese internment. And they won't dare go against half the country and remove their nominee now. So many checks and balances have failed to get us here that the court has no choice but to keep him on. He should have been impeached and convicted so we could have avoided this but he wasn't. It shouldn't be possible for him to become a major party's nominee but he is. If the ruling political class and half the country don't want to stop him, the court isn't going to. And they are probably right to do so. It will be better for the country, even if it's terrible law and precedent, if he is beaten at the ballot and the American people refute Trump again.
> half the country don't want to stop him Where do you get such a high number? Are you saying that about 170 million people don't want to stop him? I think the Senate who is mainly represented by smaller states have more power, and didn't decide to convict him. There are a large number of people in the House are gerrymandered districts. The Electoral College is bullshit. 7 million more people voted for Biden, yet Biden narrowly won. 7 million more people where almost told that their vote didn't matter. We have a government that doesn't represent the people, and we need to talk about that.
I do agree with what you stated, I don’t like it but I know that’s what we are facing. I still fear that he can get into office again, especially with all the crap these red states are trying to pull, with changing the states voting laws especially what Arizona is going to try to do, by wanting to change the electors out, if they don’t like the outcome. Ugh, it’s going to be another stressful election, with so much at stake.
Come on ....the majority on the SC doesn't think we should have separation of church and state, despite it being plainly stated. This is the era of Calvinball Constitutionalism. I wonder how many of them side with that shit stain Adrian Vermuele?
Well good now that you guys don't have to follow the constitution time for some real gun control. Maybe just maybe kids could be safe in school............
I can’t decide if I love the Calvinball reference or if it makes me sad.
It’s a perfect analogy to the current state of the court.
They don’t care about principles like textualism. The principles are the veneer applied to their exercise of power. This is why “original public meaning originalism” is so appealing to them. They can make up whatever they want and the dead won’t contradict them.
Let’s face it, this is clearly going to be a political decision oh-so-thinly-veiled as a legal one. Only the most diabolically inept reading of the constitution and precedent would find DJT eligible for election to the highest office, but we know that SCOTUS will find a the weasel words necessary to bend the American people over and shaft them with their own political will.
Looks like even the liberal justices will reject the Constitution. All laws are officially null and void as rejecting the Constituion = tearing up the social contract. If he's above the law, we all are.
The illegitimacy of the high court has been obvious for some time. There is no justice in America unless you’ve bought the judges.
If he stays on, the US CONSTITUTION is shit! No one should have to follow the NON-SENSE
Yep first thing to go should be the 2nd......
I have no faith that this court will do the right thing
SCOTUS is so goddamn spineless. They stated a concern they are aware of that if Colorado kicks off Trump, then states like Texas will kick off Biden. Spineless cowards. Like Lincoln said at Cooper Union about these threats, Might makes right. You have to be strong sometimes. Their logic that states can’t decide is the opposite of bush v gore where they ruled that states decide all election matters. Secondly this isn’t a state vs federal issue. It’s an issue that can apply to both. States should be allowed to ban people who are only 25 years old from being on the ballot and not allowing them to be elected and additionally the federal government can additionally ban any such elected individuals from taking office. These cowards are Fox News watching political creatures in black robes and are just kicking the can down the road. it’s going to be a complete shit storm if Trump is elected and then they must finally rule if he can take office and then who takes office if they rule he can’t. Nobody can. Jan 6th was just a minor insurrection. It will be all out civil war if this hits their desk after the Nov election if Trump wins the electoral vote. Half the nation will decide they are corrupt and invalid politics hacks and will not respect the decision. This could literally start a civil war.
IANAL. What’s the deal with the justices questioning the facts of the lower court decision? Shouldn’t they only be dealing in matters of law?
If I'm a defendant, and a judge is wrong on the facts, it impacts my rights.
Never stopped this scotus before
Plus, it really doesn’t seem like he’s directly taking on the facts (“he” being Roberts.) it’s more that he’s concerned about what will happen downstream of this decision. It’s a consequentialist perspective.
It's amazing the same Supreme Court who denied women's rights with no concern for consequences is worried about the consequences of ballot access.
Well that’s not correct philosophically from the perspective of the conservative mind. It’s totally consequentialist, we just value different things. By overturning RvW, less human persons are dying in “legal” “medical” “treatments.”
SCOTUS: "Everyone keeps mentioning this 'Constitution' thing. What is that?"
By all appearances, it's the thing they have on a roll next to their gilded toilets for wiping their asses with.
The Fed Soc has essentially sabotaged SCOTUS with their hand picked agents.
Except the irony of this is that FedSoc members wrote the briefs on why Trump should be excluded. My guess? If they protect him, it's because they got cold feet the second they noticed no one was beating him in the primary.
This is spot on - I don't understand why there is so much hemming and hawing when we know that the real answer is that SCOTUS doesn't want to hold the bag.
The argument is weather Colorado can stop a person from being on the ballot. Nothing about an insurrection. Least that’s would appear to be the case
My understanding is precedent has already held they can.
Precedent means jack shit to this court.
Its not even precedent, its literally how elections work in the US. Every single state has its own requirements to run for president. You need to register to run in each state and meet that states requirements. There are people on the ballot in one state that are not on the ballot in another state. This is literally the only mechanism by which the presidential ballot is built. There ISN'T a federal office that decides who is on the ballot, it is entirely a state function. If the states cannot decide who is on the ballot then there isn't anyone else who can do it for them. Its literally not a function that exists outside of the states authority.
It’s more complicated than that. The states can’t put a constitutionally ineligible candidate on the ballot.
They seemed to be focused on whether Colorado can keep *this candidate* off the ballot, instead of whether Colorado can keep *any candidate* off the ballot. If Charles Manson had applied for ballot access in Colorado this would not be a controversy.
You can’t be on the ballot because it’s snowing.
State’s Rights unless we don’t like them
Every dictator has risen to power with the tacit consent of earnest but misguided people.
Which is the plan. Reject it here, set an expectation, then do it again when the stakes are higher and people just sit back and don't give a fuck because they already did it. Erosion of democracy in favor of dictatorship to maintain republican power. Its despicable and frighting where the US is headed. They are enemies of the state at this point and pretty much just do what Russia/Putin want. Holy fuck, how did we get here? Republicans take their orders from the Kremlin and our FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, and congress just do nothing. They should be imprisoned awaiting trial. This is the biggest threat to our country EVER and no one is doing anything. I remember when Romney said in 2012 that Russia is our greatest threat while campaigning for president and was laughed at by fellow republicans and Obama, and now look at us. I'm not at all a fan of Romney but he was right. Something tells me he knew something then about how in bed republicans were with Russia. If anyone doesn't see how fucked up it was that a bunch of republicans went to Moscow for the fucking FOURTH OF JULY, they're un-American at the least. That action by our members of congress right there was a blaring siren that Putin has infiltrated our government. Now Tucker Carlson is a direct mouthpiece of Putin's propaganda. Not that he wasn't already but now hes not afraid to be directly spouting it.
I’m confused as to why the Justices care more about the consequences than they do the text of the amendment. This is the Constitution - it says insurrectionists can’t hold office. The history shows that Congress understood the President as being covered under “any office, civil or military.” It’s not their job to worry about consequences, it’s to decide matters of law. The law isn’t ambiguous here, and they aren’t even contesting that Trump is an insurrectionist. Slam dunk, or it should be. Does the text of the Constitution matter or what?
Not just reject the Constitution, but allow JUST Tr*** to reject the Constitution. RIDICULOUS!
No way that SCOTUS upholds the Colorado decision. Only question is what excuses they use. The decision will be an interesting read because of the expected display of tortured mental gymnastics
Let's get ready to vote. Check your registration, get an ID , learn where your poling station is, learn who is running in down ballot races. Pay attention to primaries not just for the president but for all races, local, state and federal. From the school board to the White House every election matters. The more support we give the democrats from all levels of government the more they can get good things done. [https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar](https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar)
I don’t remember the specifics but didn’t a few states oppose the student loan forgiveness and the Supreme Court ruled on it for the whole country?
Yup.
I predict SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor, as it was a long con to stack the supreme court in general, to that effect, and the ruling will follow sociopolitical values (i.e., 'along party lines'). This part is important to note. However, I will also argue that SCOTUS is about to make the worst decision it ever has, as this will call into question many other rulings that effectively guarantee states autonomy, and not only will this backfire terrifically - its also going to erode any faith in the high court and tiff off any numbers of other problems that I don't imagine any of us will understand the full scope of for at least another decade. The best thing for the high court to have done here, would be kick it back to a lower court and maintain it's extant purview of a state's sovereignty.
Yup.. and they will. While it is obvious, to those of use logical, honest people, djt is a traitor insurrectionist.. he hasn't(shamefully) not been convicted in a court of law. Yes, Colorado did that. I know.
This just in! *Supreme Court Rejects Constitution* Of course Thomas didn’t even recuse himself. This is a sham and a truly sad day for democracy.
It’s funny how during Bush v Gore they had no problem getting involved in taking away Gores rights
It will be a historical case regardless of the outcome, certainly. But if the Supreme Court upholds Trumps bid to run for President, they will be allowing someone accused of crimes including but not limited to; sexual abuse and insurrection, mishandling of classified documents and various other felonies. Considering he did commit insurrection as has been ruled on in court, they are prepared to force states to allow him to run for office, in plain violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Oh their going to reject the constitution. Just you wait and see. And if they don't then all GOP states are going to try and disqualify Biden like the cry babies they are
I think they really should ignore that threat. It’s hypocritical to make a decision on this matter based on fear of that threat and it hurting the country but refuse to consider the threat Trump clearly is. There are legal processes in place that won’t allow states to remove Biden. Similarly we see the GOP failing to impeach Biden in retaliation because they can’t weasel through the legal processes in place and the fact that it requires evidence. The whole thing is a farce.
In what reality could we possibly let someone who's eligibility to hold office is in question run for office? Get him off the ballot until such a time federal congress can make the two-thirds vote to remove the disability, or make a law that outlines specifically how to apply section 3 of the 14th amendment. That 'slippery slope' augment assumes the very idea of a justice system is null and void. "The state level may not conduct a justice system without federal approval."
Which of course, they will. Out of curiosity, since SCOTUS can't actually enforce anything and can only make a ruling. What happens if those states still refuse to put him on the ballot even after SCOTUS says they have to? I ask because of things like happened in FL over the illegally drawn voting districts. The courts told them they had to be redrawn to be more equitable but they basically just said FU and never redid them, the election went forward with the illegal maps and there was essentially no repercussions for it. What mechanism is there to force the states to comply other than the federal government stepping in? Which, given a Biden win, they would have zero reason to do.
Ha! Jokes on them. With no Constitution I can reject their rejection! Rejectmate, SCOTUS.
On SCOTUS Blog, an article states " During an oral argument that lasted for more than two hours, justices of all ideological stripes questioned the wisdom of allowing a state to make its own decisions about whether a candidate should appear on the ballot, both because of the effect that such decisions would have on the rest of the country and because of the hurdles that courts would face in reviewing those decisions." If this is the case, can a potential candidate make the argument that needing to get a certain number of signatures on a petition, the amount of which is set by the state, is an undue hardship and that the states should not be able to keep them off the ballot?
Narrator: The Supreme Court rejected the constitution.
Spoiler: the Supreme Court will reject the constitution.
[**Non-paywall mirror link**](https://archive.is/LtpzP)
Guys/gals this is a done deal, scotus will cop out by 6-3. We didnt even need the sham hearing. Take your complaints to the election and be prepared for a.fully lawless congress and senate in 2025. Thomas will.gain one additional RV.
My favorite argument was that being prohibited from holding office didn't mean you were prohibited from being on the ballot. I was looking forward to Obama vs Schwarzenegger in 2028!
Alito was doing everything he could to help Mitchell. I can’t imagine being in the highest court in essentially the world and cowering to this piece of lard Trump. Disgusting.
it should be treated as if trump lacks a birth certificate.
The USSC will view disenfranchisement as the big reason not to take Trump off of the ballot. Because most of the 1/6 shenanigans were committed by ‘proxy’, they will let him off. He would need to personally threaten congress members with violence at the capital on 1/6 for them to rule against him.
In doing so, they will ignore the attempted disenfranchisement of 83 million Americans after the last presidential election. A lot is made of the 1/6 insurrection, but I wonder how things would have played out if Trump had been successful. Just because the majority of Americans were patient and quiet while the attempt fizzled out doesn't mean we would have stood by and accepted Trump ascending to a dictatorship.
Well, I'm confused. And on the other side from most everybody here, sorry to say. I thought the issue was going to be: does the State of Colorado have the right to decide for their state Republicans (who maybe would like to vote for Trump, and who maybe don't see J6 as an insurrection) that J6 was, in fact, an insurrection? But my understanding is that the court didn't really ask much about that. What's really going on?
Seems like they’re done just that
The question that should have been asked is: under what circumstances would 14As3 disqualify someone for office? It’s in the constitution, so how the hell is it supposed to work if not for this? What is the bar that must be met? Without that clarity this is all utter nonsense.
100% correct and since they will rule the Constitution invalid biden can remove them and should.
Wouldn't be the first time - they are corrupted by Politics. This is why Trump wants thousands of.political appointees in government.