The Supreme Court has agreed to consider Colorado’s decision to deem Trump ineligible to run under the Constitution’s insurrection clause.

[Fergasun]

...

And what are people that have been reading Baude, Paulsen, Luttig, etc. going to say? "Gee, Constitution must not mean that much nowadays....". 

 

They didn't just come up with an intellectual argument about case/cases.  They laid out the Constitutional bases for disqualifying Trump in black and white and said "it's every public officials duty to disqualify".  Coming from Federalist Society conservatives.  Will they recognize the political aspect of all this? 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

To do what Jumbo and Califan say would happen would be like them holding up their hands saying, "sure, the 14AS3 may apply to thr President, but who really knows for sure..."  Really?  

 

 

I didn't take it like that, at all.

 

I took it as them saying "States should not be the mechanism used to disqualify someone...so whether or not Donald Trump participated in an insurrection is irrelevant to our ruling."

[Fergasun]

So they will define how to disqualify a Presidential candidate?  I bet they won't.  Or they will say "Only Congress can.." which doesn't make sense much either.  How can the same body disqualify and then re-qualify? 

 

The way I read it, the SCOTUS plays a role when it comes to the President only.

[Jumbo]

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hears-landmark-election-051123196.html

[tshile]

37 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

   

I might have missed where someone suggested that was their expectation (your first paragraph).

 

Yeah he cleared it up when he responded. I misread or misunderstood what was being said (I think…)

35 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

@tshile

The only judicial branch that covers all 50 states is SCOTUS. Colorado is not invoking state law.  They are invoking our national Constitution.  This is an unprecedented case of great national importance.  Sure, narrowly speaking "their job is to review the state..." but this is a case where they can't avoid all the other implications.  

 

To do what Jumbo and Califan say would happen would be like them holding up their hands saying, "sure, the 14AS3 may apply to thr President, but who really knows for sure..."  Really?  

 

SCOTUS shouldn't be able to ignore the Constitution.  It's likely not going to come up again for the 100+ years. But it either gets enforced or not.  

 

I already know I am going to hate their ruling. 

I don’t think this is correct at all. Just because it’s unprecedented doesn’t mean their role changes. 

Edited February 8 by tshile

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

So they will define how to disqualify a Presidential candidate?  I bet they won't.  Or they will say "Only Congress can.." which doesn't make sense much either.  How can the same body disqualify and then re-qualify? 

 

The way I read it, the SCOTUS plays a role when it comes to the President only.

I think, if it goes in trumps favor, it will be that a conviction is necessary to satisfy due process. 
 

I don’t think it’s a reach to understand how they will define it, if that’s what they do. 
 

I don’t agree with it, but that seems at least the logical outcome (if that’s the route they go)

 

(I’m not at all convinced they’ll rule in trumps favor. Not saying they won’t - just not convinced every justice is a political stooge always acting in the party’s interest like so many others seem to think)

Edited February 8 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

37 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

The only judicial branch that covers all 50 states is SCOTUS.

 

 

Wrong!  Fun fact that is in no way related to this discussion:

 

https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/

 

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the armed forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice." 

 

37 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

 

Colorado is not invoking state law.  They are invoking our national Constitution.  This is an unprecedented case of great national importance.  Sure, narrowly speaking "their job is to review the state..." but this is a case where they can't avoid all the other implications.  

 

Right!  Because federal law applies to states, state supreme courts have jurisdiction to interpret federal law (which includes the US Constitution) as applied in their state.  SCOTUS, however, is the final arbiter of federal law issues and particularly the interpretation of the US Constitution. 

[88Comrade2000]

4 hours ago, samy316 said:

I was wrong about my vote prediction, it might be 7-2 or 8-1 FOR Trump.  As I'm hearing this, the Co Lawyers haven't done a very good job at all in trying to explain their reasoning, and even the liberal justices like Kagan & Sotomayor are sounding very skeptical.  This was to be expected in all honesty,

I agree with you. Heard a little bit of the hearing. Trump’s winning this easily and 7-2 or 8-1 is more likely and it wouldn’t be surprising if they found a way to issue a 9-0 ruling.

[Jumbo]

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court/john-roberts-plain-consequences-00140421

 

Just some interesting data points on the process so far.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

“What if red states start kicking Biden off the ballot”

 

Then you over rule it because Biden didn’t engage in an insurrection.

 

The Supreme Court is such a ****ing joke. 

[PokerPacker]

That hearing was a ****-show.

[Renegade7]

This would be easier to discuss as a national decision a state is enforcing if he was already convicted in Federal court.

 

At least leave that door open for States to come back after a conviction to try again citing it, Trump getting out because it doesn't clearly say President would be a win for him.

 

 

[Fergasun]

I listened to the argument. 

 

SCOTUS did pick about the whole "how can a State enforce rules in a Federal election."  Seems like they will say, "states can't disqualify Presidential candidates" unless Congress gives them this power.

 

Trump's lawyer sounded way more experienced before the court and had no problem conceding the weak parts of his argument.  The other lawyers seemed way more hesitant to concede. I also don't like the distinction between "running for" and "holding" office.

 

Colorado lawyer did a poor job in not mentioning the false slates of electors, focusing solely on January 6.  SCOTUS seems afraid to actually rule on Trump's qualification and insurrection.  They keep acting like "How can Colorado do this!" but their lawyer was arguing (indirectly) "that's your job!  We want SCOTUS to do this"  "Office" and "officer", I think got way too much attention

 

Alito - Democrats could disqualify Trump from ballots in red states! 

Kavanaugh - why isn't Trump charged with an insurrection! 

Kavanaugh - people should elect candidates of their choice!

Jackson - how come it doesn't say "President", isn't that ambiguous.  

 

Hello bozos!  Everyone wants you to conduct a review of the record and apply the law.  We don't want you to say "states can't disqualify him, but we won't either". 

 

It makes no sense that Congress has to enact a statute to disqualify, and then can lift the disability after the election with 2/3rds vote.

[Fergasun]

And the biggesr question of all?  Why wasn't Trump charged with the Federal insurrection statute?

[bearrock]

8 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Hello bozos!  Everyone wants you to conduct a review of the record and apply the law.  We don't want you to say "states can't disqualify him, but we won't either". 

 

SCOTUS would be saying that Congress has to put the enforcement mechanism in place and in the absence of such a mechanism, there is no way to enforce section 3.  This obviously runs contrary to some historical  examples of states enforcing section 3, but that's why I think they will carve out the distinction based on this disqualification being issued against a candidate for a national election.

 

Quote

It makes no sense that Congress has to enact a statute to disqualify, and then can lift the disability after the election with 2/3rds vote.

 

It would be a statute that specifies how an insurrection allegation would be adjudicated (it need not be a criminal proceeding) and lay out the procedure for disqualifying a presidential candidate.  It would be generally applicable to every candidate accused of insurrection like a criminal statute that applies to everyone accused of committing that crime.  2/3rd vote would remove the ineligibility from a specific candidate like a pardon would clear the conviction of a specific criminal.

[bearrock]

13 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

And the biggesr question of all?  Why wasn't Trump charged with the Federal insurrection statute?

 

The prosecuting team probably had concerns about whether the evidence would be sufficient to establish criminal intent for insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's not to say that evidence is not enough for a civil determination or for lay people to have opinions.  And having debatable amount of evidence for a criminal conviction is obviously far cry from establishing Trump did not commit insurrection.

[PleaseBlitz]

My prediction is a very narrow ruling that says states cannot disqualify someone from just one state in the context of a national election based on section 3 of the 14th amendment. 

[Larry]

10 hours ago, Jumbo said:

Fox news and the rest of the right wing media circus and maga world will be ecstatic to use the likely outcome here to do the "see, there was no insurrection and trump is no insurrectionist."

 

It will be showcased as complete vindication that what everyone who rioted at the Capitol did that day was perfectly fine.

 

"No collusion"

"Acquitted of rape"  

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

My prediction is a very narrow ruling that says states cannot disqualify someone from just one state in the context of a national election based on section 3 of the 14th amendment. 

 

I'm going with the dark horse.

 

They say pretty much what you said but then add on that they are the body to make that determination. They didn't bother asking about insurrection because they already have that answer. Then they disqualify Trump nationally. 

 

A guy can dream.

[PokerPacker]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'm going with the dark horse.

 

They say pretty much what you said but then add on that they are the body to make that determination. They didn't bother asking about insurrection because they already have that answer. Then they disqualify Trump nationally. 

 

A guy can dream.

 

[illone]

Trump himself called it an insurrection right after court was concluded 😂

 

You just cant make this **** up.

 

I feel like this isnt the best way to attack the doofus, though. I mean it seems like the right thing to do in theory, but in practice it just opens up a circular argument that will never get resolved.

 

Section 3 is pretty vague with regards to who determines the disqualification. If you're going to leave such a gaping hole in the process, then I think the best way forward would have been to remove him from the ballot AFTER conviction is obtained in either election case.

 

Would much rather have the SCOTUS focusing on presidential immunity than this nonsense.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

- Anyone else bugged by the "One state should not determine who the president is" argument the SC justices used?...Because if that's the case, we need to immediately obliterate the electoral college.

 

- Not to mention, was it ever brought up during their arguments that its not Colorado (or any state) that would be doing this to Trump, but rather it's Trump who would be doing this to himself?...Unlike the age requirement or country of birth, participating in insurrection activities IS something he had control over.

 

- Does this mean that no states are allowed to have any laws regarding whose names can be added to the ballot? For instance, if Colorado says in order to have your name on ballots for any and all elections, you have to file to be on the ballot at least 30 days prior to the election--and then if a candidate doesn't attempt to file until 5 days before the election--does the state still have to put that candidate on the ballot, regardless of their laws? Or does that mean those types of filing laws are now considered illegal when it comes to federal elections?

 

- Can Colorado follow Texas' lead  and what they did when it came to the SC ruling over the border...and determine that SC decisions have no jurisdiction over how they run elections and keep Trump off the ballot anyway? lol...hey, if Texas can ignore their ruling, right?

 

-

[bearrock]

5 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

- Anyone else bugged by the "One state should not determine who the president is" argument the SC justices used?...Because if that's the case, we need to immediately obliterate the electoral college.

 

 

Yeah, there's a fair bit of hypertechnicality going on (some might say intellectual dishonesty).  To me, the one state determining argument is nonsensical for the reason you stated (FL 2000 anyone?).  I think the argument would have to be that given the language in section 5 giving Congress the power to enforce, when it comes to a national election, it's Congress and Congress alone that can enforce section 3 (this is still pretty hypertechnical and incorrect imo, but better than we can't have a single state decide the national election drivel)

 

Quote

- Not to mention, was it ever brought up during their arguments that its not Colorado (or any state) that would be doing this to Trump, but rather it's Trump who would be doing this to himself?...Unlike the age requirement or country of birth, participating in insurrection activities IS something he had control over.

 

 

This to me raises another issue that I feel the court is going to gloss over.  All qualifications are categorical (I believe Justice Kagan touched on this).  You are either 35 or you are not.  You are either a natural born citizen or you are not.  You are either an insurrectionist or you are not.  When a candidate's qualification is challenged, it has typically been the states that determine other eligibility categories like age and natural born citizenship.  It would be subject to review by higher courts as to whether the ineligibility ruling is sound, but there is no mechanism for ensuring a single national determination on eligibility for other categories.  The only plausible argument for treating insurrection differently is section 5 (and as strained a reasoning as it may be, I think Roberts will work very hard to build a narrow consensus that can have liberal justices sign on so that it is not a 6-3 ruling)

 

 

 

Quote

- Does this mean that no states are allowed to have any laws regarding whose names can be added to the ballot? For instance, if Colorado says in order to have your name on ballots for any and all elections, you have to file to be on the ballot at least 30 days prior to the election--and then if a candidate doesn't attempt to file until 5 days before the election--does the state still have to put that candidate on the ballot, regardless of their laws? Or does that mean those types of filing laws are now considered illegal when it comes to federal elections?

 

Yeah, very few things about the US election is national.  There's going to be some mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion on why insurrection disqualification needs a national mechanism.

 

Quote

- Can Colorado follow Texas' lead  and what they did when it came to the SC ruling over the border...and determine that SC decisions have no jurisdiction over how they run elections and keep Trump off the ballot anyway? lol...hey, if Texas can ignore their ruling, right?

 

I mean that's a constitutional crisis.  And to me, the attempted cure would be way worse than the disease.  I may not like the fact that Trump can commit insurrection and run for office again and I think we need a clear amendment to specify that a President is indeed covered and lay out a clear mechanism for disqualification (not because I don't think he is disqualified under the current Constitution and set of laws, but to lay rest any argument to the contrary), a blatant disregard of SCOTUS ruling is a red line for me.

[ixcuincle]

SC leaning towards state overstepping their bounds and they're right. 

 

rare Trump w

[bearrock]

48 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

SC leaning towards state overstepping their bounds and they're right. 

 

rare Trump w

 

I think Dems need to refocus the discussion.  Let's not forget that after a 5 day trial, a court found that yes, Donald Trump as a sitting president committed insurrection.  And for all the hyper technical legal arguments Trump put forth during his appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, that fact finding has never been disturbed.