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

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

**************

 

Also (this is me this time lol):

 

The SC justices are supposed to challenge attorneys for both sides, and present a gargantuan amount of "what ifs"...so I rarely try and take their tone or their line of questioning as being an indicator of anything. I've heard justices grill the ever-loving **** out of lawyers who they ended up siding with in their decision. It's both a test of how strong each side's case is, as well as an opportunity to provide additional facts and legal "stuff" that address whatever arguments need addressing. I still think all of the justices came into this thing with a strong idea of which way they would end up ruling, but I also don't think the way or manner they challenge the lawyers is a tell of sorts. I'm actually glad they're doing it. Just wish the Colorado lawyers were doing a better job with their responses. But Trump's team wasn't any better.

[samy316]

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,

Edited February 8 by samy316

[Jumbo]

Yup. I get the stance that trump and allies deserves being considered insurrectionists by rational logical accurate definition of the word and even, though more arguable, under the constitutional clause. But there's a lack of needed clarity and just enough muddling in the writing of the Constitution as to an authorized process to follow in our current context for such a big move with all its implications and concerns. 

 

He's an insurrectionist, but it seems there's not the needed legal mechanism to disqualify  him or even prosecute him  under that charge through the courts.

 

But I'm not even a pretend atty, and only somewhat knowledgeable on the Constitution, so I'm in way over my head.

[Fergasun]

Whether or not they act like it.  When it comes to the Presidential election, SCOTUS has to decide.  We can't have states deciding on individual candidates.   I am only following as best I can this AM.  

 

Does seem like Justices have brought up the "but Democracy!" argument.

 

I am not really fine with a 8-1 or so opinion that says "this only applies to a Civil War type of insurrection."  But that's better than the whole "if they do this to Trump there will be retaliation" argument or "we can't disenfranchise voters."  The whole "officers / office" is the worst argument.  But if you also look at it like I do that Trump was overturning the election, I flip that it should be 8-1 in kicking him off the ballot.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I also wonder if the justices gave much weight to (or, hell, even read) the multiple amicus briefs submitted to them beforehand by different groups...because if they did, then they got more legal arguments than the ones we heard today. Not saying they swayed anyone but those briefs are a part of the process as well.

[Fergasun]

1 minute ago, Jumbo said:

Yup. I get the stance that trump and allies deserves being considered insurrectionists by rational logical accurate definition of the word and even, though more arguable, under the constitutional clause. But there's a lack of needed clarity and just enough muddling in the writing of the Constitution as to an authorized process to follow in our current context for such a big move with all its implications and concerns. 

 

He's an insurrectionist, but it seems there's not the needed legal mechanism to disqualify  him or even prosecute him  under that charge through the courts.

 

But I'm not even a pretend atty, and only somewhat knowledgeable on the Constitution, so I'm in way over my head.

The Supreme Court is supposed to and as far as I know, the only Court capable of holding jurisidiction. Based on the text which says "Congress can cure the defect" with a 2/3rds vote. This only happens with President.  One of the discussion I got wind of was some nonesense about Congress having to disqualify.  But that makes no sense.

 

The lack of mechanism is precisely why they exist. To be fair, I do read it as SCOTUS can adjudicate all the legal and factual issues and rule, similar to a "pre impeachment" hearing.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

12 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

Yup. I get the stance that trump and allies deserves being considered insurrectionists by rational logical accurate definition of the word and even, though more arguable, under the constitutional clause. But there's a lack of needed clarity and just enough muddling in the writing of the Constitution as to an authorized process to follow in our current context for such a big move with all its implications and concerns. 

 

He's an insurrectionist, but it seems there's not the needed legal mechanism to disqualify  him or even prosecute him  under that charge through the courts.

 

But I'm not even a pretend atty, and only somewhat knowledgeable on the Constitution, so I'm in way over my head.

 

 

Can't they just determine that he gave "aid and comfort" to the actual insurrectionists without determining he himself was an insurrectionist? I keep thinking that the 14th said just giving aid and comfort was enough. One dude after the Civil War was disqualified for simply holding office in a confederate state. Trump did far more than he did imo...

[tshile]

I disagree the mechanism is lacking. 
 

I think the arguments that the mechanism is there, and there’s reason why it doesn’t rely on a conviction of insurrection, make total sense. 
 

To me the argument (that the mechanism is lacking) only works in the sense that you can wiggle around enough to say it with a straight face. 
 

but that’s just the way I see it. Not only am I not a judge or a lawyer but I’d hardly pretend I understand constitutional law etc. so grain of salt and all that. 

[Jumbo]

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.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Just now, 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.

 

 

Yep, exactly...even if the SC decision doesn't even address whether or not Trump participated in an insurrection or if Jan 6th was an insurrection and only decided on the legal merits of states disqualifying someone versus it being solely Congress. Won't matter.

[Jumbo]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

To me the argument (that the mechanism is lacking) only works in the sense that you can wiggle around enough to say it with a straight face. 

 

That's part of what I said, too. It's muddy enough to serve as an out of you're looking for one. Gorsuch daid there is a clause giving a process for charging and trying someone for insurrection, using that term specifically.  But the Colo atty said it was written twenty years prior to the amendment and was lacking somehow in relevance to this matter.

 

But again, and like you, I am in too deep to have as a valid authoritative take, legally.

[The Evil Genius]

Does anyone honestly think the conservative justices would be ruling in favor of the defendant if he/she was a Democrat ex President?

[Fergasun]

8 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Does anyone honestly think the conservative justices would be ruling in favor of the defendant if he/she was a Democrat ex President?

The next time there's a Dem trifecta (seems hopeless now, but I bet we get one within 12 years) there will be Supreme Court reform and expansion..

 

I understand all the practical arguments they made, but what about the Luttigs. Baudes and Paulsens?  Will this case snap them out of their delusions that SCOTUS approaches cases in the same manner they claim to? 

 

If they rule for Trump, just gut 14 A Section 3 and say, "we can't define this short of taking up arms...".  To me, that's a stretch, but at least it would be honest and fair.

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

That's part of what I said, too. It's muddy enough to serve as an out of you're looking for one. Gorsuch daid there is a clause giving a process for charging and trying someone for insurrection, using that term specifically.  But the Colo atty said it was written twenty years prior to the amendment and was lacking somehow in relevance to this matter.

 

But again, and like you, I am in too deep to have as a valid authoritative take, legally.

 

It's the federal criminal insurrection statute that has disqualification as an additional penalty that is pre 14th amendment.  So there's really not a viable argument that this was the method chosen by Congress to enforce section 3.

 

I think the vote will be heavily in favor of Trump remaining on the ballot in the following way:

 

Majority holding decided on the narrow question on whether anyone other than Congress has the power to enforce section 3 on disqualification of a national candidate.  I think almost all justices will join and say no.  

 

I think Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, possibly joined by Roberts, will write a concurrence that points out that the majority opinion does not address whether President is covered by the 14th amendment, whether Trump did indeed commit insurrection, nor whether the procedure used in Colorado is sufficient to satisfy any due process concerns.  If Roberts is not joining anyway, then the liberal justices may go further and say they see no issue with Colorado's finding and that such issue is not what the court's ruling is based on.  Jackson may issue a separate concurrence or possibly joined by all liberal justices that says states have the power to enforce section 3 against state elected representatives.

 

Thomas, Alito will issue a concurrence that specifies that Trump is not covered by the 14th amendment, that Colorado proceeding was a sham and therefore not sufficient to protect due process concerns nor make a convincing showing that Trump committed insurrection.  

 

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret will issue a concurrence that specifies that President is not an officer under the United States within the meaning of section 3.

[tshile]

23 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

But the Colo atty said it was written twenty years prior to the amendment and was lacking somehow in relevance to this matter.

Right I believe she pointed at it coming later as evidence that there was recognition of a need for another mechanism

 

which, again, makes total sense to me. 🤷‍♂️ 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Another copy/paste:

 

If you frame it the way that the challengers did, that Colorado can control the result for the entire country, there is no way, zero, Nada, null set, that the court would ever agree....the decision basically won’t have anything to do with whether Trump engaged in insurrection. And very importantly, that excludes pretty much everything going to the question whether Donald Trump committed insurrection. They basically don’t want to touch that question and resolve it for the country.

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Since the states are in control of all elections including federal, the supremes should just decide that the individual states can decide who is on their ballot.

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Does anyone honestly think the conservative justices would be ruling in favor of the defendant if he/she was a Democrat ex President?

I think there’s a healthy history of justices ruling contrary to what party affiliation would otherwise suggest. 
 

not trying to be a jerk, but because we see this with every ****ing case - if the armchair constitutional scholars aren’t obnoxious enough, the proclaiming everyone knows which way every justice will vote despite a healthy history of showing that’s not what happens is also obnoxious. 
 

Which are followed by the fact that every time we have a ruling, the people on the side of the political ideology that lost shout from the rooftops how it means the whole system is rigged

[Jumbo]

 

 

They have an effective and "safe" exit door that both the con and the lib justices can take 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

Another copy/paste:

 

If you frame it the way that the challengers did, that Colorado can control the result for the entire country, there is no way, zero, Nada, null set, that the court would ever agree....the decision basically won’t have anything to do with whether Trump engaged in insurrection. And very importantly, that excludes pretty much everything going to the question whether Donald Trump committed insurrection. They basically don’t want to touch that question and resolve it for the country.

 

 

Um. 
 

maybe im wrong here. But their job is not to determine whether he engaged in insurrection. 
 

their job is to determine whether what the state (and lower courts) did is in line with the powers granted by the constitution.  
 

if you were expecting scotus to issue a verdict on whether it was insurrection or not, and/or whether Trump engaged (or even lead/created it) then you don’t understand scotus’ role 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

Um. 
 

maybe im wrong here. But their job is not to determine whether he engaged in insurrection. 
 

their job is to determine whether what the state (and lower courts) did is in line with the powers granted by the constitution.  
 

if you were expecting scotus to issue a verdict on whether it was insurrection or not, and/or whether Trump engaged (or even lead/created it) then you don’t understand scotus’ role 

 

It would point to due process, not to determining if he participated in an insurrection. By avoiding that altogether, they don't have to even address it. There were questions and arguments during today's hearing about whether or not Jan. 6th was indeed an insurrection, so it did seem to play a role. But it won't be included in the decision in any way, is basically what that tweet was saying.

[Jumbo]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Um. 
 

maybe im wrong here. But their job is not to determine whether he engaged in insurrection. 
 

their job is to determine whether what the state (and lower courts) did is in line with the powers granted by the constitution.  
 

if you were expecting scotus to issue a verdict on whether it was insurrection or not, and/or whether Trump engaged (or even lead/created it) then you don’t understand scotus’ role 

   

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

 

[Fergasun]

@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. 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

I think there’s a healthy history of justices ruling contrary to what party affiliation would otherwise suggest. 
 

not trying to be a jerk, but because we see this with every ****ing case - if the armchair constitutional scholars aren’t obnoxious enough, the proclaiming everyone knows which way every justice will vote despite a healthy history of showing that’s not what happens is also obnoxious. 
 

Which are followed by the fact that every time we have a ruling, the people on the side of the political ideology that lost shout from the rooftops how it means the whole system is rigged

 

In the past, I totally agree.  I think this specific court is far more likely to hold in a way that is consistent with their political alignment than any previous court.  This is a direct result of (1) Scalia using "originalism" to get to any result he wanted and being the right's role model for the ideal conservative justice and (2) the Federalist Society making itself the most important voice in the room for conservative nominees and the liberal wing having to act in the same manner as a counterbalance.  And to be honest, the Trump appointees are not even the major offenders, Thomas and Alito are.  The court's median vote right now is Kavanaugh, who is pretty much aligned with Roberts. 

 

The best example I can give is Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist, which was a 2022 case about a high school football coach who wanted to pray at midfield after football games.  The court's holding (written by Gorsuch) blatantly ignored the facts of the case to get to the result it wanted (government employees can publicly pray during school events and any students who don't join will likely be ostracized).

[The Evil Genius]

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think there’s a healthy history of justices ruling contrary to what party affiliation would otherwise suggest. 
 

not trying to be a jerk, but because we see this with every ****ing case - if the armchair constitutional scholars aren’t obnoxious enough, the proclaiming everyone knows which way every justice will vote despite a healthy history of showing that’s not what happens is also obnoxious. 
 

Which are followed by the fact that every time we have a ruling, the people on the side of the political ideology that lost shout from the rooftops how it means the whole system is rigged

 

In a world where unqualified judges are being promoted for SCOTUS because they are Federalist Society morons, I'm not sure I agree. And we have one who is married to a J6 insurrectionist supporter. 

Edited February 8 by The Evil Genius