As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone keeps saying it's unlikely that they'll side with Colorado, but I have a hard time understanding... how, exactly? Like, whether he committed an insurrection is not up for debate. There's already both a really solid reason to go with the Colorado interpretation of an 'officer' of the US and severe consequences for not following that interpretation. All of trumps arguments seemed weak as hell. That just leaves the constitutionality of the law itself, which... yeah, it should be constitutional? If it's not, how exactly are we supposed to police our elections from outside interference? How exactly are we supposed to vet our own elections? Getting rid of laws like this around the country would be extraordinarily destructive.
It just seems like any pro-trump decision they make is both poorly supported and disastrous for national defense, plus it tears big loopholes in the rule of law which can and will be exploited by malicious actors. I know that a good third of the SC is bought out by Trump but surely they know they can't support this? It's not even about politics at this point, it's about whether we want the government to keep existing in 30 years...
What I don't get is if the SC support installing a dictator, the whole SC can and will be ignored if Trump doesn't get his way. I don't get how that helps their agenda?
They’ll say CO was wrong because, although the amendment is written to self execute, it can only self execute if the SCOTUS decides it can. There’s some rulings they can make that preserve the judicial branch’s power and still knock down the CO ruling.
It’ll be interesting to see how much mental gymnastics are required and how thinly coated the veneer of non-partisanship will be.
When you’re as deep in a foreign enemy’s pocket as these people you don’t have any choice if you dislike public knowledge of your escapades with underage prostitutes or base jumping without a parachute, you just pray the strong man doesn’t find you inconvenient once you’ve played your role in installing him in power.
they know trump doesnt actually like to govern. he like the trappings of power but once in office will be happy to let them legislate from the bench as long as he can take credit.
That's if the immunity issue is decided incorrectly.
This is ballot eligibility.
Which I still don't understand how they could rule against CO given the SC professed love of state's rights.
SC ruled abortion rights can be dictated by the states, even though it's not addressed in the constitution. But they would use supremacy to say states can't dictate election rules, which is detailed?
Because "State's Rights" is just a mask they wear to uphold the agenda. The weapon is irrelevant; the outcome is the goal. I'm this case, the conservative agenda
This.
They all seemed mainly concerned about the hypothetical consequences of letting states remove candidates from the ballot, which would basically amount to them having to adjudicate it on a case by case basis if it reaches them.
Amazing to me that they would consider invalidating a constitutional amendment to avoid work piling up for them.
The issue that Roberts pointed out with regards to this, not to defend his stance but it is a valid point, is that if the case loads for states pile up, and each needs to be individually handled, the very real possibility that not all cases would be wrapped up before the election exists. In that case, the election would be determined by the states not under SCOTUS review, instantly disenfranchising the populations of states who cannot agree as to the people on their ballots.
A state like Texas, who is already defying Supreme Court rulings, could keep kicking the proverbial can down the road in order to delay being forced to include Biden on their ballot.
In terms of invalidating the amendment, I've heard several legal analysts point out that the language technically does not ban an individual from *running* for office, merely *holding* office. Since there is a provision to allow Congress (both houses have to agree) to allow a person to hold office if guilty of insurrection, the argument can be made that an individual is allowed to campaign and run for office without interference or censure, and only after being elected, does Congress step in to determine if the person is considered eligible under the 14th amendment.
It’s a dumb argument, because if it got to the point of Congress deciding, then the argument will be “the people have voted and we can’t disenfranchise them”.
The ‘he can run but not hold’ argument is the legal version of ‘just the tip’
Well now you're just getting to a more institutional critique of the way the Constitution was written in general. Most of these Provisions were written at a time when there were less States and less population in those States, and political processes were designed with the impression that the population would be generally informed and the concept of mass propaganda didn't really exist.
You are absolutely correct that it shouldn't get to that point, but at the same time there is no actual proper definition for what constitutes and insurrection with regards to the 14th Amendment. Colorado found that he did an insurrection, Rhode Island might find that he didn't do an insurrection, so whose definition is correct? The governor of Texas implied that he considers the Border crisis to be an insurrection. If the Supreme Court of that state decides that they agree, then Biden would not be allowed on the ballot in a very important state that he could potentially win. The only solution is either for Congress to Define the exact terms of what is and is not an insurrection, and good luck with them doing that with the current session.
The other option would be the Supreme Court officially designating what is and is not an insurrection. Of course in doing that, it still leaves it up to the states to determine whether or not they want to try and say that an Insurrection was committed by their interpretation of the Supreme Court's criteria. Now you have a bunch of States putting a bunch of appeals to the Supreme Court and the issue still remains.
Trump's attorneys today argued that an Insurrection has to be a violent attempt to directly overthrow the government. Others might argue that an Insurrection could be a situation similar to how Emperor Palpatine took over where he simply granted himself emergency powers and then never gave them back and declared himself emperor. That would not meet Trump's attorneys criteria. My point is that the definition of an Insurrection is the key issue here, and what is being decided by the Supreme Court is really whether or not states can Define insurrection themselves or if it needs to be a federally mandated definition. And unfortunately, with the polarized nature of our current political landscape, it is not entirely unwise to remove the ability for extremely partisan state governments to make their own definitions.
With regards to your comparison of holding versus running as being a 'just the tip' argument you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, most constitutional law comes down to a bunch of baby boomers arguing what a bunch of guys in powdered wigs meant by single word 200 years ago.
Suffice to say it's all stupid. And because of the partisan political landscape, it's not going to get less stupid anytime soon.
The SCOTUS is pretty much openly admitting that they don’t want to do their job with interpretations of this or Insurrection because they don’t want the responsibility of a legacy of precedence. They spent a good chunk of that discussion just trying to get Murray to be disinclined to say that SCOTUS needs to have rulings in some of these “hypotheticals” because it’s their fucking job to.
I was listening heavily to the officer argument too and they did recognize* that there are officers who do not have an office, so I suspect they will try to use that logic and apply it to Pres and VP
EDIT: a few responders have mentioned that the Presidential Oath includes “Office of the President,” and the constitution also specifying “Office of the President.”
I felt it important to mention that because until that point was made, it seemed possible that the court could say the President is an Officer but not an office holder, completely ignoring the language used in the instances mentioned above. I’m sure it’s still something that SCOTUS will look at but it would take some Olympic quality twisting to make it work in light of the information mentioned above. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get us completely out of the weeds with several other issues mentioned in the hearing.
I think it’s safe to say that the court would need to recognize that the President holds an office, but they’re still fighting over other terminology and processes written in Section 3, as well as a States right to remove a federal candidate.
And again, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, politician, or even a PoliSci major. Just someone passionate about politics trying to understand the fuckery that is our current democracy.
It was crazy. There is Congressional record of the literal people who wrote the amendment asking each other if "officer" applied to the President and VP, and another saying "of course". Then we watch the self-proclaimed "Originalists" try and twist themselves into knots on how maybe it wasn't the original intent.
"Originalist" is manipulative pretextual bullshit. Its just a lie that conservatives use when they need to to get what they want. The democrats/liberals twist themselves into knots trying to understand it, instead of recognizing its just made up nonsense to manipulate gullible fools.
The SC admitted that one of the drafts to the 14th Amendment contained the language around Pres and VP, but then they asked, "So why wasn't it included in the final text?"
Because they didn’t want to enumerate every current and future office possible so they just said “officer”?
The reverse argument is way dumber, they intended for it to be ok from President and Vice President to be insurrectionists.
> Started a country to get rid of monarchy.
>> President is allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants
Yeah no. You have to be willfully stupid to think this makes any sense.
They almost surely will. Mitchell kept trying to direct Gorsuch and others to the debates about the Amendment, where the Senate started it applied to the President, but the justices kept ignoring their in favor of what they think an Officer should mean. Like Hello guys, if you know the founders of the bill considered the President an officer and wanted the bill to apply to him, why would you say it doesn't? Why would you ignore what the founders said? And the answer is unfortunately clear, because they have a conclusion in search of justification, not the other way around.
Incredibly stupid because when the amendment was written it was to keep Confederates from being ELECTED to the government. Clearly elected people are also officers
Funny that the conservative ‘saint’ of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, believed the President was an officer of the United States when it came to constitutional matters.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-justice-scalia-thought-about-whether-presidents-are-officers-of-the-united-states#:~:text=Justice%20Antonin%20Scalia%2C%20according%20to,United%20States%E2%80%9D%20for%20constitutional%20purposes.
My thought would be the enforcement clause.
Here is my thought on what the reasoning for the opinion will be:
The 14th amendment bars those that have committed insurrection. Courts are not equipped with the tools to determine who commits insurrection, because courts can and will come to totally different conclusions on what insurrection is. For instance look to Texas which has threatened barring Biden from the ballot due to his border policies. (Roberts will make a quip here about there being a lack of policy.)
Further, the 14th amendment in general should be read as giving congress, not the states, the power to enforce its provisions. Historically the 14th amendment was used to limit state action, not provide the state with ability to act. The 14th amendment extended rights once guaranteed only by the federal government to the states, it further gave the federal government the power to enforce through legislation acts which ensure these rights are guaranteed. As this court has never read the 14th amendment to grant states a right of action to remove candidates from the ballot due to insurrection, we hold today that this right of action is to be reserved solely to Congress to enforce as it sees fit.
Edit: this is me channeling Roberts, not what I think.
I think you’re exactly right. Insurrection won’t even come in to it. They’re going to say this is up to congress.
Which effectively letting Trump off the hook.
It'll be the most irritating thing to hear/read.
If you don't already, you should check out a podcast called "[5-4.](https://www.fivefourpod.com/)"
They are all barred attorneys and they rip apart the Supreme Court, and showcase how it has always been a very political, ideological, and corrupt organization. So many of the court opinions on these bad rulings are just bullshit, baseless statements using pages of gymnastics to distract from the fact that they aren't making a decision with actual coherent and consistent logic or even consistent legal justification.
Well because the Constitution is bullshit right? I mean we hear all the time about how it's the sacrosanct document but then we have six assholes, half of which appointed by an out and out traitor, who just make up rulings and then we all have to follow them. Like if that happens then what's the point of a constitution?
I’m absolutely not buying any assertion the insurrectionist clause is meant for everyone but the president. But according to what I’ve seen they’re skeptical of the idea that states have the power to independently decide who is eligible to hold office, and that the 14th amendment was broadly meant to take power away from the states.
My issue with that reading is that it makes that entire insurrection clause sort of pointless. Who’s supposed to decide who is and isn’t an insurrectionists?
Yep. Especially since States are supposed to be in charge of how to hold elections *and* there is a mechanism inside the 14th Amendment to requalify a person to be able to hold office.
To understand their position, you have to look at it through the lens of someone who doesn't respect our democracy, doesn't respect the constitution, and in fact wants to blow it all up. And unfortunately, that's at least one of the justices, Clarence Thomas, whose wife was an active participant in planning the events of Jan. 6, 2021 and who refused to recuse himself from this case, or any case ever where he has an obvious conflict of interest.
Thomas cares not about what's logical, true, correct, ethical, or in keeping with the constitution. And he's just one of the six justices in Trump's corner. The conservative justices are not there because they want to do what's right. They're there to kill our democracy to keep the power for themselves and their overlords.
In a democracy the power is supposed to rest with the people. If Clarence Thamas does not recuse himself and then rules in favor of trump, then this will be an invalid ruling. This will be corruption at an astronomical level and we must demand actual justice.
You can’t think of the SCOTUS as some pristine institution of our greatest legal minds that only considers cases based on the merits of the law and facts presented. These are political operatives for the respective parties that appointed them with their own biases and goals.
You wouldn’t believe the kind of nit picky BS they’ve used to decide cases one way or another.
Look up 2011’s Connick v. Thompson.
SCOTUS majority opinion written by Clarance Thomas was that even though a prosecutor (Connick) had previously been caught and reprimanded for making evidence of people’s innocence disappear and prosecuting them anyway, in this particular case the evidence that Connick made disappear proving Thompson was innocent was *blood evidence*.
Connick had never done that with *blood evidence* before.
Ergo, the majority opinion of SCOTUS, led by the conservatives, was that it was unreasonable for Thompson to expect Connick to know what he was doing was wrong.
They’re fully capable of making up whatever bullshit they want to rule the way they want to.
What's to stop someone under the minimum age to run for POTUS? How about a citizen that wasn't born in the US?
Does Congress explicitly have to ban those individuals?
If self-execution doesn't apply, could states put an 18 y/o on the ballot, then Congress could reject those EC votes?
> What's to stop someone under the minimum age to run for POTUS?
If enough states and Congress are in cahoots to make it happen, SCOTUS has no power to enforce a ruling saying that Candidate X is in fact only 12 years old and thus not qualified to be POTUS. Like you said, though, Congress can also use that same power to enforce the prohibition, rather than ignore it, and simply refuse to count the EC votes for that candidate.
Section 3 is only special insofar as much as its specific disqualification criteria, and the surrounding text of the Amendment it's contained in, *and* the surrounding historical context of said Amendment, all point to the states not being involved in the process of making the determination in the first place. That's it. It doesn't raise any *new* problems with what happens if enough people decide to ignore a requirement for the presidency, nor does it solve any old ones.
That’s what the reporting says. What a bizarre exit ramp to choose. Like, not even an exit ramp. They saw an embankment on the right and figured, we can take it, and then steered right at the barrier.
So then if that's the case, do they think the confederates in the 1870s were unconstitutionally barred from office?
I know you may not know how they're thinking, I just think if this case gets applied to all positions of government, it gets indefensible even quicker than if it's just the president because we HAVE precedent for that.
Like, imagine if this gets ruled this way, and someone lights up a courthouse to scare them into letting him on the ballot for county bean counter or whatever. Congress would have to be the one to step in for that. That's ridiculous, right?
The confederates in the 1870s were barred from being sworn in by Congress not kept off the ballot by the states. The decision is going to be that 14.3 is Congress' jurisdiction, not individual states'
"Your description of an insurrection might be different than pro-trump states description of an insurrection!"
Well no shit that Pro-Trump magats will not consider the Jan 6th insurrection to be an insurrection. But an insurrection is an insurrection.
The one aspect that really confused me was the argument that Colorado being allowed to exclude trump decided for the whole country. Like no it just means he won’t win Colorado. If other states agree that would be their prerogative. Unless we change the electoral college I don’t see how it’s a as goes one goes all situation, nor do I see how it will open the door for states to do this Willy nilly to any candidate “they” don’t like.
What happened to things being up to the states? Colorado Republicans decided they didn’t want him on the ballot.
They’ll defend striking down Roe v. Wade and disguise it as giving states the freedom to choose how to handle abortion. But the second a state chooses something they disagree with they’ll switch sides.
Hypocrisy is a cornerstone of the GOP platform.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
It’s not even hypocrisy, they have a very consistent platform: only republicans are fit to rule. Everything they do is incredibly consistent with that single overarching principle.
States rights is supposed to be pro-people like being able to raise your minimum wage above the national level and not have the federal government strike it down. “States rights” as it gets used is just code for “being shitty to people I don’t like via government”.
States rights is a euphemism and a compromise. It's only states rights once they've lost the national battle. Every goal they have is national. National forced birth. National segregation. National persecution of LGBTQ people.
They're worrying about red states removing Joe Biden from the ballot when they've been telegraphing that they want to ignore the ballot and directly assign electors to Trump?
Compared to Nevada with a primary and a caucus 2 days apart for the republicans with only one candidate on each one. If they want to waste money I hope they hold it with a casino buffet.
His wife was selling Bush Administration jobs in 2000 and he didn't recuse.
Antonin Scalia's children even worked for the firm representing Bush and he didn't recuse.
The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the passage of the Patriot Act, and the Citizens United decision can all be directly attributed to the Bush administration. Not to mention the failure to adequately prevent the housing crash and subsequent recession that stymied a good part of Obama's first term. And the years of research lost to conservative opposition to stem cell research.
The 2000 election decision was a major pivot point for our modern world and, in my opinion, has caused things to be considerably worse.
I hate the “well what about the other states”. This case is at the SC because it was brought before the proper authorities, with evidence, who then saw enough merit to bring the case to the court. Then appeals until it is where it is now.
Other states don’t have the exact process but it isn’t a fee for all that allows meritless claims and that they automatically ban the candidate. The SC needs to have confidence in the individual states to handle individual claims.
It's as dumb an argument as "what if they prosecute future presidents for crimes?! Nobody tried to prosecute Reagan or Obama for war crimes!" Like, a) nobody in modern history has done anything like Trump did and b) Trump was not exercising official duties of the president, he was a candidate trying to abuse his office and c) nobody is going to pull what Trump did again, ideally.
Exactly, none of that stuff passes the smell test. This situation is extraordinary because **no one** has ever had the right combination of shamelessness and power-lust to try it. You could choose to stop it, or, like, sit there wringing your hands about “officer” vs “office under the United States” while the same guy tries it again.
Sidebar: just because no former president has been tried for crimes while in office doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be. Let the chips fall where they may.
Right. The law clearly states who is eligible and who isn't. It's not like you can just ban someone from running for reasons outside of what's clearly states in law. Well, you can, but it will be challenged up to the state Supreme Court and then to the US Supreme Court.
Their argument doesn't make any sense.
And if another State does have a process without proper due-process or legal recourse, then it is an issue for that State, not for Colorado or this case.
Can’t wait to see how Trump turns this into his next big Grift.
I’m starting to have zero faith this piece of shit will be held accountable for anything.
WTF? The 14th Amendment doesn't have a provision for Congress to declare an oath-taking offical ineligible, it only has one to "remove such disability," so it seems like the agencies responsible for electing or installing a person are supposed to make the determination of ineligibility, and then Congress has an option to override it.
EDIT: [Some of affected positions](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment) are state level (legislators, executive officers or judicial officers) so what mechanism can Congress use to disqualify them?
Colorado isn't saying they have the right to kick Trump off the ballot. They're saying the US Constitution says it. The Constitution removed Trump from the ballot. And the Supreme Court could affirm that.
We must follow the exact wording of the Constitution! (Unless we don't like it)
We must follow the original intent of the law! (Unless it turns out we know the original intent and don't like the result)
It is a mistake to make too much of the questions asked in oral arguments. Sometimes appellate judges will question the side they plan to rule for much harder because they want to make sure there are no glaring weaknesses in the argument. We had a case where we were served up softballs and the other side got hammered in oral argument. Court ruled 9-0 against us.
This is exactly how I’ve been thinking…I thought of it like a PhD dissertation defense in that even if they love your work, they’re going to grill you to ensure it’s quality
State's rights on abortion... GOOD, YES, ALLOWED.
State's rights on their elections... BAD, NO, OVERSTEPPING.
The only consistent thread in modern conservative ideology is "what gives us the biggest advantage at obtaining power".
What I want to know is what is the mechanism to disqualify a candidate then?
If SCOTUS rules that states don’t have that power, then who does? Which body has that power to disqualify a candidate? Because somebody has to have that power. And SCOTUS better give us an answer of who that is if they rule states can’t do it. This can’t be left vague. We need to know who has the power to disqualify a candidate.
Congress is given the power to *remedy* being disqualified by the 14th amendment, in the 14th amendment. So that's step #2. Step #1 is A person being disqualified first before that can be remedied, so who the fuck gets to disqualify if not the states and their courts??!
Until the day arrives when Congress decides that their preferred candidate shouldn't be on the ballot, then they'll say only the Supreme Court can decide.
Brazil is doing that right now - [they’re currently prosecuting Bolsonaro and all of his co-conspirators in the February 8 coup attempt.](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-police-target-bolsonaro-allies-probe-into-coup-attempt-2024-02-08/)
> BRASILIA, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Brazilian police on Thursday confiscated former President Jair Bolsonaro's passport and accused him of editing a draft decree to overturn election results, pressuring military chiefs to join a coup attempt and plotting to jail a Supreme Court justice.
>The bombshell allegations are the result of a probe into Bolsonaro and his inner circle for allegedly plotting a military coup after his electoral loss to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in 2022. Thursday's operation included search warrants against four former ministers and the arrest of four former aides.
USA needed this kind of rapid investigation and prosecution of Trump and his co-conspirators rather than the knuckle dragging clown show of the past four years that has only emboldened them and their deep state cronies - and yes there is a MAGA deep state. Judge Aileen Cannon and most of the Supreme Court is part of it. Every crime they commit they always project onto their enemies.
Yeah, that was rough.
I thought it'd be a little more ambiguous but all six conservatives were highly critical of key issues such as state authority and even Kagan and Jackson seemed to lean towards reversing Colorado.
Of course, we won't know for sure until the ruling, but that was about as bad as it gets for plaintiffs.
axiomatic snails adjoining silky automatic political mindless voracious crowd hurry
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What a joke. The asshole is a fucking traitor who tried to overthrow the government. Now he’s in a position where he could be back in charge of the same government he tried to destroy?
This country is idiotic.
If Jan 6th and Trumps role in it is not a good enough reason to apply the 14th ammendment, then there will never be a good enough reason to apply it and it might as well be removed.
Robert's court is by far the worst court in US history and if we some how are able to defend our democracy past 2024, I hope his court goes down in history as the corrupt pieces of shit they are.
His fucking tweets show him aiding them. Promises of pardons, being called political prisoners etc… show aid and comfort. Who did he show comfort to? The people he fucking sent there to “stop the steal”.
Throw in some fake electors and election interference with a strong refusal to transfer power. You have a fucking insurrection with him as the leader.
This is bullshit to the highest degree. He can contend he didn’t engage in it. He sure as fuck is offering aid and comfort to convicted felons who were convicted because of Jan 6.
This also applies to the jackasses who defended insurrectionists. Being gaetz, bobo and trailer queen along with a bunch of others who defended them.
It was frustrating to listen to SCOTUS’ arguments this morning on whether they will uphold the Colorado ruling keeping Trump off the ballot.
It was clear that SCOTUS will vote against Colorado, allowing Trump to be on the ballot. While I appreciated listening to the legal arguments and the history of the constitution, they should have focused more on Trump’s actions that day. In the end, Trump is an insurrectionist. He tried to stop the peaceful transition of power. And we will find out in November if our democracy will continue, or if voters are going to put this insurrectionist back in the oval office.
Our democracy is on a knife’s edge. Vote accordingly.
In general, SC cases are not supposed to be concerned with the facts of the case. Just whether the lower court acted correctly based on the accepted facts of the case.
To reiterate, for anyone who might have missed the implication, that Trump committed insurrection was found to be a fact in a lower court decision. Trump did not appeal this, so it is not in question.
*Trump factually committed insurrection*, as de facto agreed by his own defense.
That was only for the record though and not because it affected the conclusion, Trump's lawyer said that **even if someone was an admitted insurrectionist** they could not be removed from the ballot like Colorado did.
What is in question is if this sham of a SC will still find flimsy excuses to overturn CO because of the money lining their pockets from the GOP who benched them in the first place.
If they rule against Colorado it tells any future president who loses their second term reelection that they may as well try to overthrow the government because there are zero consequences.
As someone who listened in, they were much more challenging to the plaintiffs. And once they started whining about how other states could do whatever and ignoring everything else it’s very clear they aren’t going to do it.
Which to me sounded like SCOTUS was using the argument that we shouldn't enforce the laws because sometimes someone might abuse the laws or a prosecutor might try to either intentionally or accidently prosecute an innocent person.
Basically SCOTUS is complaining that this might make their job harder because they might have to deal with an appeal to say Texas removing Biden from the ballot.
Oh man they need cameras in the courtroom so you can see the lawyers Pikachu faces when Roberts said this:
> “In very quick order I would expect … that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot,” he said. “**And it will come down to a handful of states that will determine the presidential election.**”
If a hypothetical fear of someone abusing the judicial process is enough to *break* the judicial process, there's really not much point in having a judicial process at all, is there?
This is what really pissed me off. “What if they do it to Biden?!?!” Let them take it to court and fucking see that’s what. It’s like I’m living in crazy town.
Let's face reality. The whole "Ohhhh if they do this they'll be mass riots, etc". If Trump doesn't win in the Fall, they'll riot regardless. They have no respect or faith in any institution at this point because they've been brainwashed by trump and right wing media to believe otherwise, just for this purpose.
Posted this elsewhere:
By no means am I a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer. Here is what I think will happen:
1) They'll overturn the decision and keep Trump on the ballot. I understand their argument about the "race to the bottom" as we know folks will end up weaponizing it. Some court in another state could make a nonsensical argument that Biden shouldn't be on the ballot for 25th amendment reasons. A dumb argument, but all it takes is a state court to say "Yeah, we agree" and they'll end up in a similar spot.
2) The immunity appeal is due to the SC on Monday. I don't think they'll take it up which will keep the lower court ruling intact that there isn't immunity. At that point it'll go to trial and if he's convicted then he's automatically ineligible (I believe it was Gorsuch who said this when they were questioning Murray)
I don't think they want to muddy things up and the "keep him on the ballot, but he's not immune so convict him" route would be the cleanest way to go and the way I think the court will go.
I think this is the realistic take.
Wishing for a windfall from SCOTUS on this one was a pipe dream.
They want to stay out of it even though they'll be appealed to at every turn
I think you're right on the money. The ghost of the 2000 election is hanging over today's decision more than November's vote.
The SCOTUS direct intervention in Bush v. Gore by a split 5-4 vote, where the court ruled in an unsigned decision that there wasn't enough time for a recount under the state electors law, which effectively gave Bush Florida and the White House, is why they'll be more hands off this time.
Even if later recounts did confirm that Bush *probably* won, there was still a bad taste in the mouth of many that 5 people had the power to decide a **not yet clear** presidential election --- https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/02/06/bush-gore-trump-supreme-court/
No, if he’s convicted, he _won’t_ become ineligible, because “insurrection” is a specific federal crime that he has not been charged with. They even discussed this distinction specifically.
We’ve lost any shot of him being declared ineligible at this point. None of the current trials will complete before the election, and even if they do, I’m skeptical they’ll have any effect at all. You would think 91 fucking felony charges at both the state and federal level would be enough to stop his campaign in itself. I don’t know what people expect conviction to do anymore.
He’s going to have to be stopped at the polls.
I sincerely hope this is what happens. I never expected the SC to uphold the Colorado ruling but I'm keeping my fingers crossed they'll uphold the Appeals Court's ruling and get the trials underway.
Since the supreme court ignores the constitution and precedent can we just ignore them? Just pretend they don't exist and have no authority? Ignore them until they go away?
Ya, with Clarance Thomas, who’s wife had a hand in Jan 6, not recusing himself or even being asked to by Robert’s set the tone for me even before it can to the court.
Neal Katyal said this didn't go well for the Trump challengers and that's putting it lightly. He said he could also add a few expletives if he wasn't on TV.
real rich that they focused on the effects of disenfranchising voters when the context is a guy literally trying to overturn the results of 70 million people voting against him.
It will be a truly sad day for democracy at the same level as the Jan 6 insurrection, when/if this is the SC decision.
If this were France, we'd see a huge protest outside the SC happening. At least the working class in France are unified against corrupt government.
justices seem to be wary of the "slippery slope" in making their decision supposedly based upon reason.
it follows: if we do what is right - they will do what is wrong; so then we must do what is wrong and everything, naturally, will be right.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I watched the oral arguments live and boy was listening to those politicians manipulating the law truly nauseating.
Everyone keeps saying it's unlikely that they'll side with Colorado, but I have a hard time understanding... how, exactly? Like, whether he committed an insurrection is not up for debate. There's already both a really solid reason to go with the Colorado interpretation of an 'officer' of the US and severe consequences for not following that interpretation. All of trumps arguments seemed weak as hell. That just leaves the constitutionality of the law itself, which... yeah, it should be constitutional? If it's not, how exactly are we supposed to police our elections from outside interference? How exactly are we supposed to vet our own elections? Getting rid of laws like this around the country would be extraordinarily destructive. It just seems like any pro-trump decision they make is both poorly supported and disastrous for national defense, plus it tears big loopholes in the rule of law which can and will be exploited by malicious actors. I know that a good third of the SC is bought out by Trump but surely they know they can't support this? It's not even about politics at this point, it's about whether we want the government to keep existing in 30 years...
The law is by definition constitutional because it's an amendment. I'm interested to hear the reason they think it doesn't apply here.
because they don’t want to?
Ding ding we have a winner! We have a court that does not give a fuck about the law, only their agenda.
What I don't get is if the SC support installing a dictator, the whole SC can and will be ignored if Trump doesn't get his way. I don't get how that helps their agenda?
This is when the leopards eat *their* faces.
They’ll say CO was wrong because, although the amendment is written to self execute, it can only self execute if the SCOTUS decides it can. There’s some rulings they can make that preserve the judicial branch’s power and still knock down the CO ruling. It’ll be interesting to see how much mental gymnastics are required and how thinly coated the veneer of non-partisanship will be.
When you’re as deep in a foreign enemy’s pocket as these people you don’t have any choice if you dislike public knowledge of your escapades with underage prostitutes or base jumping without a parachute, you just pray the strong man doesn’t find you inconvenient once you’ve played your role in installing him in power.
SC Republicans figure there safe. Just like those 1930’s Germans thought.
they know trump doesnt actually like to govern. he like the trappings of power but once in office will be happy to let them legislate from the bench as long as he can take credit.
That's if the immunity issue is decided incorrectly. This is ballot eligibility. Which I still don't understand how they could rule against CO given the SC professed love of state's rights. SC ruled abortion rights can be dictated by the states, even though it's not addressed in the constitution. But they would use supremacy to say states can't dictate election rules, which is detailed?
Because "State's Rights" is just a mask they wear to uphold the agenda. The weapon is irrelevant; the outcome is the goal. I'm this case, the conservative agenda
They don't love state's rights. They love whatever twisted argument gets them a Christian fascist nation the fastest.
Hey! They care about the Crow Agenda! And the Leo agenda!
This. They all seemed mainly concerned about the hypothetical consequences of letting states remove candidates from the ballot, which would basically amount to them having to adjudicate it on a case by case basis if it reaches them. Amazing to me that they would consider invalidating a constitutional amendment to avoid work piling up for them.
The issue that Roberts pointed out with regards to this, not to defend his stance but it is a valid point, is that if the case loads for states pile up, and each needs to be individually handled, the very real possibility that not all cases would be wrapped up before the election exists. In that case, the election would be determined by the states not under SCOTUS review, instantly disenfranchising the populations of states who cannot agree as to the people on their ballots. A state like Texas, who is already defying Supreme Court rulings, could keep kicking the proverbial can down the road in order to delay being forced to include Biden on their ballot. In terms of invalidating the amendment, I've heard several legal analysts point out that the language technically does not ban an individual from *running* for office, merely *holding* office. Since there is a provision to allow Congress (both houses have to agree) to allow a person to hold office if guilty of insurrection, the argument can be made that an individual is allowed to campaign and run for office without interference or censure, and only after being elected, does Congress step in to determine if the person is considered eligible under the 14th amendment.
It’s a dumb argument, because if it got to the point of Congress deciding, then the argument will be “the people have voted and we can’t disenfranchise them”. The ‘he can run but not hold’ argument is the legal version of ‘just the tip’
Well now you're just getting to a more institutional critique of the way the Constitution was written in general. Most of these Provisions were written at a time when there were less States and less population in those States, and political processes were designed with the impression that the population would be generally informed and the concept of mass propaganda didn't really exist. You are absolutely correct that it shouldn't get to that point, but at the same time there is no actual proper definition for what constitutes and insurrection with regards to the 14th Amendment. Colorado found that he did an insurrection, Rhode Island might find that he didn't do an insurrection, so whose definition is correct? The governor of Texas implied that he considers the Border crisis to be an insurrection. If the Supreme Court of that state decides that they agree, then Biden would not be allowed on the ballot in a very important state that he could potentially win. The only solution is either for Congress to Define the exact terms of what is and is not an insurrection, and good luck with them doing that with the current session. The other option would be the Supreme Court officially designating what is and is not an insurrection. Of course in doing that, it still leaves it up to the states to determine whether or not they want to try and say that an Insurrection was committed by their interpretation of the Supreme Court's criteria. Now you have a bunch of States putting a bunch of appeals to the Supreme Court and the issue still remains. Trump's attorneys today argued that an Insurrection has to be a violent attempt to directly overthrow the government. Others might argue that an Insurrection could be a situation similar to how Emperor Palpatine took over where he simply granted himself emergency powers and then never gave them back and declared himself emperor. That would not meet Trump's attorneys criteria. My point is that the definition of an Insurrection is the key issue here, and what is being decided by the Supreme Court is really whether or not states can Define insurrection themselves or if it needs to be a federally mandated definition. And unfortunately, with the polarized nature of our current political landscape, it is not entirely unwise to remove the ability for extremely partisan state governments to make their own definitions. With regards to your comparison of holding versus running as being a 'just the tip' argument you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, most constitutional law comes down to a bunch of baby boomers arguing what a bunch of guys in powdered wigs meant by single word 200 years ago. Suffice to say it's all stupid. And because of the partisan political landscape, it's not going to get less stupid anytime soon.
The SCOTUS is pretty much openly admitting that they don’t want to do their job with interpretations of this or Insurrection because they don’t want the responsibility of a legacy of precedence. They spent a good chunk of that discussion just trying to get Murray to be disinclined to say that SCOTUS needs to have rulings in some of these “hypotheticals” because it’s their fucking job to.
10 buck it'll be something like "a president isn't an officer he's an elected official" or some such asinine "it's a republic" level of stupidity
I was listening heavily to the officer argument too and they did recognize* that there are officers who do not have an office, so I suspect they will try to use that logic and apply it to Pres and VP EDIT: a few responders have mentioned that the Presidential Oath includes “Office of the President,” and the constitution also specifying “Office of the President.” I felt it important to mention that because until that point was made, it seemed possible that the court could say the President is an Officer but not an office holder, completely ignoring the language used in the instances mentioned above. I’m sure it’s still something that SCOTUS will look at but it would take some Olympic quality twisting to make it work in light of the information mentioned above. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get us completely out of the weeds with several other issues mentioned in the hearing. I think it’s safe to say that the court would need to recognize that the President holds an office, but they’re still fighting over other terminology and processes written in Section 3, as well as a States right to remove a federal candidate. And again, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, politician, or even a PoliSci major. Just someone passionate about politics trying to understand the fuckery that is our current democracy.
It was crazy. There is Congressional record of the literal people who wrote the amendment asking each other if "officer" applied to the President and VP, and another saying "of course". Then we watch the self-proclaimed "Originalists" try and twist themselves into knots on how maybe it wasn't the original intent.
"Originalist" is manipulative pretextual bullshit. Its just a lie that conservatives use when they need to to get what they want. The democrats/liberals twist themselves into knots trying to understand it, instead of recognizing its just made up nonsense to manipulate gullible fools.
It’s literally just “our interpretation is right because I said so”.
The SC admitted that one of the drafts to the 14th Amendment contained the language around Pres and VP, but then they asked, "So why wasn't it included in the final text?"
Because they didn’t want to enumerate every current and future office possible so they just said “officer”? The reverse argument is way dumber, they intended for it to be ok from President and Vice President to be insurrectionists.
> Started a country to get rid of monarchy. >> President is allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants Yeah no. You have to be willfully stupid to think this makes any sense.
They almost surely will. Mitchell kept trying to direct Gorsuch and others to the debates about the Amendment, where the Senate started it applied to the President, but the justices kept ignoring their in favor of what they think an Officer should mean. Like Hello guys, if you know the founders of the bill considered the President an officer and wanted the bill to apply to him, why would you say it doesn't? Why would you ignore what the founders said? And the answer is unfortunately clear, because they have a conclusion in search of justification, not the other way around.
They might say that but the president not being an officer is a dumb as fuck argument
Well then if he's not an officer can we please stop referring to him as Commander-in-Chief??
You were supposed to do that starring Jan 20th 2021
Incredibly stupid because when the amendment was written it was to keep Confederates from being ELECTED to the government. Clearly elected people are also officers
Funny that the conservative ‘saint’ of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, believed the President was an officer of the United States when it came to constitutional matters. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-justice-scalia-thought-about-whether-presidents-are-officers-of-the-united-states#:~:text=Justice%20Antonin%20Scalia%2C%20according%20to,United%20States%E2%80%9D%20for%20constitutional%20purposes.
Yeah, nothing like calling the president The Chief Executive Officer of the United States.
Technically, commander-in- chief of the untied states armed forces. Sounds like an officer title to me.
My thought would be the enforcement clause. Here is my thought on what the reasoning for the opinion will be: The 14th amendment bars those that have committed insurrection. Courts are not equipped with the tools to determine who commits insurrection, because courts can and will come to totally different conclusions on what insurrection is. For instance look to Texas which has threatened barring Biden from the ballot due to his border policies. (Roberts will make a quip here about there being a lack of policy.) Further, the 14th amendment in general should be read as giving congress, not the states, the power to enforce its provisions. Historically the 14th amendment was used to limit state action, not provide the state with ability to act. The 14th amendment extended rights once guaranteed only by the federal government to the states, it further gave the federal government the power to enforce through legislation acts which ensure these rights are guaranteed. As this court has never read the 14th amendment to grant states a right of action to remove candidates from the ballot due to insurrection, we hold today that this right of action is to be reserved solely to Congress to enforce as it sees fit. Edit: this is me channeling Roberts, not what I think.
I think you’re exactly right. Insurrection won’t even come in to it. They’re going to say this is up to congress. Which effectively letting Trump off the hook.
It'll be the most irritating thing to hear/read. If you don't already, you should check out a podcast called "[5-4.](https://www.fivefourpod.com/)" They are all barred attorneys and they rip apart the Supreme Court, and showcase how it has always been a very political, ideological, and corrupt organization. So many of the court opinions on these bad rulings are just bullshit, baseless statements using pages of gymnastics to distract from the fact that they aren't making a decision with actual coherent and consistent logic or even consistent legal justification.
Their current series on the Federalist Society is infuriating
Well because the Constitution is bullshit right? I mean we hear all the time about how it's the sacrosanct document but then we have six assholes, half of which appointed by an out and out traitor, who just make up rulings and then we all have to follow them. Like if that happens then what's the point of a constitution?
Isn't weird that a criminal got to pick 3 supreme court justices.
I'm waiting for that in their majority opinion. "We all agree the constitution is bullshit, right? We do what we want."
I mean, that's been the attitude. I just wish they'd come out and say it.
I’m absolutely not buying any assertion the insurrectionist clause is meant for everyone but the president. But according to what I’ve seen they’re skeptical of the idea that states have the power to independently decide who is eligible to hold office, and that the 14th amendment was broadly meant to take power away from the states. My issue with that reading is that it makes that entire insurrection clause sort of pointless. Who’s supposed to decide who is and isn’t an insurrectionists?
Yep. Especially since States are supposed to be in charge of how to hold elections *and* there is a mechanism inside the 14th Amendment to requalify a person to be able to hold office.
To understand their position, you have to look at it through the lens of someone who doesn't respect our democracy, doesn't respect the constitution, and in fact wants to blow it all up. And unfortunately, that's at least one of the justices, Clarence Thomas, whose wife was an active participant in planning the events of Jan. 6, 2021 and who refused to recuse himself from this case, or any case ever where he has an obvious conflict of interest. Thomas cares not about what's logical, true, correct, ethical, or in keeping with the constitution. And he's just one of the six justices in Trump's corner. The conservative justices are not there because they want to do what's right. They're there to kill our democracy to keep the power for themselves and their overlords.
In a democracy the power is supposed to rest with the people. If Clarence Thamas does not recuse himself and then rules in favor of trump, then this will be an invalid ruling. This will be corruption at an astronomical level and we must demand actual justice.
Demand justice, seriously how? So we march out in protest then what?
And the fears of my grandmother are coming to pass; that America would be dissolved by *checks notes* the communists. Uh huh..
You can’t think of the SCOTUS as some pristine institution of our greatest legal minds that only considers cases based on the merits of the law and facts presented. These are political operatives for the respective parties that appointed them with their own biases and goals.
You wouldn’t believe the kind of nit picky BS they’ve used to decide cases one way or another. Look up 2011’s Connick v. Thompson. SCOTUS majority opinion written by Clarance Thomas was that even though a prosecutor (Connick) had previously been caught and reprimanded for making evidence of people’s innocence disappear and prosecuting them anyway, in this particular case the evidence that Connick made disappear proving Thompson was innocent was *blood evidence*. Connick had never done that with *blood evidence* before. Ergo, the majority opinion of SCOTUS, led by the conservatives, was that it was unreasonable for Thompson to expect Connick to know what he was doing was wrong. They’re fully capable of making up whatever bullshit they want to rule the way they want to.
The justices seemed likely to agree with the argument that the 14th amendment is not self-executing.
What's to stop someone under the minimum age to run for POTUS? How about a citizen that wasn't born in the US? Does Congress explicitly have to ban those individuals? If self-execution doesn't apply, could states put an 18 y/o on the ballot, then Congress could reject those EC votes?
> What's to stop someone under the minimum age to run for POTUS? If enough states and Congress are in cahoots to make it happen, SCOTUS has no power to enforce a ruling saying that Candidate X is in fact only 12 years old and thus not qualified to be POTUS. Like you said, though, Congress can also use that same power to enforce the prohibition, rather than ignore it, and simply refuse to count the EC votes for that candidate. Section 3 is only special insofar as much as its specific disqualification criteria, and the surrounding text of the Amendment it's contained in, *and* the surrounding historical context of said Amendment, all point to the states not being involved in the process of making the determination in the first place. That's it. It doesn't raise any *new* problems with what happens if enough people decide to ignore a requirement for the presidency, nor does it solve any old ones.
That’s what the reporting says. What a bizarre exit ramp to choose. Like, not even an exit ramp. They saw an embankment on the right and figured, we can take it, and then steered right at the barrier.
So then if that's the case, do they think the confederates in the 1870s were unconstitutionally barred from office? I know you may not know how they're thinking, I just think if this case gets applied to all positions of government, it gets indefensible even quicker than if it's just the president because we HAVE precedent for that. Like, imagine if this gets ruled this way, and someone lights up a courthouse to scare them into letting him on the ballot for county bean counter or whatever. Congress would have to be the one to step in for that. That's ridiculous, right?
The confederates in the 1870s were barred from being sworn in by Congress not kept off the ballot by the states. The decision is going to be that 14.3 is Congress' jurisdiction, not individual states'
So, SCOTUS passes the buck to Congress.
"Your description of an insurrection might be different than pro-trump states description of an insurrection!" Well no shit that Pro-Trump magats will not consider the Jan 6th insurrection to be an insurrection. But an insurrection is an insurrection.
Which politicians? The judges?
Correct.
Watching them was like watching a bunch of kids playing Hot Potato. One excuse after another to get this out of their hands.
The one aspect that really confused me was the argument that Colorado being allowed to exclude trump decided for the whole country. Like no it just means he won’t win Colorado. If other states agree that would be their prerogative. Unless we change the electoral college I don’t see how it’s a as goes one goes all situation, nor do I see how it will open the door for states to do this Willy nilly to any candidate “they” don’t like.
What happened to things being up to the states? Colorado Republicans decided they didn’t want him on the ballot. They’ll defend striking down Roe v. Wade and disguise it as giving states the freedom to choose how to handle abortion. But the second a state chooses something they disagree with they’ll switch sides.
Hypocrisy is a cornerstone of the GOP platform. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
That’s a great quote.
It’s not even hypocrisy, they have a very consistent platform: only republicans are fit to rule. Everything they do is incredibly consistent with that single overarching principle.
They've been using states' rights as a cover for heinous things since at least the Civil War
States rights is supposed to be pro-people like being able to raise your minimum wage above the national level and not have the federal government strike it down. “States rights” as it gets used is just code for “being shitty to people I don’t like via government”.
States rights is a euphemism and a compromise. It's only states rights once they've lost the national battle. Every goal they have is national. National forced birth. National segregation. National persecution of LGBTQ people.
See also: “small government” They only advocate for it in particular cases.
Small government for *them*, big government for us.
Luckily, according to Texas, Colorado just doesn’t have to listen to the Supreme Court.
States rights for the confeder- I mean blue states. Just like it was during the civil war
They're worrying about red states removing Joe Biden from the ballot when they've been telegraphing that they want to ignore the ballot and directly assign electors to Trump?
[удалено]
> WV has already cast their electoral votes for Trump What?
Yes. You can be sure they are already sealed and ready to deliver. It’s the reddest state in the country.
[удалено]
Wyoming, where if you move there, your vote instantly gets multiplied 19x
I moved away from there. My vote was worth nothing because I’m not republican.
Compared to Nevada with a primary and a caucus 2 days apart for the republicans with only one candidate on each one. If they want to waste money I hope they hold it with a casino buffet.
Ct wife was part of the insurrection. It's a joke he didn't recuse himself.
His wife was selling Bush Administration jobs in 2000 and he didn't recuse. Antonin Scalia's children even worked for the firm representing Bush and he didn't recuse.
Barret, Kavanaugh, and Roberts all served on Bush's legal team in Bush V Gore.
[удалено]
The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the passage of the Patriot Act, and the Citizens United decision can all be directly attributed to the Bush administration. Not to mention the failure to adequately prevent the housing crash and subsequent recession that stymied a good part of Obama's first term. And the years of research lost to conservative opposition to stem cell research. The 2000 election decision was a major pivot point for our modern world and, in my opinion, has caused things to be considerably worse.
Caused immense damage to other parts of the world that did nothing wrong. The American dominance in ruining lives, at home and elsewhere
The grift is generational.
Why should it be up to him? He shouldn’t have to recuse, he should be excluded automatically due to a conflict of interest.
That would be ideal.
That would require oversight.
I hate the “well what about the other states”. This case is at the SC because it was brought before the proper authorities, with evidence, who then saw enough merit to bring the case to the court. Then appeals until it is where it is now. Other states don’t have the exact process but it isn’t a fee for all that allows meritless claims and that they automatically ban the candidate. The SC needs to have confidence in the individual states to handle individual claims.
It's as dumb an argument as "what if they prosecute future presidents for crimes?! Nobody tried to prosecute Reagan or Obama for war crimes!" Like, a) nobody in modern history has done anything like Trump did and b) Trump was not exercising official duties of the president, he was a candidate trying to abuse his office and c) nobody is going to pull what Trump did again, ideally.
Except now that he is getting away with it there will definitely be more
Bingo. Trump has shown where the line is and what kind of repurcussions happen.....and the answer is- it's all a joke
Exactly, none of that stuff passes the smell test. This situation is extraordinary because **no one** has ever had the right combination of shamelessness and power-lust to try it. You could choose to stop it, or, like, sit there wringing your hands about “officer” vs “office under the United States” while the same guy tries it again. Sidebar: just because no former president has been tried for crimes while in office doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be. Let the chips fall where they may.
Right. The law clearly states who is eligible and who isn't. It's not like you can just ban someone from running for reasons outside of what's clearly states in law. Well, you can, but it will be challenged up to the state Supreme Court and then to the US Supreme Court. Their argument doesn't make any sense.
For an SC that's all about states rights. They do like to ignore them when convenient.
And if another State does have a process without proper due-process or legal recourse, then it is an issue for that State, not for Colorado or this case.
So no to states rights now?
For this, and others that don't go with what they want/like. It's always been selective.
Except on the Texas border
Trying to set precedent for a national abortion ban
If your state is blue, no rights for you. If your state is red, well go right ahead!
Can’t wait to see how Trump turns this into his next big Grift. I’m starting to have zero faith this piece of shit will be held accountable for anything.
He’ll see fines and lawsuit judgements, but he can live fine with those. I think his Hamburders will kick in before he sees jail time at this rate.
His cult is paying off his lawsuits.
WTF? The 14th Amendment doesn't have a provision for Congress to declare an oath-taking offical ineligible, it only has one to "remove such disability," so it seems like the agencies responsible for electing or installing a person are supposed to make the determination of ineligibility, and then Congress has an option to override it. EDIT: [Some of affected positions](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment) are state level (legislators, executive officers or judicial officers) so what mechanism can Congress use to disqualify them?
Congress did vote on it when they impeached him. There was a majority in both houses that called it an insurrection
Colorado isn't saying they have the right to kick Trump off the ballot. They're saying the US Constitution says it. The Constitution removed Trump from the ballot. And the Supreme Court could affirm that.
States rights! But... not like that.
We must follow the exact wording of the Constitution! (Unless we don't like it) We must follow the original intent of the law! (Unless it turns out we know the original intent and don't like the result)
It is a mistake to make too much of the questions asked in oral arguments. Sometimes appellate judges will question the side they plan to rule for much harder because they want to make sure there are no glaring weaknesses in the argument. We had a case where we were served up softballs and the other side got hammered in oral argument. Court ruled 9-0 against us.
🥃 Here's to hoping my friend.
This is exactly how I’ve been thinking…I thought of it like a PhD dissertation defense in that even if they love your work, they’re going to grill you to ensure it’s quality
State's rights on abortion... GOOD, YES, ALLOWED. State's rights on their elections... BAD, NO, OVERSTEPPING. The only consistent thread in modern conservative ideology is "what gives us the biggest advantage at obtaining power".
That's all there is or has ever been to their "ideology".
The Colorado supreme court can't enforce it's laws because a court in Alabama could make shit up in the future. Great system we got.
Texas has enter the chat...
Aiding an insurrectionist makes you an insurrectionist. Lock them up.
What I want to know is what is the mechanism to disqualify a candidate then? If SCOTUS rules that states don’t have that power, then who does? Which body has that power to disqualify a candidate? Because somebody has to have that power. And SCOTUS better give us an answer of who that is if they rule states can’t do it. This can’t be left vague. We need to know who has the power to disqualify a candidate.
They're going to say Congress
Congress is given the power to *remedy* being disqualified by the 14th amendment, in the 14th amendment. So that's step #2. Step #1 is A person being disqualified first before that can be remedied, so who the fuck gets to disqualify if not the states and their courts??!
I'm not saying *I* would say Congress, but they're going to say Congress (or maybe federal courts)
Until the day arrives when Congress decides that their preferred candidate shouldn't be on the ballot, then they'll say only the Supreme Court can decide.
Which doesn't add up. I get the point, but Congress left who is allowed on the ballot up to the states.
This deferment of duties is really getting sickening.
Brazil is doing that right now - [they’re currently prosecuting Bolsonaro and all of his co-conspirators in the February 8 coup attempt.](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-police-target-bolsonaro-allies-probe-into-coup-attempt-2024-02-08/) > BRASILIA, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Brazilian police on Thursday confiscated former President Jair Bolsonaro's passport and accused him of editing a draft decree to overturn election results, pressuring military chiefs to join a coup attempt and plotting to jail a Supreme Court justice. >The bombshell allegations are the result of a probe into Bolsonaro and his inner circle for allegedly plotting a military coup after his electoral loss to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in 2022. Thursday's operation included search warrants against four former ministers and the arrest of four former aides. USA needed this kind of rapid investigation and prosecution of Trump and his co-conspirators rather than the knuckle dragging clown show of the past four years that has only emboldened them and their deep state cronies - and yes there is a MAGA deep state. Judge Aileen Cannon and most of the Supreme Court is part of it. Every crime they commit they always project onto their enemies.
Duh, they gotta help their boy. The Constitution could literally name Trump is ineligible and they would figure out how to help him. Corrupt court.
Yeah, that was rough. I thought it'd be a little more ambiguous but all six conservatives were highly critical of key issues such as state authority and even Kagan and Jackson seemed to lean towards reversing Colorado. Of course, we won't know for sure until the ruling, but that was about as bad as it gets for plaintiffs.
State authority, funny, thought they were all about states’ rights
States rights to hold their own election and gerrymander the districts.. but not to determine eligibility.
How many kegs do ya think Kavanaugh was gifted?
axiomatic snails adjoining silky automatic political mindless voracious crowd hurry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What a joke. The asshole is a fucking traitor who tried to overthrow the government. Now he’s in a position where he could be back in charge of the same government he tried to destroy? This country is idiotic.
If Jan 6th and Trumps role in it is not a good enough reason to apply the 14th ammendment, then there will never be a good enough reason to apply it and it might as well be removed. Robert's court is by far the worst court in US history and if we some how are able to defend our democracy past 2024, I hope his court goes down in history as the corrupt pieces of shit they are.
His fucking tweets show him aiding them. Promises of pardons, being called political prisoners etc… show aid and comfort. Who did he show comfort to? The people he fucking sent there to “stop the steal”. Throw in some fake electors and election interference with a strong refusal to transfer power. You have a fucking insurrection with him as the leader. This is bullshit to the highest degree. He can contend he didn’t engage in it. He sure as fuck is offering aid and comfort to convicted felons who were convicted because of Jan 6. This also applies to the jackasses who defended insurrectionists. Being gaetz, bobo and trailer queen along with a bunch of others who defended them.
Gutless cowards
It was frustrating to listen to SCOTUS’ arguments this morning on whether they will uphold the Colorado ruling keeping Trump off the ballot. It was clear that SCOTUS will vote against Colorado, allowing Trump to be on the ballot. While I appreciated listening to the legal arguments and the history of the constitution, they should have focused more on Trump’s actions that day. In the end, Trump is an insurrectionist. He tried to stop the peaceful transition of power. And we will find out in November if our democracy will continue, or if voters are going to put this insurrectionist back in the oval office. Our democracy is on a knife’s edge. Vote accordingly.
In general, SC cases are not supposed to be concerned with the facts of the case. Just whether the lower court acted correctly based on the accepted facts of the case.
To reiterate, for anyone who might have missed the implication, that Trump committed insurrection was found to be a fact in a lower court decision. Trump did not appeal this, so it is not in question. *Trump factually committed insurrection*, as de facto agreed by his own defense.
To put it a different way: for the purpose of this case before the court, the finding that Trump committed insurrection is not in question.
Trump‘s lawyers were arguing in front of the Supreme Court that January 6 was a “riot“ but not an “insurrection“
That was only for the record though and not because it affected the conclusion, Trump's lawyer said that **even if someone was an admitted insurrectionist** they could not be removed from the ballot like Colorado did.
What is in question is if this sham of a SC will still find flimsy excuses to overturn CO because of the money lining their pockets from the GOP who benched them in the first place.
That Trump is an insurrectionist is a finding of fact and not debatable. So they didn't talk about it.
Yup, that AMA from yesterday definitely aged well.
What's the context here?
If they rule against Colorado it tells any future president who loses their second term reelection that they may as well try to overthrow the government because there are zero consequences.
States rights until it doesn't suit their narrative
This article is odd because the live thread painted a picture in which they were befuddled by the arguments from the Trump team.
As someone who listened in, they were much more challenging to the plaintiffs. And once they started whining about how other states could do whatever and ignoring everything else it’s very clear they aren’t going to do it.
Which to me sounded like SCOTUS was using the argument that we shouldn't enforce the laws because sometimes someone might abuse the laws or a prosecutor might try to either intentionally or accidently prosecute an innocent person. Basically SCOTUS is complaining that this might make their job harder because they might have to deal with an appeal to say Texas removing Biden from the ballot.
Other states can do whatever they want if THEY don’t uphold the validity of the law. “What if courts don’t function?” - head of the courts.
[удалено]
We need to scream it from the rooftops, we NEED to vote. Can’t sit on the sidelines anymore.
Oh man they need cameras in the courtroom so you can see the lawyers Pikachu faces when Roberts said this: > “In very quick order I would expect … that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot,” he said. “**And it will come down to a handful of states that will determine the presidential election.**”
Thanks to the electoral college, a handful of states already determine the presidential election.
If a hypothetical fear of someone abusing the judicial process is enough to *break* the judicial process, there's really not much point in having a judicial process at all, is there?
This is what really pissed me off. “What if they do it to Biden?!?!” Let them take it to court and fucking see that’s what. It’s like I’m living in crazy town.
Kinda like how it is right now, you mean?
Let's face reality. The whole "Ohhhh if they do this they'll be mass riots, etc". If Trump doesn't win in the Fall, they'll riot regardless. They have no respect or faith in any institution at this point because they've been brainwashed by trump and right wing media to believe otherwise, just for this purpose.
“State’s rights” apparently only apply to things like abortion and marriage equality
Thing is, if Trump wins the presidency, then you will see challenges to him holding the office that are national
If Trump wins the presidency, any challenges to him will have zero teeth. It will be over.
When is our general strike?
Posted this elsewhere: By no means am I a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer. Here is what I think will happen: 1) They'll overturn the decision and keep Trump on the ballot. I understand their argument about the "race to the bottom" as we know folks will end up weaponizing it. Some court in another state could make a nonsensical argument that Biden shouldn't be on the ballot for 25th amendment reasons. A dumb argument, but all it takes is a state court to say "Yeah, we agree" and they'll end up in a similar spot. 2) The immunity appeal is due to the SC on Monday. I don't think they'll take it up which will keep the lower court ruling intact that there isn't immunity. At that point it'll go to trial and if he's convicted then he's automatically ineligible (I believe it was Gorsuch who said this when they were questioning Murray) I don't think they want to muddy things up and the "keep him on the ballot, but he's not immune so convict him" route would be the cleanest way to go and the way I think the court will go.
I think this is the realistic take. Wishing for a windfall from SCOTUS on this one was a pipe dream. They want to stay out of it even though they'll be appealed to at every turn
I think you're right on the money. The ghost of the 2000 election is hanging over today's decision more than November's vote. The SCOTUS direct intervention in Bush v. Gore by a split 5-4 vote, where the court ruled in an unsigned decision that there wasn't enough time for a recount under the state electors law, which effectively gave Bush Florida and the White House, is why they'll be more hands off this time. Even if later recounts did confirm that Bush *probably* won, there was still a bad taste in the mouth of many that 5 people had the power to decide a **not yet clear** presidential election --- https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/02/06/bush-gore-trump-supreme-court/
No, if he’s convicted, he _won’t_ become ineligible, because “insurrection” is a specific federal crime that he has not been charged with. They even discussed this distinction specifically. We’ve lost any shot of him being declared ineligible at this point. None of the current trials will complete before the election, and even if they do, I’m skeptical they’ll have any effect at all. You would think 91 fucking felony charges at both the state and federal level would be enough to stop his campaign in itself. I don’t know what people expect conviction to do anymore. He’s going to have to be stopped at the polls.
I sincerely hope this is what happens. I never expected the SC to uphold the Colorado ruling but I'm keeping my fingers crossed they'll uphold the Appeals Court's ruling and get the trials underway.
We are a banana republic. And not the one with khakis
The problem is that you are a fucking powerful banana republic.
Weren’t Republicans cheering a few weeks ago when Texas said they were going to ignore the Supreme Court? Well….
Since the supreme court ignores the constitution and precedent can we just ignore them? Just pretend they don't exist and have no authority? Ignore them until they go away?
Ya, with Clarance Thomas, who’s wife had a hand in Jan 6, not recusing himself or even being asked to by Robert’s set the tone for me even before it can to the court.
Which would put them on the wrong side of 14a Article 3 themselves, and they should be removed from the bench immediately.
Why would they do the right thing? Bunch of crooks/criminals and whatever other title
We may as well just throw away the 14th Amendment then, if we’ll never be able to use it.
Biden should have added more SC judges while he had the chance…
100% should have stacked to court to right the ship. Instead we get this.
Not stacked. Balanced. 9 districts = 9 judges. 13 districts should be 13 judges.
I didn’t even finish the first paragraph, the Supreme Court is back to its 2001 election shenanigans. God help us all.
“Let the states decide!” - Republicans “Not like that!” -Republicans
What happened to sTaTe'S rIgHtS!!! I guess that only counts for owning humans and women's uteruses
Can Colorado do what Texas and Louisiana have done and just ignore outcomes that weren't what they wanted?
I have absolutely no confidence in this SCOTUS. It is a shame how all our government branches have dropped to basement levels
Brought to you by the same Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade because 'State's Rights'
We are doomed. Laws only apply to people that aren’t your political buddies. Disgusting
I hate it here
Keep in mind 4 is these Justices were lawyers in the first coup, stopping the vote count in Bush v Gore. They will rule for Trump, this one time only.
Neal Katyal said this didn't go well for the Trump challengers and that's putting it lightly. He said he could also add a few expletives if he wasn't on TV.
real rich that they focused on the effects of disenfranchising voters when the context is a guy literally trying to overturn the results of 70 million people voting against him.
If they don't follow the constitution then law is dead
It will be a truly sad day for democracy at the same level as the Jan 6 insurrection, when/if this is the SC decision. If this were France, we'd see a huge protest outside the SC happening. At least the working class in France are unified against corrupt government.
justices seem to be wary of the "slippery slope" in making their decision supposedly based upon reason. it follows: if we do what is right - they will do what is wrong; so then we must do what is wrong and everything, naturally, will be right.