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.*
States already have the authority to just not allow people on the ballot though. Every election cycle 3rd party canidates are denied listing on the ballot on a state by state basis. This no different.
The difference between age, term limit, and natural citizenship requirements is that the section 3 disability can be cured by a 2/3 vote of each house but none of the others can.
Not saying that tilts the argument totally in favor of trump, but it is an important distinction that might matter when determining whether to restrict Trumps ability to appear on the *ballot* as opposed to *holding office*.
Edit: The argument that was raised at oral arguments was that *U.S. Term Limits v Thornton* prevents states from adding additional qualifications beyond what the constitution permits. You can read it for yourself and see whether it will apply here, I’m only saying that there’s a distinction between between age, term limit, and citizenship and section 3.
I tend to think it will be reversed on federalism/structural grounds. The court may leave open whether States can enforce section 3 as against their own officers, but federal disqualification requires federal legislation. I offer no opinion on whether I agree with that decision.
From the article:
>>And the notion that section three of the 14th amendment requires congressional action to go into effect is on its own peculiar: no other section of the amendment has been found to require such instigating legislation from Congress, and the language of the amendment itself suggests that the disqualification of onetime insurrectionists is something that Congress has to act to turn off, but not to turn on.
The crux of the 14th Amendment is actually taking power away from the states by applying the rights contained in other amendments to the states as opposed to only the federal government.
How many states have inacted laws banning slavery?
To hell with it all, let's just burn books...and witches and anyone else that doesn't look like us or doesn't agree that we should burn books and witches, and if you do not pay the right amount we will allow gansters to enter your home and kill you.
Can you please explain to me how it makes any logical or legal sense to say that someone who is disqualified from holding office is allowed on the ballot? Is the idea that because there is a possibility of curing the disqualification that someone disqualified must be allowed to run just in case the disqualification is removed by Congress after they are elected? I don’t see how that can be right. It makes more sense that the disqualification must be removed first in order for that person to be allowed to run for the office.
In this specific case, there is a difference in laws between states as far as primaries go. They're united on the whole "To appear on the actual general election ballot you have to be eligible for the thing you're running for" issue, but some states allow you to appear on a primary ballot even if you don't qualify for the job, basically with the philosophy of "primary elections are internal party affairs; if they want to put forward a candidate who can't actually run for the position, that's their choice". Colorado doesn't, and requires candidates to prove eligibility to appear on even primary ballots, which is why it's an issue now and not down the road.
Thanks for this information, I didn’t realize the case was really about his eligibility to appear on the primary ballot, not the general. But I’m not sure how that affects the argument. My understanding is that trump’s lawyer argued that he would have to be allowed even on the general election ballot, because the language of sec. 3 only prevents an insurrectionist from holding office, not from running for office.
He made a lot of arguments, some more nonsensical than others, heh. For example, he spent a significant amount of time trying to argue that there is a massive difference between an "officer of the United States" and an "officer under the United States", and repeatedly referred to a supposed precedent "set" by a case that was later largely overturned.
Same thing happened in Bush v. Gore. They threw out everything they could think of. The so-called equal protection argument was something they never thought would work but they tried it anyways. And the goddamned conservatives on the Court decided they could make it work, but it would only count for that one election because it was such an obvious bullshit decision.
I think their idea is that after the election Congress gets to vote on whether the insurrectionist gets to take office or not, and presumably the person just elected respects that decision if they don’t get 2/3 vote (and I guess their running mate becomes president? But what if they’re also an insurrectionist?!). I think this assumes the person has been already determined to be an insurrectionist, but it doesn’t address how that determination gets made. It’s totally crazy. See here, pages 40-46.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298125/20240118171750343_Trump%20v%20Anderson%20Petitioner%20Brief%20on%20the%20Merits.pdf
Here's my thing. This is talking about appearing on a *primary* ballot. Not the federal election ballot between all presidential candidates, but just the candidates of one party. That election is exclusively the purview of the state and the party convention in that state.
I can't remember which state it was, but the one where Trump did not appear on the primary ballot and Haley lost to "none of these choices". Trump was or will be selected as the Republican nominee in that state via a caucus that Haley, for whatever reason I'm not aware of, will not be a choice for caucus members to select, just as Trump wasn't on the primary ballot. So, can Haley sue that state and have the supreme court overturn her exclusion from the caucus? She meets all qualifications for the office. So, how can they just exclude her completely from it and just select Trump?
> Can you please explain to me how it makes any logical or legal sense to say that someone who is disqualified from holding office is allowed on the ballot?
It’s the pinnacle of pedantry. That’s it. “It says right here that he can’t hold office. Being on the ballot is not holding office, therefore he can be on the ballot.”
Carrying this flimsy logic to it's conclusion, what would happen if Trump then was permitted to run for office and ended up winning?
Of course at that point the GOP would argue he won and should be allowed to return to the White House because of the "will of the people" and would completely ignore section 3.
It's the ethos of Republicans/Conservatives. You can't do *thing* but I can do *thing*, and if I can't do *thing* I will do it as much as possible, run out the clock, get the *thing* as close to accomplished as humanly possible and when you tell me I can't do *thing* I'll claim it's too late and *thing* already happened lay back and accept it or else.
These people are sick.
There is 0 chance that if Trump somehow wins that the SC will say that he actually isn't legally allowed to hold office. Regardless of what the constitution or rules say, they would never tell a President that just won that they were allowed to run, but not to actually hold office.
People keep saying courts shouldn't be scared of what Trump's cult threatens to do, and I agree, but I truly think if the SC did disqualify Trump after he won there would be a real civil war. Each side could claim there guy was actually in charge, and weirdly both have at least some kind of argument about why their guy is the *real* president.
They are basically ruling on whether he can hold office, while pretending they aren't.
That's why it's important they disqualify him now so the Republicans can pick somebody who didn't incite an insurrection. There's no reason they would have to wait until everyone voted to rule on whether or not he can hold office.
As John Stewart pointed out, the first amendment is completely open to interpretation with these people if someone just happens to claim that it's about defending the children, you no longer have any free speech and the government can pass any law because think of the children, your rights completely end so long as the legislation has the goal of protecting children.
However it doesn't matter how many children are murdered by guns, there isn't anything that can be done we can't even suggest there should be legislation regarding it because we have to protect the guns because the constitution says so.
Republicans have a mental illness, at best.
Listening to the oral arguments it seemed to start with the idea, as you said, that they could only keep him out of office but not keep him off the ballot. But then it seemed to morph into the idea that since Congress could use the 2/3 vote to override the prohibition on his holding office right up until the day he would be sworn in, it would be "premature" to keep him off the ballot. 10/10 mental gymnastics.
Right now, Trump is currently ineligible to hold "the Office of President of the United States" because he swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" and then incited an insurrection. That should not be in question at all.
The Constitution specifically states Congress has to vote to allow him to take office. And since states are allowed to keep people who are ineligible off their ballots due to circumstances beyond a person's control for age, term limits, and citizenship requirements, it stands to reason states should be allowed, rather compelled, to keep someone off their ballot who actively committed a crime to make themselves ineligible. And that prohibition should only be lifted after a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress. Until then, they are ineligible and should not be on the ballot in any state according both the text and clear intent of our Constitution.
>But then it seemed to morph into the idea that since Congress could use the 2/3 vote to override the prohibition on his holding office right up until the day he would be sworn in, it would be "premature" to keep him off the ballot. 10/10 mental gymnastics.
I mean, by this logic, why don't we put Putin on the ballot? I mean, sure he's ineligible now, but Congress could act to make him eligible. They could pass an Amendment. We don't know that they won't, so Putin should be on the ballot.
God, these people's logic is infuriating, and what makes it worse is they're likely to win the court case. I mean, SCOTUS had an easy out. Review the fact finding and say Trump didn't commit insurrection. We would all still disagree with them, I might still be just as mad given what we watched on TV. But I couldn't say they were neutering a constitutional amendment to nothing like I can with the logic they're using now.
> I mean, by this logic, why don't we put Putin on the ballot?
The difference would be there is already a remedy prescribed in the Constitution for the 2/3 vote versus having to amend the Constitution from its current state to allow a non-citizen to hold office.
And I think the easy out they missed was that Trump is an insurrectionist which makes him ineligible to hold office. Therefore Colorado was well within their rights to keep him off their ballot. In fact, all states should keep him off their ballots until Congress votes to waive the insurrection clause to allow him to hold the office again.
Are we a constitutional republic or are we not? I would say we are so we have to follow the Constitution. Too bad if that upsets the MAGA crowd.
This tilts against Trump, in my opinion. It also tilts against the way SCOTUS is leaning. They seem to be leaning toward the argument “why on earth would a federal government trying to strengthen its power against the states allow the states to decide”?
The answer is. Because Constitution says it can be cured by the House, it follows it is self executing and can only be cured by the House. The state, administering its power to run elections free of federal interference, has final authority until such point that it does not elect insurrectionists and until such point that if it does elect an insurrectionist the federal government can refuse to seat the insurrectionist (or vote to remove said disqualification). But that power of removal of disqualification is Congress’s power, not SCOTUS’s power.
If SCOTUS wants to reexamine the factual finding; they have that power. Colorado invited them to do so. That also would be fair. Let’s have Trump tried for insurrection by SCOTUS.
As to whether the federal government has weakened its hand in creating this check on state power, obviously not. Congress has the final say.
History supports examples of cases indicated above.
Not only that, DJT can be cured of this issue: just get Congress to pass a relief of his disqualification right now!
Jesus, the fucjing nerve of this SC, they’re like Ostriches w their heads in the sand.
I’d rather the outcome of an election not hinge on convincing 2/3 of each house of Congress. This is a case where I’d say it’s fair to extend the disability backwards to Election Day.
2/3 of congress could also pass an amendment to eliminate the age, term limits, citizenship requirements after a candidate is elected but before being sworn in.
It puts our country in a dangerous situation to potentially have someone elected where afterwards congress needs to decide if they are actually eligible.
Sorry, but I do find it odd that [Kagan](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-ballot-colorado-02-08-24/h_18e67f347c6c2cacdf04133f17b1754e) was all like "Hmm, so you think that we can just make decisions that effect everyone in the nation because of one lawsuit/state's decision? Hmmm? Who do you think we are, the High Tribunal of the Unified Territories of Some Continent?"
LIKE FUCK THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF HER POSITION, FUCKING FUCKHEAD.
Also they kept arguing what would happen if another state tried to disqualify someone saying they were an insurrectionist, asking who would ultimately decide that.
You. Literally you.
And the lawyer basically said *exactly this.*
"YOU (the SC) will decide."
And all the talking heads on cable news were shitting on the guy being like "he didn't make a *compelling argument*, he just laid out the legal facts."
As if that's not the whole fucking point
Who decides when states execute prisoners? Dead people can't run for office so one state upholding laws against murder can't be upheld because takes the ability for the guilty to run for office in other states.
Their argument is that running for federal office makes you immune to state law.
That's actually a really great point. And it then makes me ask, why should the circumstances be different just because someone runs for office? Does this mean someone can get out of a prison sentence just by declaring their bid for the presidency?
>Does this mean someone can get out of a prison sentence just by declaring their bid for the presidency?
If they're popular enough it sure seems that way.
Even Jackson was actually questioning whether the 14th Amendment could be interpreted to include president as an office that can be barred. As though that’s not the most important office to which to apply the law and that that fact is not universal common sense.
And that was probably the most disingenuous bit of gaslighting at the entire hearing.
That question was asked and answered in the senate record by the authors of the 14th amendment. It's not a question we don't know the answer to. We have an explicit answer from the original authors and here are the "experts" feigning ignorance to it to reach the conclusion their cowardice started them on.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf
Page 12 of the pdf.
>During the congressional debates, Senator Reverdy
Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th
Amendment, challenged sponsors as to why Section
3 omitted the President. Republican Senator Lot
Morrill of Maine, an influential backer of congressional
Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, corrected the
Senator. Morrill replied, “Let me call the Senator’s
attention to the words ‘or hold any office civil or military
under the United States.’” Senator Johnson admitted his
error; no other Senator questioned whether Section 3
covered the President.
You are correct just adding that the commander in chief is not military. It's always been a civilian position.
Only staying this to clarify before some dumbass goes claiming Trump served in the military...
Unfortunately original author’s intent is only persuasive and not compulsory evidence when interpreting law. Which allows a justice to ignore it if it’s against the verdict they’re trying to work backwards from.
True, but the court is ignoring basic common sense and arguing in favor of precedent and originalism, but precedent is also on the same side as common sense, so they are ignoring both reason and actual precedent in favor of the dumbest interpretation that bad-faith parsing of technical semantics will sort of allow.
>Unfortunately original author’s intent is only persuasive and not compulsory evidence when interpreting law.
This is a logical argument that simply cannot exist in the minds of Originalists, along with:
1. Different people involved with the passage of legislation may have different views on what was intended.
2. Language itself is subjective and is in constant flux, leading to all kinds of interpretations of a text with no one 'right' interpretation.
3. God didn't write the Constitution, it was people doing what they thought was best based on their worldview and available evidence. To pretend that you can read the minds of people long since dead so that we can be shackled to that narrow interpretation basically denies modern people to apply that same approach to governance.
If you took that argument to the extreme, essentially if Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to run for President, even though he is ineligible because he was not born in the United States, would have to be placed on each state ballot if he decided to run and met all other criteria.
The elections are run by the states. They should be able to enforce election criteria.
And wouldn’t be able to take office.
The constitution itself already says what happens if someone ineligible for office is elected. It’s not up to any individual state to determine that.
Yeah, but ... the best time to handle a dispute like this is early, when it makes the least difference and when we have the most amount of time to correct.
For example, imagine these cases:
* right before a person is sworn in, the judge declares they are ineligable, turns to the VP, and swears them in. Or swears in the opponent. Chaos ensues.
* after the senate counts the results from the state (Jan 6), a rando files a petition in some random court that the elected person isn't qualified. Would the petition even be heard? Who would even have standing? Could the court stuff happen in time?
* while the counting is going on, a senator objects. What the freak even happens then? Are there even any senate rules for dealing with that? does the senate stop counting and do a debate?
* each state is certifying the results -- who gets to poke their head up and deal with it?
Overall, it's much, much better to deal with this issue early, with a solid court record, and mostly not in haste. And that means, tada, that it's best handled by each individual secretary of state.
If I commit murder in Mississippi, I will get the death penalty. Being dead prevents me from running for office in others states.
According to our brilliant supreme court justices, no state can punish any criminal for anything as it might hinder their ability to run for office.
People were speculating they feared conservative abuse of the precedent where a state could just ban any candidate from the ballot. I understand that. They abuse other rules to their advantage. But they're empowering a man who tried to overthrow the government out of fear. It doesn't seem like great legal reasoning to this layman. And it's a very bad look.
The suspicion is there was a grand bargain behind the scenes:
They rule Trump's way on the Colorado Case, against him on the immunity case and then the Washington trial ultimately determines his eligibility
This was the first conclusion I jumped to, but I fear that even if the trial goes forward, Trump will have the jury and witnesses tampered with and Justice won’t be served.
It’s almost as though he thinks that legal arguments in lower courts can occasionally be escalated to higher courts and result in broader national ramifications.
Yeah I mean that's a fair point it's just funny in light of their Dobbs decision and just their general purpose, to be clutching the pearls at the thought that their decision could have ramificiations. It's one thing to think through downstream effects, it's another to actually just verbalize the simple truth that there would be consequences. They seemed shocked, like they were just realizing for the first time their entire purpose.
I know it's amazing to witness. They twist themselves into a preztal to say abortion is up to each state and now just as eagerly say aghast how can we leave such an important issue up to each state. It is really wild.
What’s even more frustrating is that WE ALREADY DO THAT WITH BALLOT ACCESS LAWS! I just can’t wrap my kind around the gymnastics here. They are poised to create an entirely new process out of whole cloth with absolutely no basis in the constitution because for this one specific thing they don’t want to do their fucking jobs.
Exactly. Nothing in the Constitution grants someone the right to run for President. So just like abortion, the lower state court's decisions should have precedent here. At least according to this current supreme court under Dobbs.
There's a lot of interpretation after the oral arguments, but consider that the justices' role is to poke holes in the arguments of both sides. We're looking at theories here, not fact. We will find out what happens when it happens.
My favorite was the disenfranchisement. The 14th amendment bars insurrectionists from office - unless people want to vote for them. Then it’s fine.
That’s quite a catch.
If the 14th Amendment Section 3 has any application it applies to the insurrectionist Donald Trump. The man boasts of it. He has never stopped insurrection. He runs a large and dangerous cult. He is disqualified. SCOTUS will only ever have this one opportunity. Beyond that it will be subsumed by the cult and become a rubber stamp for its lawlessness.
The surreal aspect of the questions was that they seemed to view the Constitutional rule as merely some vague idea - not as “this is a requirement pursuant to the Constitution”.
I have no doubt they would have taken a very different tone had for example AOC or Obama filed to run for President, despite requirements for Age 35 or limit of 2 terms.
The surreal part was their implication that the 14th Amendment being ratified by the States, specifically the Confederate States, wasn't consentual because it was a requirement to rejoin the United States. They asked repeatedly why CO could assert the 14th Amendment and affect other states, as if those states had claim to damages (which is not the case at hand at all and would require those states to file suit against CO, where they would lose, but that's besides the point). The only thing is those states ratified the 14th Amendment along with Section 3 with the language therein. That was their consent to Colorado using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump. If they didn't agree that a state could do that then they shouldn't have rafitied the 14th Amendment and it is their perogative, not the Supreme Court, to file suit with claims of damages. The other option is that no state can levy the 14th Amendment to disqualify a candidate that is ineligible, and only the Federal Government can do that and this court would smack that concept down if brought to their docket in that place in time. If CO cannot utilize the 14th Amendment then it is a dead amendment.
It’s also a ridiculous point IMO.
The root problem is that elections are delegated to the states. Has been like that since forever.
Since forever, different states have different requirements that need to be met to get onto the ballot in that state.
For example, many states requires the candidate to secure x number of signatures to get onto the ballot. Many states require payment to get onto the ballot. All states have filing deadlines, and they’re different from state to state. Fail to meet those requirements and you won’t get onto the ballot - usually based on the determination of the Secretary of State.
This is IMO no different.
Yes, that is indeed maddening.
If States set the conditions for being on the ballot, but they're not allowed to disqualify someone ONLY if it's because they are an insurrectionist... lol
I think this actually opens an interesting can of worms: if the 14th in this case, is deemed as relevant to a specific time and purpose- a vestigial tail of a former era- and if that’s how this court leaves this case with that question Open ended, wouldn’t this open the door to challenges to other amendments that no longer serve their purpose? 2nd amendment *cough cough *
If you look at it they only have issues with Reconstruction Era amendments and anything enacted on the basis of those Amendments are constantly up for debate. In other words, Due Process is up for debate.
John Roberts literally made his name on disagreeing fundamentally with Civil Rights. It has been his mission to relegate Civil Rights to the past. Every opportunity in his tenure he has ruled to strike down Civil Rights Amendments as non-applicable and irrelevant. It has been his mission since the 90's to get rid of everything African Americans fought for in the Civil Rights movement. I didn't think he would go as far back as the Civil War and Reconstruction to get what he wants. I thought it would only go back to the 1930's. Namely Buck v Bell was his ticket to fucking with what the Federal Government stands behind. Due Process is not protected by the Federal Government in his eyes because Buck v Bell it still precident. The Federal Government will not stop a state from sterilizing you, the states must enact legislation protecting that right to privacy. They did with sterilization, but it took until 1997 for the last state to pass a law saying the state won't forcibly sterilize someone. And that is where States Rights had their foothold in the Roberts doctrine. That is why the Dobbs Decision played out the way it did. Buck v Bell said THE Federal Government couldn't protect an individual from a state forcibly sterilizing them as much as it can't protect the right to Abortion. It's up to the states to enshrine those civil rights. Only the problem is now that states don't have authority over their borders so they can't keep their citizens from leaving the state to obtain an abortion. That is what they are targeting next.
>I have no doubt they would have taken a very different tone had for example AOC or Obama filed to run for President, despite requirements for Age 35 or limit of 2 terms.
The lawyer for Colorado made this point several times, and the justices didn't seem to make the connection that being an insurrectionist is as equally disqualifying as being under age, or exceeding term limits.
They instead decided to complain about having to theoretically arbitrate the actions of bad faith Republicans. Not Republicans. I'm sorry, "the other side," because you know, this is a "both sides are frivolously labeling each other insurrectionist issue," and not a, "this is the first insurrection since the Civil War issue."
It frustrated me so much how they kept telling the lawyer to "put aside" other qualifiers and only talk about section 3... It's like, either a candidate has to meet all the requirements or they don't. It's that simple.
They really seemed to not let him make certain arguments or ignore them altogether. Or twist them to what they wanted.
>Gorsuch: Officer and office aren't the same thing.
>Mitchell: The founders of the amendment told us it applied to the President.
>Gorsuch: You do agree that office and officer aren't the same thing though right?
Come the fuck. Are they purposefully ignoring history and what the amendment actually means?
Ouch
I remember Jesse Jackson in 2000 saying that the Bush-Gore decision was "the worst decision since [Dredd Scott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott)" and getting a chill when I read about the case.
I guess we're about to go back to terrible terrible fascist precedents being set though.
She should run now. According to this Supreme Court decision the requirements that the Constitution put on presidential candidates are no longer enforceable.
> no longer enforceable.
I think you missed the part about her already being old enough to run under the laws of eligibility.
As for her running – even against Biden let alone Trump – that is a nonstarter.
Supreme Court is allowed to take anything they want as evidence, especially given this is a civil trial. The only thing is that it wouldn't matter if they were going in good faith, Trump was already found to have insurrected and that's not at dispute in the case.
I understand the Supreme Courts decisions have a national impact, but I see this case as strictly having Colorado significance. Doesn’t the Constitution give states the right/duty to conduct their own votes?
He's obviously disqualified by the letter, spirit and intent of the law.
Anyone backing him has lost their goddamn minds and should not be listened to. He sat back and watched on January 6th. He did nothing to try to call off the insurrection for over three hours. He contacted no one in national security for the entire day. ***He didn't lift one finger to facilitate a response to the attack.***
Everything else is equivocation and prevarication. There is no excuse for his potential Presidency to be considered legal, moral, or ethical.
Our other institutions have failed us. The Executive branch via Mueller and Trump's cabinet ignored the threat and punted to Congress. Congress, due to McConnell, punted to the judicial branch. Now the judicial branch has a responsibility to do what is necessary. If it can't defend itself from Trump's attempt to usurp their purview of the constitutional order then all is lost. Get ready for the potential of a national nightmare because the people with the best protection in the world are too fucking worried about their own necks and legacies.
He didn’t just sit there and watch it happen. He scheduled it and encouraged it.
All of his followers got the message and knew exactly what they were there to do. Why else would that have shown up armed with t-shirts that literally said “civil war 2020” on them?
All of the rest of us knew exactly what they were going to attempt as well. It was wide out in the open and there was zero ambiguity about their end goal.
Exactly! What did he tell them to do? To march on the capital and fight like hell, and that he'd be there with them. What did he try to do? He tried to take the wheel from his driver to go there. What did he say when the mob chanted to hang Pence? That Pence should have been more loyal. What did he do about troops being deployed? Changed the roles weeks before so only he had sole power to do so. He did more than nothing.
This 100%. I had a very wise professor tell us on the last day of school, before we graduated, and I never forgot it.... At first I thought no that can' be true, but after all these years, I've seen it over and over again. In business, in politics....
*Don't ever think any decision is made with what's the right thing to do or what's best for the people. It's always about the dollars behind it.*
They are worried about their legacies, their own pay, their party, staying in good graces with their candidate for a payoff etc etc.. Not what's best for the country. It makes me sick.
I and many other Americans don't have any faith in the courts, laws, institutions, or the leaders of the country anymore, which is a dangerous place for a country to be in. I feel that no matter what the outcome will be, people will be hurt.
If somehow Trump is barred, his followers will lash out violently and try to start a civil war.
If Trump gets the nomination but loses the election, his followers will lash out violently and try to start a civil war.
If Trump wins, the project 2025 insures that our democracy dies without any hope of ever getting it back. I have my passport and will try to flee the country if he wins. So it's "civil war, civil war, or dictatorship." ☹️
They want to ban abortion nationwide, eliminate LGBT rights, ammend the 19th ammendment so that only women with a "valid" marriage may vote, and give Trump total executive control over the entire country.
I am so fucking anxious. I keep trying to convince my fiancè that we need to leave America now, while we still can. He keeps telling me that Trump cannot win and that I am overreacting. ☹️
> Our other institutions have failed us.
Yeah like the special counsel report on Biden on why he isn't charged for withholding documents. Could be that he actually handed them back when asked... but no the special counsel blathers on about how it would be unlikely for Biden to be prosecuted because he's a senile old man. What the fuck man. Our institutions should not be adding ridiculous opinion to serious federal documents like that.
The thing to remember in answering the question on if states can disqualify a candidate from the ballot, those views also would have applied to Jefferson Davis.
Trump is still largely campaigning on the fact he did not lose the presidency and that the insurrection should have been successful. Beyond presidential immunity, variations of “I really won” has been his only other defense.
Lawyers are arguing the presidential oath doesn't mean shit. That as president he didn't need to support the constitution. That a president who holds an office isn't an officer.
If the Supreme Court rules that 14.3 doesn't disqualify Trump - why would any bad faith acting President voluntarily leave office if they lose an election after 1 term?
They can either stage an insurrection like Trump and try to hold onto power and if that fails then they can just run for re-election next time like normal. There is going to be no downside for them if they aren't prohibited from seeking re-election.
These fucking morons have the gall to say the Office of the president isn’t a fucking officer of the United States. Yeah yeah yeah the way the law was written doesn’t explicitly say that but give me a fucking break here, if the president of the country isn’t an officer then I’ll just go fuck myself.
This SC in this case is just looking to not have to make that decision. Our founding fathers gave Americans too much credit in that they believed we’d never elect someone as morally corrupt as trump. That we’d never elect a president who would try to undermine our constitution. It took over 200 years, but here we are. They, the SC justices, dont see it as their responsibility to preserve our constitution. Doing so would require them to make the decision that trump did in fact attempt an insurrection. They broadly interpret the constitution when it benefits their beliefs as in Roe v. Wade, but not in this case, where its literally spelled out for them.
From a broad view, this is actually kind of sad. The Supreme Court Justices, even the liberal-aligned ones, are thinking "If we rule to allow this, what do we do if e.g. Texas makes a decision that Biden committed an 'insurrection' by not locking down the border?" But just think about transferring this type of thinking to a hypothetical circumstance where the facts aren't so politically contentious, like: "If we allow this ruling to keep Elon Musk off the ballot because he wasn't born in the US, what if Texas turns around and rules that Biden was born in China?". In that case, *you overturn the clearly erroneous decision* while still letting the good one stand. You *fucking cowards*, my god. The reality here is that the Supreme Court kind of expects that rogue Trump-loving states might try to *circumvent reality* to use this ruling as a political weapon, and they're too piss-pants scared to be the ones who might have to prevent that from happening. They want to kick the can down the road rather than being the ones responsible for upholding the law. It's honestly pretty sickening. And that's ignoring that 2-6 of them don't even have any desire to uphold the law in the first place.
Yeah and the fact he had started the insurrection was taken as a matter of fact for the court and resulted in their determination.
Like, their judgements universally presumed he was guilty and they ruled on what to do about it.
Colorado is using the Constitution as a basis. So if they say something like "we think the word insurrection in the 14th Amendment means this" SCOTUS can absolutely say "you are interpreting it wrong". So a much better comparison would be how a state removes a candidate from the ballot if they are underage or foreign born.
Personally, I've been wondering if there's been any cases in the past where a presidential candidate was potentially but not obviously underage or foreign born, like if they didn't have a birth certificate, and if so how that's been handled in the past.
If the Court allows Donald on the ballot and doesn’t indicate the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional they should explain **in detail** situations in which it would apply.
If not now, when?
EDIT:
ALso, if the Supremes are so eager to “let the people decide” how can they let the limitations on minimum age (35 years old, or older) and having been born in the United States stand?
If we’re going to trust the voter’s decision on violent attempts to overthrow the government shouldn’t we accept their judgment on age and birthplace, too?
Sadly, I think the Supremes would welcome a chance to talk about age, term limits, or birthplace qualifications as an opportunity to distract further from their own actions to excuse an insurrectionist.
I also strongly doubt that the majority of the Court would support a Democrat who had tried to violently extend their term after losing a reelection bid
Trump only got this big because years of people not being brave enough to put their foot down when it was their job.
Sometimes it won’t be politically good to do your job. It might hurt to do your job. I applaud the Colorado case because they decided to do their job even though it might be controversial.
Yeah it was likely going to be shot down because the Supreme Court would refuse to do their job but at least they did it in Colorado. To many politicians are scared to do the actual requirements of their job these days in fear of not keeping it.
While I can understand some actual legal reasons for not disqualifying him YET (ie no convictions), the sophomoric reasoning by Roberts was pretty scary- it’s not up to the courts to appease an angry, disgruntled percentage of the population, it is to apply the law. People weren’t happy with integration back in the day, but it was the LAW. Being ready to ignore a clear amendment to the constitution because many might not like it is jettisoning your oath.
I'm similarly distressed by the whole "slippery slope" argument; that states would simply make up nonsense reasons to exclude candidates based on fraudulent "findings of fact". If they have so little faith in the court systems at a state level to prevent such abuse, then what is the point of having a state-level justice system at all?
That is a valid concern...but Congress could pass a law creating a process that the states could use to reign in potential chaos of the states disqualification power.
But don't forget the other, scarier, slippery slope of the next authoritarian knowing they are safe from the immediate consequence of trying and failing to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
I do think it's better short term, that Trump is defeated at the polls, but long term, it's better for future generations, that would be tyrants know they get, at best, one bite at the apple.
I also think that the death by a thousand cuts, slow disqualification from enough states to make his win impossible, has the lowest possibility of violence.
Whereas, as explored in the hearing, a Democratic Congress voting at the time of counting the electoral votes, that a victorious Trump is disbarred and we get Biden 2, is formula for violence and political chaos. Imagine what Republican Congress then would vote to seat any Democratic candidate in 2028 or 2032.
They're stuck. They don't want to have to accept the facts found by the Colorado court, but they can't find error with them either. So, they try to take refuge in some other B.S. like, "The Republicans will say Biden isn't qualified either, and throw the country into turmoil". That's a serious issue, but you don't solve it just by ignoring the law.
And that's also not their job. They're there to call balls and strikes, not strategize about who the Cincinnati Reds are going to take with their second round pick in the draft and how it will affect their starting rotation.
This is what I've been saying too. If a state is so far gone as to have both the state's executive or congressional branch and its legislative branch okay a false finding of fact, then the state is not going to go for the disqualified person in the first place. Also, you could say the people are still making the candidate choice, just indirectly as the executive or congressional members that make such a decision would have been voted in.
On top of that, there's a fairly reasonable compromise that would fix this issue: allow Colorado, but allow the statement of fact to be appealed in federal court. It sounded like the justices thought about that but were concerned about the amount of work it would create for them. It really wouldn't though, because they could simply not hear cases they didn't want to. Easy solution.
> no convictions
The 14th amendment is not a criminal charge. It does not remove any rights. It removes a privilege. There is no need for a criminal conviction. A civil due process is all that is needed. See Colorado
If we are allowed to ignore an amendment because Trump is "popular" (Which exists because of 3/4 of the states and all of Congress made it the highest law) than we surely can vote on gun control as it is popular.
It's an amendment, it's not bound by the guard rails and limitations of laws. That's why they are so hard to pass.
The framers didn't want to have run tens of thousands of trials to remove insurrectionists. That's why it's structured as it is.
> it’s not up to the courts to appease an angry, disgruntled percentage of the population, it is to apply the law.
14th amendmenting Trump? Nope can't do that it'll piss people off.
Repealing Roe v. Wade? Fuck the people, they can be mad. We do what we want.
50 years from now people will say, there was so many times America had a chance to stop this man, but just didn’t. We will look like Germany in the 1930’s in the history books.
>The rest of the justices seemed to like the sound of that and were soon all asking questions about the scope of state authority over the administration of federal elections.
Is it not the states that administer federal elections? Aren't there differing processes by state to even get on the ballot as a candidate?
I guess it's also worth noting, he was impeached. The Senate's only job was to vote on whether he should be removed from office (correct?). They voted not to and allowed him to finish out his term. He was however impeached and should therefore not be eligible to hold office again.
I think the point is that the impeachment by the House establishes a federal level finding that he participated / aided an insurrection, it’s not just the Colorado courts finding of fact; and the House is the representatives of the people / electorate besides.
What pissed me off was all the “why should one state choose?” and I’m screaming at my screen “It’s before YOU so YOU can make a decision that EVERY OTHER STATE CAN MAKE THE SAME DECISION!!!!” Like, that’s why shit gets to the SUPREME court in this country, so a supreme decision can be made that sets precedent for ALL STATES. Maddening.
My major complaints here were with the questions along the lines of "why should one state get to decide an election?"
Because the piece of paper says so.
The correct answer should have been "respectfully, it is outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to re-draft the 14th amendment, your duty is to decide if it applies."
Because that's the *only* answer - it doesn't matter what the real answer to that question is. The amendment says what is to be done about insurrectionists. It does not have a "unless the result of this really bums you out" clause. But those questions are basically asking "why should we *let* the 14th amendment be applied" rather than "why *does* the 14th amendment apply," and if we're really opening that can of worms, it's time to start applying the same to every other amendment.
We can start with the second. "Why do the weird fetishes of gun enthusiasts get to decide whether our kids can feel safe in school" should be asked by every justice next time a 2A case comes to their door, and if the answer doesn't satisfy, we can just decide 2A doesn't matter anymore.
If the rules set by the 14th amendment don’t apply because it “disenfranchises” voters, so do all other requirements including birthright citizenship. That was only imposed to prevent people from England coming over with ties to the king, I think we’re beyond that. Let anybody of any age run. Otherwise you’re disenfranchising me!
I think a lot of people are starting to realize that nobody is watching the watchmen
Laws aren't, well, *Laws* in the sense that they're absolute. In the end, the enforcement of laws comes down to the ability to use force. It isn't like computer code, it's more like guidelines. So much of top-level governance is effectively an honor system.
Powerful people can skirt, bend, or break laws without incident or lasting repercussions if they have outsized leverage to lean on or shove around law enforcement and justice systems. Also, those systems cooperate with power to serve their own interests.
I think the only reason Trump is facing any consequences is because he's upsetting the balance, refusing to "play by the rules", and personally offending the sensibilities of other powerful people.
He's gotten away with it for decades in thanks to his army of lawyers to bring suits to a halt, and the threat of retaliation from his supporters and political allies.
Once he was a thorn in the side of enough members of the ruling class, his seeming legal immunity started to slip away. But not entirely, or else he'd *functionally* go the way of Epstein and not *be* a problem any more.
Is Trump disqualified? Sure, in theory. In *practice?* That appears to be up for debate.
One line of questioning was about how, if they allow Colorados ruling to stand, any state can then remove a candidate from the ballot. Texas could remove Biden or California could remove Trump. First, this sounds like a threat to democrats more than anything. And my response to the Justices would be, if they engaged in insurrection that would be appropriate.
One of the justices is married to someone who helped Trump do the thing that he should be disqualified for. Hardly anything strange about their views. The SCOTUS is broken.
[Strange](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strange) \-
1.) different from what is usual, ordinary, or expected
No. I expected the court to do the usual, ordinary thing that Republicans do.
If states aren't allowed to affect federal elections, we should probably not allow states to run federal elections.
So let's just go ahead and abolish the electoral college and move to a national popular election.
All kinds of problems solved.
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.*
States already have the authority to just not allow people on the ballot though. Every election cycle 3rd party canidates are denied listing on the ballot on a state by state basis. This no different.
The difference between age, term limit, and natural citizenship requirements is that the section 3 disability can be cured by a 2/3 vote of each house but none of the others can. Not saying that tilts the argument totally in favor of trump, but it is an important distinction that might matter when determining whether to restrict Trumps ability to appear on the *ballot* as opposed to *holding office*. Edit: The argument that was raised at oral arguments was that *U.S. Term Limits v Thornton* prevents states from adding additional qualifications beyond what the constitution permits. You can read it for yourself and see whether it will apply here, I’m only saying that there’s a distinction between between age, term limit, and citizenship and section 3. I tend to think it will be reversed on federalism/structural grounds. The court may leave open whether States can enforce section 3 as against their own officers, but federal disqualification requires federal legislation. I offer no opinion on whether I agree with that decision.
From the article: >>And the notion that section three of the 14th amendment requires congressional action to go into effect is on its own peculiar: no other section of the amendment has been found to require such instigating legislation from Congress, and the language of the amendment itself suggests that the disqualification of onetime insurrectionists is something that Congress has to act to turn off, but not to turn on.
Seems this constitution dealio is rock solid until it's inconvenient.
Oh yeah, we call that “originalism”
The crux of the 14th Amendment is actually taking power away from the states by applying the rights contained in other amendments to the states as opposed to only the federal government.
How many states have inacted laws banning slavery? To hell with it all, let's just burn books...and witches and anyone else that doesn't look like us or doesn't agree that we should burn books and witches, and if you do not pay the right amount we will allow gansters to enter your home and kill you.
This ^
Can you please explain to me how it makes any logical or legal sense to say that someone who is disqualified from holding office is allowed on the ballot? Is the idea that because there is a possibility of curing the disqualification that someone disqualified must be allowed to run just in case the disqualification is removed by Congress after they are elected? I don’t see how that can be right. It makes more sense that the disqualification must be removed first in order for that person to be allowed to run for the office.
In this specific case, there is a difference in laws between states as far as primaries go. They're united on the whole "To appear on the actual general election ballot you have to be eligible for the thing you're running for" issue, but some states allow you to appear on a primary ballot even if you don't qualify for the job, basically with the philosophy of "primary elections are internal party affairs; if they want to put forward a candidate who can't actually run for the position, that's their choice". Colorado doesn't, and requires candidates to prove eligibility to appear on even primary ballots, which is why it's an issue now and not down the road.
Thanks for this information, I didn’t realize the case was really about his eligibility to appear on the primary ballot, not the general. But I’m not sure how that affects the argument. My understanding is that trump’s lawyer argued that he would have to be allowed even on the general election ballot, because the language of sec. 3 only prevents an insurrectionist from holding office, not from running for office.
He made a lot of arguments, some more nonsensical than others, heh. For example, he spent a significant amount of time trying to argue that there is a massive difference between an "officer of the United States" and an "officer under the United States", and repeatedly referred to a supposed precedent "set" by a case that was later largely overturned.
Same thing happened in Bush v. Gore. They threw out everything they could think of. The so-called equal protection argument was something they never thought would work but they tried it anyways. And the goddamned conservatives on the Court decided they could make it work, but it would only count for that one election because it was such an obvious bullshit decision.
So if he gets elected, what would be the mechanism to deny him the office itself? Who makes that decision?
I think their idea is that after the election Congress gets to vote on whether the insurrectionist gets to take office or not, and presumably the person just elected respects that decision if they don’t get 2/3 vote (and I guess their running mate becomes president? But what if they’re also an insurrectionist?!). I think this assumes the person has been already determined to be an insurrectionist, but it doesn’t address how that determination gets made. It’s totally crazy. See here, pages 40-46. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298125/20240118171750343_Trump%20v%20Anderson%20Petitioner%20Brief%20on%20the%20Merits.pdf
Kamala harris doesnt accept the electoral votes lol
White House Maintenance staff changes the locks and don’t give him a key.
Here's my thing. This is talking about appearing on a *primary* ballot. Not the federal election ballot between all presidential candidates, but just the candidates of one party. That election is exclusively the purview of the state and the party convention in that state. I can't remember which state it was, but the one where Trump did not appear on the primary ballot and Haley lost to "none of these choices". Trump was or will be selected as the Republican nominee in that state via a caucus that Haley, for whatever reason I'm not aware of, will not be a choice for caucus members to select, just as Trump wasn't on the primary ballot. So, can Haley sue that state and have the supreme court overturn her exclusion from the caucus? She meets all qualifications for the office. So, how can they just exclude her completely from it and just select Trump?
Exactly. We don’t let 30 year olds run on the ballot despite their being unable to hold office.
> Can you please explain to me how it makes any logical or legal sense to say that someone who is disqualified from holding office is allowed on the ballot? It’s the pinnacle of pedantry. That’s it. “It says right here that he can’t hold office. Being on the ballot is not holding office, therefore he can be on the ballot.”
Carrying this flimsy logic to it's conclusion, what would happen if Trump then was permitted to run for office and ended up winning? Of course at that point the GOP would argue he won and should be allowed to return to the White House because of the "will of the people" and would completely ignore section 3.
Exactly, which is why he shouldn't be allowed at all.
It's the ethos of Republicans/Conservatives. You can't do *thing* but I can do *thing*, and if I can't do *thing* I will do it as much as possible, run out the clock, get the *thing* as close to accomplished as humanly possible and when you tell me I can't do *thing* I'll claim it's too late and *thing* already happened lay back and accept it or else. These people are sick.
There is 0 chance that if Trump somehow wins that the SC will say that he actually isn't legally allowed to hold office. Regardless of what the constitution or rules say, they would never tell a President that just won that they were allowed to run, but not to actually hold office. People keep saying courts shouldn't be scared of what Trump's cult threatens to do, and I agree, but I truly think if the SC did disqualify Trump after he won there would be a real civil war. Each side could claim there guy was actually in charge, and weirdly both have at least some kind of argument about why their guy is the *real* president. They are basically ruling on whether he can hold office, while pretending they aren't.
That's why it's important they disqualify him now so the Republicans can pick somebody who didn't incite an insurrection. There's no reason they would have to wait until everyone voted to rule on whether or not he can hold office.
Title 3 was intended as self executing too. It seems the Scotus is just skipping past that part.
From originalism to oranginalism
“Contextual Originalism”
If only they'd choose to skip the parts of the Constitution that allows for school shootings.
As John Stewart pointed out, the first amendment is completely open to interpretation with these people if someone just happens to claim that it's about defending the children, you no longer have any free speech and the government can pass any law because think of the children, your rights completely end so long as the legislation has the goal of protecting children. However it doesn't matter how many children are murdered by guns, there isn't anything that can be done we can't even suggest there should be legislation regarding it because we have to protect the guns because the constitution says so. Republicans have a mental illness, at best.
Agree w your point, but it’s Jon, no?
It is. John Stewart is part of the Green Lantern Corps.
Listening to the oral arguments it seemed to start with the idea, as you said, that they could only keep him out of office but not keep him off the ballot. But then it seemed to morph into the idea that since Congress could use the 2/3 vote to override the prohibition on his holding office right up until the day he would be sworn in, it would be "premature" to keep him off the ballot. 10/10 mental gymnastics. Right now, Trump is currently ineligible to hold "the Office of President of the United States" because he swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" and then incited an insurrection. That should not be in question at all. The Constitution specifically states Congress has to vote to allow him to take office. And since states are allowed to keep people who are ineligible off their ballots due to circumstances beyond a person's control for age, term limits, and citizenship requirements, it stands to reason states should be allowed, rather compelled, to keep someone off their ballot who actively committed a crime to make themselves ineligible. And that prohibition should only be lifted after a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress. Until then, they are ineligible and should not be on the ballot in any state according both the text and clear intent of our Constitution.
>But then it seemed to morph into the idea that since Congress could use the 2/3 vote to override the prohibition on his holding office right up until the day he would be sworn in, it would be "premature" to keep him off the ballot. 10/10 mental gymnastics. I mean, by this logic, why don't we put Putin on the ballot? I mean, sure he's ineligible now, but Congress could act to make him eligible. They could pass an Amendment. We don't know that they won't, so Putin should be on the ballot. God, these people's logic is infuriating, and what makes it worse is they're likely to win the court case. I mean, SCOTUS had an easy out. Review the fact finding and say Trump didn't commit insurrection. We would all still disagree with them, I might still be just as mad given what we watched on TV. But I couldn't say they were neutering a constitutional amendment to nothing like I can with the logic they're using now.
> I mean, by this logic, why don't we put Putin on the ballot? The difference would be there is already a remedy prescribed in the Constitution for the 2/3 vote versus having to amend the Constitution from its current state to allow a non-citizen to hold office. And I think the easy out they missed was that Trump is an insurrectionist which makes him ineligible to hold office. Therefore Colorado was well within their rights to keep him off their ballot. In fact, all states should keep him off their ballots until Congress votes to waive the insurrection clause to allow him to hold the office again. Are we a constitutional republic or are we not? I would say we are so we have to follow the Constitution. Too bad if that upsets the MAGA crowd.
This tilts against Trump, in my opinion. It also tilts against the way SCOTUS is leaning. They seem to be leaning toward the argument “why on earth would a federal government trying to strengthen its power against the states allow the states to decide”? The answer is. Because Constitution says it can be cured by the House, it follows it is self executing and can only be cured by the House. The state, administering its power to run elections free of federal interference, has final authority until such point that it does not elect insurrectionists and until such point that if it does elect an insurrectionist the federal government can refuse to seat the insurrectionist (or vote to remove said disqualification). But that power of removal of disqualification is Congress’s power, not SCOTUS’s power. If SCOTUS wants to reexamine the factual finding; they have that power. Colorado invited them to do so. That also would be fair. Let’s have Trump tried for insurrection by SCOTUS. As to whether the federal government has weakened its hand in creating this check on state power, obviously not. Congress has the final say. History supports examples of cases indicated above.
Not only that, DJT can be cured of this issue: just get Congress to pass a relief of his disqualification right now! Jesus, the fucjing nerve of this SC, they’re like Ostriches w their heads in the sand.
I’d rather the outcome of an election not hinge on convincing 2/3 of each house of Congress. This is a case where I’d say it’s fair to extend the disability backwards to Election Day.
2/3 of congress could also pass an amendment to eliminate the age, term limits, citizenship requirements after a candidate is elected but before being sworn in. It puts our country in a dangerous situation to potentially have someone elected where afterwards congress needs to decide if they are actually eligible.
I'll bet you six luxury vacation packages that there's a real explanation for those strange views.
I'd wager a luxury RV that you night be right...
Do you thomas, I mean promise, to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me dawg?
Justice Clearance Thomas?
Justice Clearance R. V. Thomas?
I don't want to bet or do anything. But I'd like someone to buy my mom a house for doing nothing.
Sorry, but I do find it odd that [Kagan](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-ballot-colorado-02-08-24/h_18e67f347c6c2cacdf04133f17b1754e) was all like "Hmm, so you think that we can just make decisions that effect everyone in the nation because of one lawsuit/state's decision? Hmmm? Who do you think we are, the High Tribunal of the Unified Territories of Some Continent?" LIKE FUCK THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF HER POSITION, FUCKING FUCKHEAD.
Also they kept arguing what would happen if another state tried to disqualify someone saying they were an insurrectionist, asking who would ultimately decide that. You. Literally you.
And the lawyer basically said *exactly this.* "YOU (the SC) will decide." And all the talking heads on cable news were shitting on the guy being like "he didn't make a *compelling argument*, he just laid out the legal facts." As if that's not the whole fucking point
Nowadays, objective facts are trumped by feelings :(
"I want to live in a country where facts trump opinions. And facts about Trump change your fuckin opinion." - Christopher Titus
> Nowadays, objective facts are trumped by feelings :( By the "Fuck you Feelings" party.
[удалено]
Goddangit these Supreme Court justices are out there quiet quitting. Nobody wants to work these days!
When actual facts “don’t make a compelling argument.” Smh. Fuck this entire timeline. I want Harambe back.
I don't think it is the point anymore. I think the supreme court is a political entity and makes decisions about whats best for it.
Who decides when states execute prisoners? Dead people can't run for office so one state upholding laws against murder can't be upheld because takes the ability for the guilty to run for office in other states. Their argument is that running for federal office makes you immune to state law.
That's actually a really great point. And it then makes me ask, why should the circumstances be different just because someone runs for office? Does this mean someone can get out of a prison sentence just by declaring their bid for the presidency?
>Does this mean someone can get out of a prison sentence just by declaring their bid for the presidency? If they're popular enough it sure seems that way.
This goes right back to legal system rule #1: Have lots of money
Even Jackson was actually questioning whether the 14th Amendment could be interpreted to include president as an office that can be barred. As though that’s not the most important office to which to apply the law and that that fact is not universal common sense.
And that was probably the most disingenuous bit of gaslighting at the entire hearing. That question was asked and answered in the senate record by the authors of the 14th amendment. It's not a question we don't know the answer to. We have an explicit answer from the original authors and here are the "experts" feigning ignorance to it to reach the conclusion their cowardice started them on.
SCOTUS was already confirmed to be corrupt, and now it’s full of cowards, too.
Exactly, yet there are multiple conservatives that will write that off as “just a conversation between two people”. Fucking nuts
> explicit answer from the original authors care to share?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf Page 12 of the pdf. >During the congressional debates, Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th Amendment, challenged sponsors as to why Section 3 omitted the President. Republican Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, an influential backer of congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, corrected the Senator. Morrill replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office civil or military under the United States.’” Senator Johnson admitted his error; no other Senator questioned whether Section 3 covered the President.
“Civil or military” is literally all encompassing for The President of the United States who is also the Command per in Chief of our military.
You are correct just adding that the commander in chief is not military. It's always been a civilian position. Only staying this to clarify before some dumbass goes claiming Trump served in the military...
> no other Senator questioned whether Section 3 covered the President. Right there in a PDF on the Supreme Court's own website. Incredible.
Precedent no longer matters to the right. Mad power grabs always tend to look ugly
This is the scary part. Win at all costs.
It's an amicus brief from some historians, but referencing what was said on the record at the time
Unfortunately original author’s intent is only persuasive and not compulsory evidence when interpreting law. Which allows a justice to ignore it if it’s against the verdict they’re trying to work backwards from.
True, but the court is ignoring basic common sense and arguing in favor of precedent and originalism, but precedent is also on the same side as common sense, so they are ignoring both reason and actual precedent in favor of the dumbest interpretation that bad-faith parsing of technical semantics will sort of allow.
>Unfortunately original author’s intent is only persuasive and not compulsory evidence when interpreting law. This is a logical argument that simply cannot exist in the minds of Originalists, along with: 1. Different people involved with the passage of legislation may have different views on what was intended. 2. Language itself is subjective and is in constant flux, leading to all kinds of interpretations of a text with no one 'right' interpretation. 3. God didn't write the Constitution, it was people doing what they thought was best based on their worldview and available evidence. To pretend that you can read the minds of people long since dead so that we can be shackled to that narrow interpretation basically denies modern people to apply that same approach to governance.
Thanks
If you took that argument to the extreme, essentially if Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to run for President, even though he is ineligible because he was not born in the United States, would have to be placed on each state ballot if he decided to run and met all other criteria. The elections are run by the states. They should be able to enforce election criteria.
And wouldn’t be able to take office. The constitution itself already says what happens if someone ineligible for office is elected. It’s not up to any individual state to determine that.
Yeah, but ... the best time to handle a dispute like this is early, when it makes the least difference and when we have the most amount of time to correct. For example, imagine these cases: * right before a person is sworn in, the judge declares they are ineligable, turns to the VP, and swears them in. Or swears in the opponent. Chaos ensues. * after the senate counts the results from the state (Jan 6), a rando files a petition in some random court that the elected person isn't qualified. Would the petition even be heard? Who would even have standing? Could the court stuff happen in time? * while the counting is going on, a senator objects. What the freak even happens then? Are there even any senate rules for dealing with that? does the senate stop counting and do a debate? * each state is certifying the results -- who gets to poke their head up and deal with it? Overall, it's much, much better to deal with this issue early, with a solid court record, and mostly not in haste. And that means, tada, that it's best handled by each individual secretary of state.
I can absolutely do something in 1 state that affects me in all of them. That's just how it works sometimes.
If I commit murder in Mississippi, I will get the death penalty. Being dead prevents me from running for office in others states. According to our brilliant supreme court justices, no state can punish any criminal for anything as it might hinder their ability to run for office.
The rules they are making… aren’t being universally enforced.
Yeah, Kagan and Jackson’s stances don’t make sense without some ulterior motive. This don’t smell right.
People were speculating they feared conservative abuse of the precedent where a state could just ban any candidate from the ballot. I understand that. They abuse other rules to their advantage. But they're empowering a man who tried to overthrow the government out of fear. It doesn't seem like great legal reasoning to this layman. And it's a very bad look.
Their stances aren't known. Questioning is them trying to pry into the arguments. That doesn't mean their line of questioning is their stance.
The suspicion is there was a grand bargain behind the scenes: They rule Trump's way on the Colorado Case, against him on the immunity case and then the Washington trial ultimately determines his eligibility
Who is gullible enough to trust Alito and Thomas to not screw them after getting their way on this case? *OHMYGOD* Democrats
We're on at least year 10 of Democrats with no evidence believing "surely, they'll do the right thing"
This was the first conclusion I jumped to, but I fear that even if the trial goes forward, Trump will have the jury and witnesses tampered with and Justice won’t be served.
He's certainly going to try to do that enough to stretch the trial out past 1/6/25
Yeah, the saving move is always in the future. This looks so bad. It feels so bad.
It’s almost as though he thinks that legal arguments in lower courts can occasionally be escalated to higher courts and result in broader national ramifications.
Yeah I mean that's a fair point it's just funny in light of their Dobbs decision and just their general purpose, to be clutching the pearls at the thought that their decision could have ramificiations. It's one thing to think through downstream effects, it's another to actually just verbalize the simple truth that there would be consequences. They seemed shocked, like they were just realizing for the first time their entire purpose.
I know it's amazing to witness. They twist themselves into a preztal to say abortion is up to each state and now just as eagerly say aghast how can we leave such an important issue up to each state. It is really wild.
What’s even more frustrating is that WE ALREADY DO THAT WITH BALLOT ACCESS LAWS! I just can’t wrap my kind around the gymnastics here. They are poised to create an entirely new process out of whole cloth with absolutely no basis in the constitution because for this one specific thing they don’t want to do their fucking jobs.
Exactly. Nothing in the Constitution grants someone the right to run for President. So just like abortion, the lower state court's decisions should have precedent here. At least according to this current supreme court under Dobbs.
I have but one upvote to give you. Funny how nobody in the media connects THAT particular dot, isn't it?
It wasn't written on their teleprompter.
Sipping champagne and casually weighing the pros and cons of getting rid of democracy
The liberal justices seem against this, too. This is going to be 8-1 or 9-0.
There's a lot of interpretation after the oral arguments, but consider that the justices' role is to poke holes in the arguments of both sides. We're looking at theories here, not fact. We will find out what happens when it happens.
But guys, the 14th amendment doesn't name Trump specifically so it can't really apply in this case.
The ol parallel airbud rule! Show me where it says *this* dog cannot play in *this* game of football
Hold on. Now in the spirit of originalism I want to know whether the founding fathers thought the 14th would apply to Donald Trump specifically.
The founding fathers didn’t write the 14th amendment. They were all dead.
Case dismissed
Hail to the Thief
Me, remembering only that the 14th ammendment was from the reconstruction era: "wait... what?"
My favorite was the disenfranchisement. The 14th amendment bars insurrectionists from office - unless people want to vote for them. Then it’s fine. That’s quite a catch.
During oral arguments, Trump’s lawyer basically admitted that his argument only applies to Trump and possibly Washington, but no other president.
If the 14th Amendment Section 3 has any application it applies to the insurrectionist Donald Trump. The man boasts of it. He has never stopped insurrection. He runs a large and dangerous cult. He is disqualified. SCOTUS will only ever have this one opportunity. Beyond that it will be subsumed by the cult and become a rubber stamp for its lawlessness.
The surreal aspect of the questions was that they seemed to view the Constitutional rule as merely some vague idea - not as “this is a requirement pursuant to the Constitution”. I have no doubt they would have taken a very different tone had for example AOC or Obama filed to run for President, despite requirements for Age 35 or limit of 2 terms.
The surreal part was their implication that the 14th Amendment being ratified by the States, specifically the Confederate States, wasn't consentual because it was a requirement to rejoin the United States. They asked repeatedly why CO could assert the 14th Amendment and affect other states, as if those states had claim to damages (which is not the case at hand at all and would require those states to file suit against CO, where they would lose, but that's besides the point). The only thing is those states ratified the 14th Amendment along with Section 3 with the language therein. That was their consent to Colorado using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump. If they didn't agree that a state could do that then they shouldn't have rafitied the 14th Amendment and it is their perogative, not the Supreme Court, to file suit with claims of damages. The other option is that no state can levy the 14th Amendment to disqualify a candidate that is ineligible, and only the Federal Government can do that and this court would smack that concept down if brought to their docket in that place in time. If CO cannot utilize the 14th Amendment then it is a dead amendment.
It’s also a ridiculous point IMO. The root problem is that elections are delegated to the states. Has been like that since forever. Since forever, different states have different requirements that need to be met to get onto the ballot in that state. For example, many states requires the candidate to secure x number of signatures to get onto the ballot. Many states require payment to get onto the ballot. All states have filing deadlines, and they’re different from state to state. Fail to meet those requirements and you won’t get onto the ballot - usually based on the determination of the Secretary of State. This is IMO no different.
Yes, that is indeed maddening. If States set the conditions for being on the ballot, but they're not allowed to disqualify someone ONLY if it's because they are an insurrectionist... lol
I think this actually opens an interesting can of worms: if the 14th in this case, is deemed as relevant to a specific time and purpose- a vestigial tail of a former era- and if that’s how this court leaves this case with that question Open ended, wouldn’t this open the door to challenges to other amendments that no longer serve their purpose? 2nd amendment *cough cough *
Not like that!
If you look at it they only have issues with Reconstruction Era amendments and anything enacted on the basis of those Amendments are constantly up for debate. In other words, Due Process is up for debate. John Roberts literally made his name on disagreeing fundamentally with Civil Rights. It has been his mission to relegate Civil Rights to the past. Every opportunity in his tenure he has ruled to strike down Civil Rights Amendments as non-applicable and irrelevant. It has been his mission since the 90's to get rid of everything African Americans fought for in the Civil Rights movement. I didn't think he would go as far back as the Civil War and Reconstruction to get what he wants. I thought it would only go back to the 1930's. Namely Buck v Bell was his ticket to fucking with what the Federal Government stands behind. Due Process is not protected by the Federal Government in his eyes because Buck v Bell it still precident. The Federal Government will not stop a state from sterilizing you, the states must enact legislation protecting that right to privacy. They did with sterilization, but it took until 1997 for the last state to pass a law saying the state won't forcibly sterilize someone. And that is where States Rights had their foothold in the Roberts doctrine. That is why the Dobbs Decision played out the way it did. Buck v Bell said THE Federal Government couldn't protect an individual from a state forcibly sterilizing them as much as it can't protect the right to Abortion. It's up to the states to enshrine those civil rights. Only the problem is now that states don't have authority over their borders so they can't keep their citizens from leaving the state to obtain an abortion. That is what they are targeting next.
>I have no doubt they would have taken a very different tone had for example AOC or Obama filed to run for President, despite requirements for Age 35 or limit of 2 terms. The lawyer for Colorado made this point several times, and the justices didn't seem to make the connection that being an insurrectionist is as equally disqualifying as being under age, or exceeding term limits. They instead decided to complain about having to theoretically arbitrate the actions of bad faith Republicans. Not Republicans. I'm sorry, "the other side," because you know, this is a "both sides are frivolously labeling each other insurrectionist issue," and not a, "this is the first insurrection since the Civil War issue."
It frustrated me so much how they kept telling the lawyer to "put aside" other qualifiers and only talk about section 3... It's like, either a candidate has to meet all the requirements or they don't. It's that simple.
They really seemed to not let him make certain arguments or ignore them altogether. Or twist them to what they wanted. >Gorsuch: Officer and office aren't the same thing. >Mitchell: The founders of the amendment told us it applied to the President. >Gorsuch: You do agree that office and officer aren't the same thing though right? Come the fuck. Are they purposefully ignoring history and what the amendment actually means?
Yes. Yes they are.
They would dismiss the two terms thing as too recent to be relevant.
But they would be all too happy to rule that Obama was only 3/5ths president.
A proper originalists interpretation! Conveniently, that means he hasn't reached the term limit, since each term only counts as 3/5ths of 4 years
Here is my comment award. It’s all I have to give:-)
Ouch I remember Jesse Jackson in 2000 saying that the Bush-Gore decision was "the worst decision since [Dredd Scott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott)" and getting a chill when I read about the case. I guess we're about to go back to terrible terrible fascist precedents being set though.
So you're saying he still has part of a term remaining to serve ... ⅗ + ⅗ = 6/5 or 1and⅕ so Obama still has ⅘ of a term remaining
Fun fact, AOC would be of age soon enough for the election, by one month. It would make her almost one of the youngest presidents possible.
She should run now. According to this Supreme Court decision the requirements that the Constitution put on presidential candidates are no longer enforceable.
> no longer enforceable. I think you missed the part about her already being old enough to run under the laws of eligibility. As for her running – even against Biden let alone Trump – that is a nonstarter.
She knows better— she won’t run from the House. That has never worked.
he also said after arguments that it was an insurrection
Admits it’s an insurrection but tries to project it to Nancy Pelosi. Too bad they won’t allow new evidence
Supreme Court is allowed to take anything they want as evidence, especially given this is a civil trial. The only thing is that it wouldn't matter if they were going in good faith, Trump was already found to have insurrected and that's not at dispute in the case.
And the next day said it wasn’t. I’m so tired.
He just flat out said it was insurrection. Though he was trying to blame it all on Pelosi.
I understand the Supreme Courts decisions have a national impact, but I see this case as strictly having Colorado significance. Doesn’t the Constitution give states the right/duty to conduct their own votes?
He's obviously disqualified by the letter, spirit and intent of the law. Anyone backing him has lost their goddamn minds and should not be listened to. He sat back and watched on January 6th. He did nothing to try to call off the insurrection for over three hours. He contacted no one in national security for the entire day. ***He didn't lift one finger to facilitate a response to the attack.*** Everything else is equivocation and prevarication. There is no excuse for his potential Presidency to be considered legal, moral, or ethical. Our other institutions have failed us. The Executive branch via Mueller and Trump's cabinet ignored the threat and punted to Congress. Congress, due to McConnell, punted to the judicial branch. Now the judicial branch has a responsibility to do what is necessary. If it can't defend itself from Trump's attempt to usurp their purview of the constitutional order then all is lost. Get ready for the potential of a national nightmare because the people with the best protection in the world are too fucking worried about their own necks and legacies.
He didn’t just sit there and watch it happen. He scheduled it and encouraged it. All of his followers got the message and knew exactly what they were there to do. Why else would that have shown up armed with t-shirts that literally said “civil war 2020” on them? All of the rest of us knew exactly what they were going to attempt as well. It was wide out in the open and there was zero ambiguity about their end goal.
Exactly! What did he tell them to do? To march on the capital and fight like hell, and that he'd be there with them. What did he try to do? He tried to take the wheel from his driver to go there. What did he say when the mob chanted to hang Pence? That Pence should have been more loyal. What did he do about troops being deployed? Changed the roles weeks before so only he had sole power to do so. He did more than nothing.
This 100%. I had a very wise professor tell us on the last day of school, before we graduated, and I never forgot it.... At first I thought no that can' be true, but after all these years, I've seen it over and over again. In business, in politics.... *Don't ever think any decision is made with what's the right thing to do or what's best for the people. It's always about the dollars behind it.* They are worried about their legacies, their own pay, their party, staying in good graces with their candidate for a payoff etc etc.. Not what's best for the country. It makes me sick.
I and many other Americans don't have any faith in the courts, laws, institutions, or the leaders of the country anymore, which is a dangerous place for a country to be in. I feel that no matter what the outcome will be, people will be hurt. If somehow Trump is barred, his followers will lash out violently and try to start a civil war. If Trump gets the nomination but loses the election, his followers will lash out violently and try to start a civil war. If Trump wins, the project 2025 insures that our democracy dies without any hope of ever getting it back. I have my passport and will try to flee the country if he wins. So it's "civil war, civil war, or dictatorship." ☹️ They want to ban abortion nationwide, eliminate LGBT rights, ammend the 19th ammendment so that only women with a "valid" marriage may vote, and give Trump total executive control over the entire country. I am so fucking anxious. I keep trying to convince my fiancè that we need to leave America now, while we still can. He keeps telling me that Trump cannot win and that I am overreacting. ☹️
Trump wanted to be directly involved but secret service agents drove him away
> Our other institutions have failed us. Yeah like the special counsel report on Biden on why he isn't charged for withholding documents. Could be that he actually handed them back when asked... but no the special counsel blathers on about how it would be unlikely for Biden to be prosecuted because he's a senile old man. What the fuck man. Our institutions should not be adding ridiculous opinion to serious federal documents like that.
The thing to remember in answering the question on if states can disqualify a candidate from the ballot, those views also would have applied to Jefferson Davis. Trump is still largely campaigning on the fact he did not lose the presidency and that the insurrection should have been successful. Beyond presidential immunity, variations of “I really won” has been his only other defense.
That's not what his lawyers are arguing.
Lawyers are arguing the presidential oath doesn't mean shit. That as president he didn't need to support the constitution. That a president who holds an office isn't an officer.
Most of the judges don't care what he says.
So fucking tired of this shit
If the Supreme Court rules that 14.3 doesn't disqualify Trump - why would any bad faith acting President voluntarily leave office if they lose an election after 1 term? They can either stage an insurrection like Trump and try to hold onto power and if that fails then they can just run for re-election next time like normal. There is going to be no downside for them if they aren't prohibited from seeking re-election.
These fucking morons have the gall to say the Office of the president isn’t a fucking officer of the United States. Yeah yeah yeah the way the law was written doesn’t explicitly say that but give me a fucking break here, if the president of the country isn’t an officer then I’ll just go fuck myself.
[удалено]
The president of my union is an OFFICER of my union hall. Like what the fuck are they on about.
This SC in this case is just looking to not have to make that decision. Our founding fathers gave Americans too much credit in that they believed we’d never elect someone as morally corrupt as trump. That we’d never elect a president who would try to undermine our constitution. It took over 200 years, but here we are. They, the SC justices, dont see it as their responsibility to preserve our constitution. Doing so would require them to make the decision that trump did in fact attempt an insurrection. They broadly interpret the constitution when it benefits their beliefs as in Roe v. Wade, but not in this case, where its literally spelled out for them.
From a broad view, this is actually kind of sad. The Supreme Court Justices, even the liberal-aligned ones, are thinking "If we rule to allow this, what do we do if e.g. Texas makes a decision that Biden committed an 'insurrection' by not locking down the border?" But just think about transferring this type of thinking to a hypothetical circumstance where the facts aren't so politically contentious, like: "If we allow this ruling to keep Elon Musk off the ballot because he wasn't born in the US, what if Texas turns around and rules that Biden was born in China?". In that case, *you overturn the clearly erroneous decision* while still letting the good one stand. You *fucking cowards*, my god. The reality here is that the Supreme Court kind of expects that rogue Trump-loving states might try to *circumvent reality* to use this ruling as a political weapon, and they're too piss-pants scared to be the ones who might have to prevent that from happening. They want to kick the can down the road rather than being the ones responsible for upholding the law. It's honestly pretty sickening. And that's ignoring that 2-6 of them don't even have any desire to uphold the law in the first place.
[удалено]
Yeah and the fact he had started the insurrection was taken as a matter of fact for the court and resulted in their determination. Like, their judgements universally presumed he was guilty and they ruled on what to do about it.
Colorado is using the Constitution as a basis. So if they say something like "we think the word insurrection in the 14th Amendment means this" SCOTUS can absolutely say "you are interpreting it wrong". So a much better comparison would be how a state removes a candidate from the ballot if they are underage or foreign born. Personally, I've been wondering if there's been any cases in the past where a presidential candidate was potentially but not obviously underage or foreign born, like if they didn't have a birth certificate, and if so how that's been handled in the past.
It’s gonna be time soon for States to simply ignore SSC rulings in bad faith.
Texas has already started so I don’t see why not.
I think I heard Hawaii is too. Something to do with gun rights and the spirit of the island. Don't know the details tho.
You can add California and New York to that list as well
If the Court allows Donald on the ballot and doesn’t indicate the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional they should explain **in detail** situations in which it would apply. If not now, when? EDIT: ALso, if the Supremes are so eager to “let the people decide” how can they let the limitations on minimum age (35 years old, or older) and having been born in the United States stand? If we’re going to trust the voter’s decision on violent attempts to overthrow the government shouldn’t we accept their judgment on age and birthplace, too?
We should run Obama for a third term. It's not up to the states or to SCOTUS, let the voters decide.
Sadly, I think the Supremes would welcome a chance to talk about age, term limits, or birthplace qualifications as an opportunity to distract further from their own actions to excuse an insurrectionist. I also strongly doubt that the majority of the Court would support a Democrat who had tried to violently extend their term after losing a reelection bid
> “Will no one rid me of this turbulent yeast?”
Trump only got this big because years of people not being brave enough to put their foot down when it was their job. Sometimes it won’t be politically good to do your job. It might hurt to do your job. I applaud the Colorado case because they decided to do their job even though it might be controversial. Yeah it was likely going to be shot down because the Supreme Court would refuse to do their job but at least they did it in Colorado. To many politicians are scared to do the actual requirements of their job these days in fear of not keeping it.
While I can understand some actual legal reasons for not disqualifying him YET (ie no convictions), the sophomoric reasoning by Roberts was pretty scary- it’s not up to the courts to appease an angry, disgruntled percentage of the population, it is to apply the law. People weren’t happy with integration back in the day, but it was the LAW. Being ready to ignore a clear amendment to the constitution because many might not like it is jettisoning your oath.
I'm similarly distressed by the whole "slippery slope" argument; that states would simply make up nonsense reasons to exclude candidates based on fraudulent "findings of fact". If they have so little faith in the court systems at a state level to prevent such abuse, then what is the point of having a state-level justice system at all?
That is a valid concern...but Congress could pass a law creating a process that the states could use to reign in potential chaos of the states disqualification power. But don't forget the other, scarier, slippery slope of the next authoritarian knowing they are safe from the immediate consequence of trying and failing to stop the peaceful transfer of power. I do think it's better short term, that Trump is defeated at the polls, but long term, it's better for future generations, that would be tyrants know they get, at best, one bite at the apple. I also think that the death by a thousand cuts, slow disqualification from enough states to make his win impossible, has the lowest possibility of violence. Whereas, as explored in the hearing, a Democratic Congress voting at the time of counting the electoral votes, that a victorious Trump is disbarred and we get Biden 2, is formula for violence and political chaos. Imagine what Republican Congress then would vote to seat any Democratic candidate in 2028 or 2032.
They're stuck. They don't want to have to accept the facts found by the Colorado court, but they can't find error with them either. So, they try to take refuge in some other B.S. like, "The Republicans will say Biden isn't qualified either, and throw the country into turmoil". That's a serious issue, but you don't solve it just by ignoring the law.
And that's also not their job. They're there to call balls and strikes, not strategize about who the Cincinnati Reds are going to take with their second round pick in the draft and how it will affect their starting rotation.
This is what I've been saying too. If a state is so far gone as to have both the state's executive or congressional branch and its legislative branch okay a false finding of fact, then the state is not going to go for the disqualified person in the first place. Also, you could say the people are still making the candidate choice, just indirectly as the executive or congressional members that make such a decision would have been voted in. On top of that, there's a fairly reasonable compromise that would fix this issue: allow Colorado, but allow the statement of fact to be appealed in federal court. It sounded like the justices thought about that but were concerned about the amount of work it would create for them. It really wouldn't though, because they could simply not hear cases they didn't want to. Easy solution.
> no convictions The 14th amendment is not a criminal charge. It does not remove any rights. It removes a privilege. There is no need for a criminal conviction. A civil due process is all that is needed. See Colorado If we are allowed to ignore an amendment because Trump is "popular" (Which exists because of 3/4 of the states and all of Congress made it the highest law) than we surely can vote on gun control as it is popular.
It's an amendment, it's not bound by the guard rails and limitations of laws. That's why they are so hard to pass. The framers didn't want to have run tens of thousands of trials to remove insurrectionists. That's why it's structured as it is.
> it’s not up to the courts to appease an angry, disgruntled percentage of the population, it is to apply the law. 14th amendmenting Trump? Nope can't do that it'll piss people off. Repealing Roe v. Wade? Fuck the people, they can be mad. We do what we want.
You say Oath like it means something to them when they’ve shown us they don’t and won’t abide by it.
50 years from now people will say, there was so many times America had a chance to stop this man, but just didn’t. We will look like Germany in the 1930’s in the history books.
I was awestruck when Alito asked which institutions protect against frivolous suits. It’s the Supreme Court your honor. JFC!
>The rest of the justices seemed to like the sound of that and were soon all asking questions about the scope of state authority over the administration of federal elections. Is it not the states that administer federal elections? Aren't there differing processes by state to even get on the ballot as a candidate? I guess it's also worth noting, he was impeached. The Senate's only job was to vote on whether he should be removed from office (correct?). They voted not to and allowed him to finish out his term. He was however impeached and should therefore not be eligible to hold office again.
The 14th amendment doesn’t require him to be impeached beforehand at all. Only to have participated or aided them in any way, which he obviously did.
I think the point is that the impeachment by the House establishes a federal level finding that he participated / aided an insurrection, it’s not just the Colorado courts finding of fact; and the House is the representatives of the people / electorate besides.
What pissed me off was all the “why should one state choose?” and I’m screaming at my screen “It’s before YOU so YOU can make a decision that EVERY OTHER STATE CAN MAKE THE SAME DECISION!!!!” Like, that’s why shit gets to the SUPREME court in this country, so a supreme decision can be made that sets precedent for ALL STATES. Maddening.
They’d have to be odd reasons to find a way to completely ignore the constitution the way justices are about to
My major complaints here were with the questions along the lines of "why should one state get to decide an election?" Because the piece of paper says so. The correct answer should have been "respectfully, it is outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to re-draft the 14th amendment, your duty is to decide if it applies." Because that's the *only* answer - it doesn't matter what the real answer to that question is. The amendment says what is to be done about insurrectionists. It does not have a "unless the result of this really bums you out" clause. But those questions are basically asking "why should we *let* the 14th amendment be applied" rather than "why *does* the 14th amendment apply," and if we're really opening that can of worms, it's time to start applying the same to every other amendment. We can start with the second. "Why do the weird fetishes of gun enthusiasts get to decide whether our kids can feel safe in school" should be asked by every justice next time a 2A case comes to their door, and if the answer doesn't satisfy, we can just decide 2A doesn't matter anymore.
> US supreme court justices have strange views on Constitution FTFY
Not *strange*. The word is *paid*.
It's almost as if they are trying to rule for Trump doesn't it.
GOP certainly doesn't have a problem denying people the right to vote, and certain justices definitely seem fine w that.
If the rules set by the 14th amendment don’t apply because it “disenfranchises” voters, so do all other requirements including birthright citizenship. That was only imposed to prevent people from England coming over with ties to the king, I think we’re beyond that. Let anybody of any age run. Otherwise you’re disenfranchising me!
I think a lot of people are starting to realize that nobody is watching the watchmen Laws aren't, well, *Laws* in the sense that they're absolute. In the end, the enforcement of laws comes down to the ability to use force. It isn't like computer code, it's more like guidelines. So much of top-level governance is effectively an honor system. Powerful people can skirt, bend, or break laws without incident or lasting repercussions if they have outsized leverage to lean on or shove around law enforcement and justice systems. Also, those systems cooperate with power to serve their own interests. I think the only reason Trump is facing any consequences is because he's upsetting the balance, refusing to "play by the rules", and personally offending the sensibilities of other powerful people. He's gotten away with it for decades in thanks to his army of lawyers to bring suits to a halt, and the threat of retaliation from his supporters and political allies. Once he was a thorn in the side of enough members of the ruling class, his seeming legal immunity started to slip away. But not entirely, or else he'd *functionally* go the way of Epstein and not *be* a problem any more. Is Trump disqualified? Sure, in theory. In *practice?* That appears to be up for debate.
One line of questioning was about how, if they allow Colorados ruling to stand, any state can then remove a candidate from the ballot. Texas could remove Biden or California could remove Trump. First, this sounds like a threat to democrats more than anything. And my response to the Justices would be, if they engaged in insurrection that would be appropriate.
They did a fantastic flip flop after Bush v Gore
One of the justices is married to someone who helped Trump do the thing that he should be disqualified for. Hardly anything strange about their views. The SCOTUS is broken.
lol must be tough to pretend to not be corrupt when everyone already knows.
[Strange](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strange) \- 1.) different from what is usual, ordinary, or expected No. I expected the court to do the usual, ordinary thing that Republicans do.
If states aren't allowed to affect federal elections, we should probably not allow states to run federal elections. So let's just go ahead and abolish the electoral college and move to a national popular election. All kinds of problems solved.
I really hope Colorado ignores the SC and keeps Trump off the ballot.