These CO lawyers are not as good at Trump's, right or is that my imagination? |
ACB repeating the stupid Gorsuch claim that SC would have difficulty dealing with various states' evidence about insurrection.
|
I mean, listen, we're talking about *practice.* Not an insurrection! Not an insurrection! We're talking about *practice.* Not an insurrection; not an insurrection that he'd go out and die for. We're talking about *practice* man. |
I don't feel that myself, even though I'm in two minds about whether the Colorado ruling should stand. What you're feeling is that the Justices have so far been a lot harder on the CO lawyer, Murray. |
Your imagination. |
That time is done. Clarence Thomas is part of the insurrection yet is sitting in judgement. We know 2-3 justices are paid for their votes. It is time to ignore SCOTUS and its clearly political agenda. |
And I'll tell you why. If the SC strikes down the CO ruling, they don't need to work any further. If they uphold it, they have a lot of work to do to define their reasons. You can feel a distinct reluctance to do that work. |
CO solicitor general making the same argument as Murray. Saying institutions stand strong and risk of frivolous insurrection claims are overblown. |
I hate Trump and I think his lawyer seemed to be doing a better job than the lawyer for the Colorado voters, but consider that the audience was friendlier to him than they were to Murray. |
I’m surprised this hasn’t come up. They keep talking about how this will create different slates of candidates in different states, but that’s always the case. Jill Stein was on the ballot in some states and not others. The constitution specifically says states get to decide how to choose presidential electors so that will obviously result in non-uniformity. |
+1 (paraphrasing) “Hey how come Colorado gets to get up? If he gets up, we’ll all get up, it’ll be anarchy…” |
+1 States have signature requirements to get on ballots. |
Yes that was discussed but it has never happened with a candidate from a major party. |
However they decide, fact remains that Trump has been so damaging to political norms that this question even has to come up.
Would an expert on the history of the 14th amendment say that the possibility of a president being involved in an insurrection and then running again would not have been considered? |
I didn't catch the whole argument so I guess I missed that. Was that how they dismissed it? There's no constitutional significance to a "major party" so that seems like a very weak argument. |