Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very important decision: will Trump be on the ballot or are we a nation of laws?

However the Supreme Court decides, they will anger a lot of people and they will diminish their respect in the eyes of a lot of people. So they might as well do the right thing.

Your "or" is confusing. If we are a nation of laws, Trump has to be excluded based on the text of the 14th Amendment. He held federal office, he swore an oath to the Constitution, and he used violence in an effort to overthrow our government. Those are the elements of the 14th Amendment which bar him from office. Congress has not voted to remove that disability.

But the Supreme Court will ignore the text and history of the Constitution in order to allow Trump to hold office.

The problem is there is only one party saying there was an insurrection. Trump was not convicted or sanctioned by Congress so there only one group calling it an insurrection.**

** I was working for Congress that day and served both Republican and Democratic members. I would absolutely call it an insurrection. The GOP has lost their way on this topic. It’s actually extremely sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wing justices claim if they allow the Colorado ruling to stand, then it would be mayhem from now on, with states trying to push candidates off the ballot any time they want. Murray counters that it would be highly unlikely to happen repeatedly - it's that Trump's actions were so egregious that this is happening now.

Murray’s argument is weak. Of course this would open the floodgates.

But states already do that -- the slate of candidates state to state is not identical. Not even today in this election.

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.

Yes that was discussed but it has never happened with a candidate from a major party.

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.

Yes, I think it was Jus. Kav. who tried to say it's different if you are keeping a "party" off the ballot. But that is weak. Parties are not required, and the party can simply not choose a disqualified candidate. Also, many of the candidates who are on some but not all ballots are also running as members of political parties. The Constitution does not hold a special place for Republicans and Democrats over other parties.

Kagan was the one that seemed to be pushing the uniformity stuff the most. My take is that she knows the republicans will never disqualify their own preferred candidate, so she's going to try for an opinion that will have language about the need for uniformity in federal elections that will be useful in future voting rights cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Arguments have closed. It looks as if Justices will strike down the CO ruling, on the grounds that one state cannot make a decision that necessarily affects all the others.

And apparently neither can the Supreme Court.

Buncha idjits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Arguments have closed. It looks as if Justices will strike down the CO ruling, on the grounds that one state cannot make a decision that necessarily affects all the others.

I agree because it will open the floodgates to states throwing the opposition off ballots. With that said, Trump should be jailed for his role in the insurrection on J6.

[Anonymous]

Trump wins 9-0 or 8-1. Regardless, it will be overwhelming majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump wins 9-0 or 8-1. Regardless, it will be overwhelming majority.

Agree. Unhappy but actually agree with the ruling.

[Anonymous]

If the Constitution no longer determines eligibility, then Arnold Schwarzenegger should run. Who could disqualify him? Not the states. Not the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Arguments have closed. It looks as if Justices will strike down the CO ruling, on the grounds that one state cannot make a decision that necessarily affects all the others.

I agree because it will open the floodgates to states throwing the opposition off ballots. With that said, Trump should be jailed for his role in the insurrection on J6.

I mean, so? Every time the Supreme Court m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Arguments have closed. It looks as if Justices will strike down the CO ruling, on the grounds that one state cannot make a decision that necessarily affects all the others.

I agree because it will open the floodgates to states throwing the opposition off ballots. With that said, Trump should be jailed for his role in the insurrection on J6.

I mean, so? Every time the Supreme Court m

Makes a decision, then the lower courts have to deal with all sorts of reasonable and unreasonable challenges to determine the new rules. That's how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wing justices claim if they allow the Colorado ruling to stand, then it would be mayhem from now on, with states trying to push candidates off the ballot any time they want. Murray counters that it would be highly unlikely to happen repeatedly - it's that Trump's actions were so egregious that this is happening now.

Murray’s argument is weak. Of course this would open the floodgates.

But states already do that -- the slate of candidates state to state is not identical. Not even today in this election.

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.

Yes that was discussed but it has never happened with a candidate from a major party.

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.

Yes, I think it was Jus. Kav. who tried to say it's different if you are keeping a "party" off the ballot. But that is weak. Parties are not required, and the party can simply not choose a disqualified candidate. Also, many of the candidates who are on some but not all ballots are also running as members of political parties. The Constitution does not hold a special place for Republicans and Democrats over other parties.

Not only that, prior to the Civil War, and to some extent since, there was plenty of reshaping of political parties. Since then third parties have gotten electoral votes in elections and/or enough of an impact on popular vote to affect outcome.

[Anonymous]

MSNBC just predicted 9-0 in favor of Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wing justices claim if they allow the Colorado ruling to stand, then it would be mayhem from now on, with states trying to push candidates off the ballot any time they want. Murray counters that it would be highly unlikely to happen repeatedly - it's that Trump's actions were so egregious that this is happening now.

Murray’s argument is weak. Of course this would open the floodgates.

Not if the SC, as he suggests, were to define insurrection more precisely.

That’s a role for congress not the courts.

No. The Supreme Court of the US also has that power. And when Murray suggested it, several times, not a single Justice advanced your argument.

Yes, it is literally the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

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.

This kind of post, like many others in this thread, are great entertainment. Just inject it straight into my veins. "I DISAGREE WITH THE OTHER SIDE ON THIS ISSUE AND THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTORY OUR DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL NORMS! SO I AM GOING TO DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL NORMS!!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 don't think an expert would say that. I think there are historians who filed amicus briefs who said exactly the opposite -- that the drafters of the 14th Amendment specifically intended that it would, among other things, prevent Jefferson Davis from becoming President of the United States.

Jefferson Davis himself understood he could not run for office because of the 14th amendment so he didn't run. He wasn't prosecuted for treason because people thought if he were acquitted then he'd be able to run for Senate again in the South which would have been disastrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Arguments have closed. It looks as if Justices will strike down the CO ruling, on the grounds that one state cannot make a decision that necessarily affects all the others.

So the proper time to invoke the 14th is after Trump wins? That seems far worse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Arguments have closed. It looks as if Justices will strike down the CO ruling, on the grounds that one state cannot make a decision that necessarily affects all the others.

So the proper time to invoke the 14th is after Trump wins? That seems far worse

Yeah, Gorsuch was arguing that Trump should be allowed on the CO ballot because Congress still had time to "remedy" Trump with a two-thirds vote removing his insurrection disability prior to Inauguration Day. #facepalm