Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[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

Yes but democracy is messy.

[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.

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

Which they won’t because they’re spineless and serve Trump not the American people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was thinking in terms of someone whose oath of office had been as President, which would not apply to Davis (also, from what I gather, there were a lot of factors that resulted in Davis not being prosecuted). Trump had never made any other oath.

Kind of a good argument for naturalized citizens to be eligible to run because they DO have to swear to defend the Constitution to become citizens.

[Anonymous]

In case anyone is interested and has a lot of time to read, lawfare has a link to all the amicus briefs for both sides.

[Anonymous]

I can’t take it anymore. Trump is winning. The bully is winning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Why would this prevent a democrats who haven’t engaged in insurrection or are under felony indictments from being in the ballot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Why would this prevent a democrats who haven’t engaged in insurrection or are under felony indictments from being in the ballot?

Because the state could declare that a democrat did engage in insurrection even without a conviction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was thinking in terms of someone whose oath of office had been as President, which would not apply to Davis (also, from what I gather, there were a lot of factors that resulted in Davis not being prosecuted). Trump had never made any other oath.

Kind of a good argument for naturalized citizens to be eligible to run because they DO have to swear to defend the Constitution to become citizens.

Prior to his assuming the office of the Presidency, Trump swore to uphold the Constitution and then tried to overthrow the government. I'm not sure what argument you're making here about the oath of office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Why would this prevent a democrats who haven’t engaged in insurrection or are under felony indictments from being in the ballot?

The argument is that if Trump is disqualified, then republicans will engage in bad faith efforts to disqualify democrats. It's the same argument they used when Trump was impeached, and when he was indicted. Their own bad faith means that Trump can never face any consequences for his actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MSNBC just predicted 9-0 in favor of Trump.

The whole company? That seems unlikely.

[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.

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

Hence Trump's "Dictator for a Day." The harm he intends to inflict is planned to occur before Congress has time to act. Which is why Gorsuch's line of reasoning there is illogical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Why would this prevent a democrats who haven’t engaged in insurrection or are under felony indictments from being in the ballot?

Because the state could declare that a democrat did engage in insurrection even without a conviction.

SCOTUS could very easily write an opinion that guards against bad faith efforts like that. They could say that state procedures to disqualify candidates have to comport with due process, be based on findings of fact supported by evidence, etc. And of course those procedures and whether they were followed would be reviewable by federal courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t take it anymore. Trump is winning. The bully is winning

Nah. Look, the Supreme Court will vote to ignore the 14th Amendment. Believe that. It's just too politically inconvenient for them to abide by its text and original intent. So, he'll "win" this particular case I guess.

But we're talking about insurrection again. We're talking about how he violently tried to overthrow the government. So that chips away at some portion of voters who think they can vote for him and still think of themselves as a good citizen. That has value. Bringing this case has value. Keep fighting, and his house of cards will fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Why would this prevent a democrats who haven’t engaged in insurrection or are under felony indictments from being in the ballot?

Because the state could declare that a democrat did engage in insurrection even without a conviction.

Sure, and then they would sue and win or appeal and win. Because courts (didn't used to) tolerate nonsense.

The Supreme Court typically doesn't make decisions based on hostage-taking. They generally aren't even aware that their decisions have wide-reaching effects in lower courts because they don't see those effects, it all gets sorted out below.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agree. Unhappy but actually agree with the ruling.

Well, that depends on what "the ruling" is, doesn't it? What you presently agree with is the likely outcome. How they get there is most important.