Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Gorsuch circling back to "holding office" vs "running for office". Which I think is disingenuous, given if you can't act on a disability when a candidate is running, when can you? Justices and Trump lawyer have mentioned impeachment and alternatives by Congress, but that's really impractical. Which no doubt is a plus in their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the court is going to rule he stays on the ballot. I'm curious about the why. This is history ya'll!

The textual originalists will make up some bullshit reason to ignore the text and original intent.

and selective states rights.

[Anonymous]

Murray arguing well, I feel, on that point.

[Anonymous]

Sotomayor jumping to Murray's defense on the "running for office" argument.

[Anonymous]

Alito making the "who knows what insurrection really means" argument. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Roberts pointing out that insurrection is a broad term which can be misused in the future if they admit today the Colorado decision. Roberts says the SC will have to develop rules about what is insurrection. He doesn't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roberts pointing out that insurrection is a broad term which can be misused in the future if they admit today the Colorado decision. Roberts says the SC will have to develop rules about what is insurrection. He doesn't want to.

Pretty sure that was Alito.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's great that every single argument is being brought up and addressed during this oral argument. Sometimes that happens but oftentimes the oral argument is just directed to one little thing that doesn't turn out to be dispositive.

The Supremes are going to have a hard time going with anything other than Section 3 disqualifies Trump. All of their wiggle room is nonsense.

They are not going to have a hard time, because a majority of them want Trump on the ballot. Neither the text of the 14th Amendment nor its original intent will bind them.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

why is Alito asking off topic questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alito making the "who knows what insurrection really means" argument. What a joke.

What even is an insurrection? Has there ever been one? Who can know?

[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.

yeah. I'm liberal but think Trump should stay on the ballot for just this reason. I also don't think Trump will win.

[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.

If you hold Trump accountable to what the law requires, we will use the law as a pretext to cause harm to those who did not violate its requirements. Solid argument.

[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.

yeah. I'm liberal but think Trump should stay on the ballot for just this reason. I also don't think Trump will win.

Appeasement never works.

[Anonymous]

Gorsuch has an interesting point. Also he comes across as an arrogant and condescending person.