Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

pretty good analysis in this thread

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

They would need grounds to disallow them. And if they had such valid grounds, fine, and I'm sure the courts would uphold it. If they manufactured some fake evidence and lies under oath, well that would be perjury, fraud, and obstruction of an election and they would go to jail for breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

How is it not bi-partisan? Or in your world, there is no such thing as a non-MAGA republican anymore?

If you oppose Trump, you aren't a republican.

So all the people who ran against him and those who voted for other candidates are not Republican? Why were they allowed in the Republican primary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

How is it not bi-partisan? Or in your world, there is no such thing as a non-MAGA republican anymore?

If you oppose Trump, you aren't a republican.

So all the people who ran against him and those who voted for other candidates are not Republican? Why were they allowed in the Republican primary?

Have you seen the blowback on Vivek and Haley? And Christie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

How is it not bi-partisan? Or in your world, there is no such thing as a non-MAGA republican anymore?

If you oppose Trump, you aren't a republican.

So all the people who ran against him and those who voted for other candidates are not Republican? Why were they allowed in the Republican primary?

Have you seen the blowback on Vivek and Haley? And Christie?

Yes. Are they not Republicans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

How is it not bi-partisan? Or in your world, there is no such thing as a non-MAGA republican anymore?

If you oppose Trump, you aren't a republican.

So all the people who ran against him and those who voted for other candidates are not Republican? Why were they allowed in the Republican primary?

Have you seen the blowback on Vivek and Haley? And Christie?

Yes. Are they not Republicans?

I don't know. Are Liz Cheney and Adam Kintzinger republicans? Joe Walsh? Bill Kristol? Because I am not sure how much any of them consider themselves part of the party any longer.

[Anonymous]

Deep state, socialist, antifa 91 year old Republican grandma was key to bring this suit against Trump.
Gift: https://wapo.st/492Ev93

[Anonymous]

Great article on good history being deployed to counter bad arguments.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/bad-arguments-and-good-historians

I particularly appreciated this paragraph:

"Most discussions of this case, Trump v. Anderson, are about the politics. Commentators assume that the Court will behave as politicians. If no one is given credit for doing anything except seeking excuses for what they want to do anyway, then bad arguments get currency. The purpose of constitutional order, of course, is to provide a framework above politics, one which allows a decent sort of politics to prevail. If no one takes the meaning of the Constitution seriously, then such an order cannot long be sustained."

But, in particular, on the history front, the author cites to a couple of the amicus briefs filed with SCOTUS and points out that:

1) It's very clear that the President was considered an "officer" -- that's the plain language reading, but also everyone involved at the time understood that Jefferson Davis couldn't become President after the amendment was ratified.

2) It was understood at the time that disqualifications instantly ensued, and they did instantly ensue. When Davis was standing trial for treason, everyone involved agreed that he had already been disqualified from office by Section 3.

3) Application of Section 3 was not designed to be confined to the events of the 1860s. Legislators could have framed Section 3 to apply only to the 1860s, but they did not. Indeed, they discussed including language specific to "the late insurrection" and rejected such a framing as too limiting.

A majority of the members of the Supreme Court advertise themselves as people who attend to the plain wording of the Constitution, or to its meaning as understood by framers, legislators, or people at the time. But, basically everyone involved, knows that they are lying when they market themselves that way. Thomas and Alito are, in particular, shameless political hacks.

[Anonymous]

So that is the basic question, will the conservatives on the court be political hacks or will they stick to the "textural" philosophy they claim to adhere to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So that is the basic question, will the conservatives on the court be political hacks or will they stick to the "textural" philosophy they claim to adhere to?

Dobbs told us the answer to that. They are political hacks with no respect for stare decisis despite their testimony to the contrary in their confirmation hearings. No reason to believe that they'll be any more committed to "textualism" or "originalism" when doing so would be politically inconvenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that is the basic question, will the conservatives on the court be political hacks or will they stick to the "textural" philosophy they claim to adhere to?

Dobbs told us the answer to that. They are political hacks with no respect for stare decisis despite their testimony to the contrary in their confirmation hearings. No reason to believe that they'll be any more committed to "textualism" or "originalism" when doing so would be politically inconvenient.

But what's politically convenient for them?
They all loathe Trump. They know he's not a real conservative.
They all know he has little chance of winning over the moderate Republicans and Independents because of his legal issues and cognitive decline, and therefore carrying the general election.

So what is their political expediency here? Sink Trump so the party can get catharsis and coalesce around a more articulate and rational candidate next time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that is the basic question, will the conservatives on the court be political hacks or will they stick to the "textural" philosophy they claim to adhere to?

Dobbs told us the answer to that. They are political hacks with no respect for stare decisis despite their testimony to the contrary in their confirmation hearings. No reason to believe that they'll be any more committed to "textualism" or "originalism" when doing so would be politically inconvenient.

But what's politically convenient for them?
They all loathe Trump. They know he's not a real conservative.
They all know he has little chance of winning over the moderate Republicans and Independents because of his legal issues and cognitive decline, and therefore carrying the general election.

So what is their political expediency here? Sink Trump so the party can get catharsis and coalesce around a more articulate and rational candidate next time?

I hope they care enough to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that is the basic question, will the conservatives on the court be political hacks or will they stick to the "textural" philosophy they claim to adhere to?

Dobbs told us the answer to that. They are political hacks with no respect for stare decisis despite their testimony to the contrary in their confirmation hearings. No reason to believe that they'll be any more committed to "textualism" or "originalism" when doing so would be politically inconvenient.

But what's politically convenient for them?
They all loathe Trump. They know he's not a real conservative.
They all know he has little chance of winning over the moderate Republicans and Independents because of his legal issues and cognitive decline, and therefore carrying the general election.

So what is their political expediency here? Sink Trump so the party can get catharsis and coalesce around a more articulate and rational candidate next time?

Pretty sure they all saw the gallows meant for Pence.

[Anonymous]

Bump for tomorrow, I’m not the only one anticipating.