Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:29     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:29     Subject: Re:Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
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?
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:22     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:22     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
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.

+1 States have signature requirements to get on ballots.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:21     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:These CO lawyers are not as good at Trump's, right or is that my imagination?


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.


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.

+1 (paraphrasing) “Hey how come Colorado gets to get up? If he gets up, we’ll all get up, it’ll be anarchy…”
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:19     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:17     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:These CO lawyers are not as good at Trump's, right or is that my imagination?

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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:17     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
CO solicitor general making the same argument as Murray. Saying institutions stand strong and risk of frivolous insurrection claims are overblown.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:15     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:These CO lawyers are not as good at Trump's, right or is that my imagination?


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.


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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:15     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:14     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:These CO lawyers are not as good at Trump's, right or is that my imagination?


Your imagination.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:13     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:These CO lawyers are not as good at Trump's, right or is that my imagination?


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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:13     Subject: Re:Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Alito, "It wasn't a BIG insurrection..." just a teeny, tiny adorable little insurection.


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.
Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:11     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
ACB repeating the stupid Gorsuch claim that SC would have difficulty dealing with various states' evidence about insurrection.

Anonymous
Post 02/08/2024 12:11     Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
These CO lawyers are not as good at Trump's, right or is that my imagination?