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.

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 3rd party candidates are different than those of the major parties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think being harsher on the Colorado attorney makes more sense here. Colorado took a very aggressive step that unquestionably implicsted a national election. If this were about a representative from Colorado, the dynamic would be different (such as Trump seek to be a rep from Colorado). But this is about who will be president of the entire country. Kagan nailed it. I don’t think the attorneys answer to her question was good because he essentially admitted Colorado is fine with this having a national impact because they knew it would go up to the Supreme Court. Essentially admitting that they created a controversy over federal law but then claiming it’s a states rights issue. I think that was the moment he lost.

Not at all. The moment he lost was when Mitch McConnell declined to give Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court a hearing, engineering the elevation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It would be foolish of you to presume that any argument at all would have won the day in the face of the Supreme Court as currently composed.

I think the only Justice who will vote to uphold Colorado is Jackson. And she too may join the majority. But I think you underestimate how bad this day was for the Colorado attorneys.

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.

And Trump is the reason for all of that. These are scary times.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think being harsher on the Colorado attorney makes more sense here. Colorado took a very aggressive step that unquestionably implicsted a national election. If this were about a representative from Colorado, the dynamic would be different (such as Trump seek to be a rep from Colorado). But this is about who will be president of the entire country. Kagan nailed it. I don’t think the attorneys answer to her question was good because he essentially admitted Colorado is fine with this having a national impact because they knew it would go up to the Supreme Court. Essentially admitting that they created a controversy over federal law but then claiming it’s a states rights issue. I think that was the moment he lost.

Not at all. The moment he lost was when Mitch McConnell declined to give Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court a hearing, engineering the elevation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It would be foolish of you to presume that any argument at all would have won the day in the face of the Supreme Court as currently composed.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Also, if they decide that the President is not an "officer," then it means Biden or any other future President can stage an insurrection or coup without any remedy except impeachment. The 14th Amendment is toothless against the person with the greatest means to stage a coup - the sitting President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

This is a profoundly dangerous outcome from the SC's burgeoning decision. Jesus H Christ.

True.

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.

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.

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.

+1 And there were a whole bunch of states that didn’t have Lincoln on their ballots (but that preceded the 14th Amendment.)

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think being harsher on the Colorado attorney makes more sense here. Colorado took a very aggressive step that unquestionably implicsted a national election. If this were about a representative from Colorado, the dynamic would be different (such as Trump seek to be a rep from Colorado). But this is about who will be president of the entire country. Kagan nailed it. I don’t think the attorneys answer to her question was good because he essentially admitted Colorado is fine with this having a national impact because they knew it would go up to the Supreme Court. Essentially admitting that they created a controversy over federal law but then claiming it’s a states rights issue. I think that was the moment he lost.

Also, if they decide that the President is not an "officer," then it means Biden or any other future President can stage an insurrection or coup without any remedy except impeachment. The 14th Amendment is toothless against the person with the greatest means to stage a coup - the sitting President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

This is a profoundly dangerous outcome from the SC's burgeoning decision. Jesus H Christ.

Anonymous wrote:These SC justices want you to pretend real hard that you did not see, hear, or experience an insurrection on January 6th. Despite everything you saw with your own eyes, heard with your own ears, and thought with your own brain.

Nope, there was no intent by a mob provoked by a sitting President to disrupt a Constitutional process to certify an election!

This Supreme Court is like something out of Orwell's nightmares.

Well, it won't be the first time that they punt on a technicality while ignoring the larger societal question. In fact, they've made a specialty out of that.

It's "Justice", but only if they feel like it.

These SC justices want you to pretend real hard that you did not see, hear, or experience an insurrection on January 6th. Despite everything you saw with your own eyes, heard with your own ears, and thought with your own brain.

Nope, there was no intent by a mob provoked by a sitting President to disrupt a Constitutional process to certify an election!

This Supreme Court is like something out of Orwell's nightmares.