Anonymous wrote:This means Obama can ran again and become president?

It sure seems like they are going to say that constitutional qualifications for president cannot be enforced by states. And since there's no federal statute allowing for such challenges, they are effectively unenforceable. So yes, even though Obama is ineligible, he can run and win again.

I think the most annoying part is not that the SC will disqualify Trump, but when it doesn’t, how petulant and btch-like his Truth Social or X posts will be. He’ll use a bunch of capitalized words out of place. And scream “WITCHUNT” and so forth and normal people will have to basically see this. I don’t see how evangelicals believe trump is some kind of flawed messenger of God. I don’t understand how seemingly normal people can lionize trump.

This means Obama can ran again and become president?

So much for denying cert


Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case
Updated 1:14 PM EST February 8, 2024
CNN

The Supreme Court signaled Thursday it is poised to back former President Donald Trump and fend off a blockbuster challenge to his eligibility to appear on Colorado’s ballot.

During about two hours of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and the high court’s other conservative justices peppered the lawyers representing Trump’s challengers with a series of questions that suggested they were seeking a way to side with the former president – most likely based on reasoning that doesn’t address the question of whether he is or isn’t an insurrectionist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

I agree the constitution is clear on this. But I'm a realist about how SCOTUS decisions actually get made. The actual constitution is an afterthought.

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

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

Which by the current standards would be an insurrection.

It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

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!

I think so too. Extremely bummed about this. He is such an unAmerican, unpatriotic, dangerous person. If we can't keep him off the ballot, what is the point of being a country of laws? Why argue about an open border if we let a man like him get elected AGAIN?

Republicans can't win without legal challenges, cheating, and suppressing vote. Started to be visible with Bush v. Gore and has gone downhill since then. . .

Anonymous wrote:

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

The whole company? That seems unlikely.

It is very likely. Lots of left leaning news shows and talks shows have tried to talk up the likelihood of Colorado’s position being upheld. This was always a very fringe position. This is one of the moments when you should question whether the people you listen to are real critical thinkers who are telling you accurate things or whether they are telling you what they want the truth to be or are straight up bamboozling you so that you feel like the Supreme Court is somehow crooked. A 9-0 decision or even an 8-1 decision should shut they door.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's funny how these considerations that political actors might act in bad faith don't figure into other SCOTUS decisions on voting issues. They certainly didn't seem to care that politicians might abuse gerrymandering to their own partisan advantage when they were deciding whether partisan gerrymandering was constitutional. They didn't care that politicians who had historically discriminated against blacks in voting might start doing it again before they struck down the VRA's pre-clearance requirement.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Where does the Constitution say that?

It's right there next to "insurrection is okay if the guy is popular enough and unscrupulous enough".

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

Yes but democracy is messy.

And yet we do have laws and rules and people whose job it is to enforce them so that democracy is less messy.

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.

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.

Where does the Constitution say that?