The main benefit of this case is to remind everyone that Trump tried to overthrow the government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Justice Jackson really wants DJT on the ballot.

She probably doesn't. But she's doing her job, and testing all perceived weaknesses of this lawyer's points. Some right-wing Justices haven't done that - they've been pushing their own agendas the entire time.

I agree. She is very good. No matter what her personal preferences may be, she it testing the law. That is a good Justice.

Alito, "It wasn't a BIG insurrection..." just a teeny, tiny adorable little insurection.

The same Supreme Court Justices who could squint hard enough to discover a nearly unlimited individual right to own weapons in the Second Amendment are now tying themselves in knots to ignore the clear meaning of the Fourteenth.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty crazy that this SC will try to weasel out by saying the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to POTUS.

The POTUS is the person with the greatest means to commit an insurrection when an election does not go their way.

It is a pretty circular and illogical situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Justice Jackson really wants DJT on the ballot.

She probably doesn't. But she's doing her job, and testing all perceived weaknesses of this lawyer's points. Some right-wing Justices haven't done that - they've been pushing their own agendas the entire time.

+1. Asking tough questions, among other things, gives an advocate the opportunity to make an argument that strengthens the case.

Colorado Solicitor General now being asked questions.

I think they should find that, because Presidents are selected by electors, the suit is not yet ripe. Unless the electors engaged in insurrection, those electors cannot be disqualified from a ballot.

However, a state's "faithless elector" law is unconstitutional to the extent that it purports to require an elector to cast a vote for a person who has engaged in insurrection.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Justice Jackson really wants DJT on the ballot.

She probably doesn't. But she's doing her job, and testing all perceived weaknesses of this lawyer's points. Some right-wing Justices haven't done that - they've been pushing their own agendas the entire time.

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.

KBJ drills down on why the President was not specifically listed in article 3.

Sounds like Justice Jackson really wants DJT on the ballot.

Pretty crazy that this SC will try to weasel out by saying the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to POTUS.

The POTUS is the person with the greatest means to commit an insurrection when an election does not go their way.

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.

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.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

I’m sure a Dem would disqualify that allowing a mass invasion of illegal immigrants qualifies as an insurrection. But that’s where this would be headed. It’s about how states define an insurrection going forward.

No semi intelligent person would see " allowing a mass invasion of illegal immigrants" as an insurrection.

Rs are just showing how stupid and desperate they are if they try to use this logic.

And I'm not for open borders.