President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[BlueK]

This 14th amendment challenge is far from a slam dunk. There are lots of ways the court might decide it doesn't apply (see my first post). Lots of states have said it doesn't apply to trump, and even the Colorado district judge found that as well. There just haven't been cases before that provide any sort of precedent.

but I DO know how Thomas will vote.

Agreed.

[Applejack]

Listening to oral argument now. The Justices are (rightly) concerned with a single state deciding whether or not insurrection was committed (Kagan is dubious). The conservative bloc (alito + Thomas) are more concerned about the (lack of) history of states disqualifying national candidates. These are two sides of the same argument, but personally I think the first one has merit, while the second is weak because states didn't control who appeared on the ballots in the 1800s. But this will case is going to die on the states deciding something for the nation.

[BlueK]

Listening to oral argument now. The Justices are (rightly) concerned with a single state deciding whether or not insurrection was committed (Kagan is dubious). The conservative bloc (alito + Thomas) are more concerned about the (lack of) history of states disqualifying national candidates. These are two sides of the same argument, but personally I think the first one has merit, while the second is weak because states didn't control who appeared on the ballots in the 1800s. But this will case is going to die on the states deciding something for the nation.

Fair enough, I guess, but a majority of the House and Senate decided in the impeachment that Trump participated in insurrection.

[Applejack]

Fair enough, I guess, but a majority of the House and Senate decided in the impeachment that Trump participated in insurrection.

That goes to how we judge insurrection, which there hasn't been much talk about. Jackson asked some questions about it, and Alito is now.

[BlueK]

In other news,Trump is going to claim absolute immunity now also in the Florida case. It's still frivolous and insane. Since the DC circuit already ruled SCOTUS just needs to affirm that ruling right now and apply it nationally. If they delay on this and allow it to delay Trump's trials I will be seriously pissed. I can't imagine they'd be that irresponsible, but who knows.

[LVAllen]

Listening to oral argument now. The Justices are (rightly) concerned with a single state deciding whether or not insurrection was committed (Kagan is dubious). The conservative bloc (alito + Thomas) are more concerned about the (lack of) history of states disqualifying national candidates. These are two sides of the same argument, but personally I think the first one has merit, while the second is weak because states didn't control who appeared on the ballots in the 1800s. But this will case is going to die on the states deciding something for the nation.

Since when has anyone given a flying fart about uniformity among the states elections? Isn't that the whole point of federalism? That states can do things differently? It's pretty freaking rich that the Justices who are most adamant about the states having all the power are suddenly aghast at the concept of states having power.

[Northwestcoug]

Bold legal strategy. Let's see how it works out for him:

Embedded Tweet

[Applejack]

Since when has anyone given a flying fart about uniformity among the states elections? Isn't that the whole point of federalism? That states can do things differently? It's pretty freaking rich that the Justices who are most adamant about the states having all the power are suddenly aghast at the concept of states having power.

No, uniformity is not the point. They are concerned with one state making the law of insurrection for the nation (Kagan's and Barnett's concern); or that states don't have the ability to retract a national candidate's candidacy (Thomas and Alito's and Kavenaugh's concern). I think that concern (does the 14th A allow a state to disqualify a candidate) will be why they shoot down this case. And I think they are likely right.

The case should have been brought in a different form. Instead of saying that the US Constitution forbids Trump's name from appearing on Colorado's ballot, they should have said that the constitution forbids him from taking office. He can be elected, he just cannot serve (unless 2/3 of the house waives the restriction). They could still say that (they won't).

[Bo Diddley]

Since when has anyone given a flying fart about uniformity among the states elections? Isn't that the whole point of federalism? That states can do things differently? It's pretty freaking rich that the Justices who are most adamant about the states having all the power are suddenly aghast at the concept of states having power.

Yeah, I lean this way in thinking the SC might go with "the states can do what they want."

That said, it would open a can of worms.

[falafel]

No, uniformity is not the point. They are concerned with one state making the law of insurrection for the nation (Kagan's and Barnett's concern); or that states don't have the ability to retract a national candidate's candidacy (Thomas and Alito's and Kavenaugh's concern). I think that concern (does the 14th A allow a state to disqualify a candidate) will be why they shoot down this case. And I think they are likely right.

The case should have been brought in a different form. Instead of saying that the US Constitution forbids Trump's name from appearing on Colorado's ballot, they should have said that the constitution forbids him from taking office. He can be elected, he just cannot serve (unless 2/3 of the house waives the restriction). They could still say that (they won't).

Can you imagine the reaction of MAGA even their candidate wins the election but is then prevented from taking office?? Can you imagine the damage to our reputation in the global community will take? The so-called champions of democracy just barred the legally elected candidate from taking office?

[Commando]

Can you imagine the reaction of MAGA even their candidate wins the election but is then prevented from taking office?? Can you imagine the damage to our reputation in the global community will take? The so-called champions of democracy just barred the legally elected candidate from taking office?

lol if that was the implication would would spur voter mobilization? A protest vote? Who is going to go out and vote for a guy who can't take office? Why would the GOP leave him on the ballot? Many questions that probably cannot be answered logically because of whom is asked to answer them.

[falafel]

lol if that was the implication what would spur voter mobilization? A protest vote? Who is going to go out and vote for a guy who can't take office? Why would the GOP leave him on the ballot? Many questions that probably cannot be answered logically because of whom is asked to answer them.

First, the MAGA mind is not a rational one. Second, what if it all comes out past June when Trump has already been nominated? You think he's going to let Nikki step in and take his victory? No way, he'll run anyway, he'll yell all day that they are coming after YOU America, he's just standing in the way and all of MAGA and a sizeable portion of the well-meaning but not-so-smart crowd will make it a race. Hell, the if 91 felonies can't slow him down, a fake constitutional bar cooked up by the radical left democrats to steal the election sure as hell won't.

[Bo Diddley]

Yeah, I lean this way in thinking the SC might go with "the states can do what they want."

That said, it would open a can of worms.

Yeah, this seems unlikely now. I think they'll overrule Colorado and put it in the hands of Congress. Congress is divided enough they won't be able to do anything, so it'll be in the hands of the voters, where perhaps the decision should be anyway.

[Jeff Lebowski]

All these lawsuits and indictments have done nothing but make trump more popular. Grr...

[BlueK]

All these lawsuits and indictments have done nothing but make trump more popular. Grr...

Among independents? I don't think so.