Discussion Thread: US Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Case on Ballot Access for Former President Trump

29 comments

1. Zero percent chance of this being upheld. But someone can write a hell of a dissent.

   I just hope the majority doesn’t try to argue that Jan 6th wasn’t an insurrection and/or Trump didn’t partake. It’s factually wrong and they don’t need to do any such thing to get the result they want.

2. Trump attempted a coup in 2020. The fact that he will become the Republican nominee and has an actual shot at the presidency in 2024 is mind boggling.

3. It’s such a cut and dry case and YET because of the bullshit horrible timeline we’re in I fully expect to be stressed up until the verdict is reached (and then probably after…).

4. I look forward to a random letter to the editor from an obscure newspaper from 1866 deciding this case…

5. If this was a Democrat who had done this shit, it’d have already been decided and the upcoming college semester textbooks would have it included for required reading.

   Fucking hell.

6. I hope they uphold the decision to keep him off

   I’ve got a fancy bottle of wine I’ve been saving, wouldn’t mind a reason to celebrate

7. Oyez.org has an archive oral arguments to SCOTUS. If you want to get a feel for how things may go or want to listen to today’s hearing more than once.

8. Obviously, this won’t happen, but isn’t this an opportunity for the Supreme Court conservatives to step up and save the Republican Party from further destruction by TFG?

9. Any recommendations on watching this streamed with balanced commentary?

10. > Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    The so-called “originalists” of SCOTUS will really reveal their hypocrisy pretty nakedly if they don’t disqualify Trump. They’re supposedly all about following the original intent of the Constitution’s writers, and the radical republicans who wrote the 14th Amendment were very clear that it applied to the POTUS and did not require a criminal conviction.

11. Question – Rather than taking a stance for or against, does SCOTUS have the option to rule that it’s up to individual states to decide?

12. My prediction, based on a strict reading of the Constitution:

    The Court will rule that it is up to each state how they manage their elections and who shall and shall not be on the general election ballot (per Article II and the 12^th Amendment), but the primary ballot is the determination of a private organization (the political party) and as such the state has no power to determine, change, or ban names from that ballot (because of the 1^st amendment speech and free association guarantees)

    But, the 14^th amendment, article 3 sets a requirement (much like the requirements set forth in Article II) not for candidacy, but holding office. Per a previous decision by Neil Gorsuch, each state has a right to restrict ballot access to prevent the election unqualified persons, in order to guarantee the enfranchisement of its voters (by preventing them from voting for a person who would be barred from the office).

    Additionally the several states may (if their laws allow) place an unqualified person on their ballot, and send electors to the Electoral College to elect that unqualified person, but then it would be up to Congress to prevent a person who lacks the qualifications for the presidency from ascending to the presidency by disqualifying electors of an unqualified candidate.

    Thereby the court will be punting the decision to the states and the next Congress.

13. Trump threatens SCOTUS with chaos and turmoil that Trump himself will cause. Is SCOTUS going to succumb in fear to the chaos promiser Trump? Can we just stand up to the criminal RAPIST and INSURRECTIONIST without namby pamby fears? Trump disqualified himself. Trump shouldn’t be allowed to use threats of violence to scare SCOTUS into ignoring the constitution.

14. BTW the actual argument won’t start at the beginning of the session; the court is releasing at least one opinion before they call the Trump case.

15. Dont f* this up. Our country hangs on the ballance of justice here…

16. Soooo hypothetically this verdict comes back with any variation of “ineligible due to insurrection”, how long before we see cases start popping up against House, Senate, and State reps who were involved? And would some of those potentially kick off special elections if this is deemed to be self executing?

17. We aren’t going to be so lucky will we

18. so basically Trumps arguments are super weak, so the only chance he could win this is by the SC members to totally rig the whole thing right ?

19. Clarence gets some free swag and a weekend at holiday inn if he gets this right

20. So, it’s expected to take weeks to discuss the case, and then after said weeks, is when a ruling will be given?

21. Good morning everyone. Hope all is well.

22. The only logical outcome here is that this is a state’s rights issue. But I look forward to seeing what nonsense the SC comes up with about definitions for words like “office” or “insurrection” to try and deflect this 

23. [deleted]

24. There are opinions being issued first.

    First up, a unanimous ruling as per Justice Gorsuch that individuals can sue a federal agency for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-846_2co3.pdf

25. My only fear with an anti trump ruling is “states have complete and utter control over their elections” which will 100% be used by red states as a voter suppression free for all.

26. Reminder: none of the six plaintiffs in the Colorado 14th Amendment case are Democrats. Three are Republicans and three are independents.

27. I wonder what interesting shapes the originalists and textualists on the court will twist themselves into as they attempt to give Trump a pass on this.

28. I like how recusing yourself from a case that you have a conflict of interest in is just an honor code thing we do for funsies sometimes, you know when Clarence Thomas *feels* like it

    So glad we’re governed by a document written before germ theory

29. Did anyone catch the lady talking about birding in the AP live stream?