I’ll bet you six luxury vacation packages that there’s a real explanation for those strange views.
While I can understand some actual legal reasons for not disqualifying him YET (ie no convictions), the sophomoric reasoning by Roberts was pretty scary- it’s not up to the courts to appease an angry, disgruntled percentage of the population, it is to apply the law. People weren’t happy with integration back in the day, but it was the LAW. Being ready to ignore a clear amendment to the constitution because many might not like it is jettisoning your oath.
If the 14th Amendment Section 3 has any application it applies to the insurrectionist Donald Trump. The man boasts of it. He has never stopped insurrection. He runs a large and dangerous cult. He is disqualified. SCOTUS will only ever have this one opportunity. Beyond that it will be subsumed by the cult and become a rubber stamp for its lawlessness.
The thing to remember in answering the question on if states can disqualify a candidate from the ballot, those views also would have applied to Jefferson Davis.
Trump is still largely campaigning on the fact he did not lose the presidency and that the insurrection should have been successful. Beyond presidential immunity, variations of “I really won” has been his only other defense.
> “Will no one rid me of this turbulent yeast?”
States already have the authority to just not allow people on the ballot though. Every election cycle 3rd party canidates are denied listing on the ballot on a state by state basis. This no different.
It’s still unclear to me why the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over how Colorado administers the allocation of its electoral votes. If it’s considered a states rights issue the criteria a candidate needs to meet to appear on a ballot (signatures, a certain percentage of primary votes or previous general election votes, etc), whether that ballot can be mailed in or filled out in-person, whether you can vote early or after the polls close, etc–and we’re totally okay with the fact that every state has different rules and statutes for all of those things… why wouldn’t Colorado’s civil determination for the state of Colorado that Trump participated in an insurrection be considered a purely Colorado issue SCOTUS has no say in?
I understand the Supreme Courts decisions have a national impact, but I see this case as strictly having Colorado significance. Doesn’t the Constitution give states the right/duty to conduct their own votes?
It’s gonna be time soon for States to simply ignore SSC rulings in bad faith.
> US supreme court justices have strange views on Constitution
FTFY
So fucking tired of this shit
>The rest of the justices seemed to like the sound of that and were soon all asking questions about the scope of state authority over the administration of federal elections.
Is it not the states that administer federal elections? Aren’t there differing processes by state to even get on the ballot as a candidate?
I guess it’s also worth noting, he was impeached. The Senate’s only job was to vote on whether he should be removed from office (correct?). They voted not to and allowed him to finish out his term. He was however impeached and should therefore not be eligible to hold office again.
He’s obviously disqualified by the letter, spirit and intent of the law.
Anyone backing him has lost their goddamn minds and should not be listened to. He sat back and watched on January 6th. He did nothing to try to call off the insurrection for over three hours. He contacted no one in national security for the entire day. ***He didn’t lift one finger to facilitate a response to the attack.***
Everything else is equivocation and prevarication. There is no excuse for his potential Presidency to be considered legal, moral, or ethical.
Our other institutions have failed us. The Executive branch via Mueller and Trump’s cabinet ignored the threat and punted to Congress. Congress, due to McConnell, punted to the judicial branch. Now the judicial branch has a responsibility to do what is necessary. If it can’t defend itself from Trump’s attempt to usurp their purview of the constitutional order then all is lost. Get ready for the potential of a national nightmare because the people with the best protection in the world are too fucking worried about their own necks and legacies.
It makes sense when you consider they would have no problem making the ruling against a dem president.
But guys, the 14th amendment doesn’t name Trump specifically so it can’t really apply in this case.
These fucking morons have the gall to say the Office of the president isn’t a fucking officer of the United States. Yeah yeah yeah the way the law was written doesn’t explicitly say that but give me a fucking break here, if the president of the country isn’t an officer then I’ll just go fuck myself.
MAGA king walking free
This SC in this case is just looking to not have to make that decision. Our founding fathers gave Americans too much credit in that they believed we’d never elect someone as morally corrupt as trump. That we’d never elect a president who would try to undermine our constitution. It took over 200 years, but here we are. They, the SC justices, dont see it as their responsibility to preserve our constitution. Doing so would require them to make the decision that trump did in fact attempt an insurrection. They broadly interpret the constitution when it benefits their beliefs as in Roe v. Wade, but not in this case, where its literally spelled out for them.
They don’t want to do that right thing without feeling they are going to take a political hit by Trump and his cult followers.
They are sympathetic to the MAGA crowd and scared of them. It’s painfully obvious. They can’t even decide on a constitutional amendment that is crystal clear how this is going to go.
Trump got four of the the job. They feel they owe it to him to keep him on the ballot. Thomas has another motive, protecting his wife and her interference in the 2020 election
The Supreme Court is massively corrupt.
What pissed me off was all the “why should one state choose?” and I’m screaming at my screen “It’s before YOU so you can make a decision that EVERY OTHER STAE CAN ARE MAKE THE SAME DECISION!!!!” Like, that’s why shit gets to the SUPREME court in this country, so a supreme decision can be made that sets precedent for ALL STATES. Maddening.
I wonder if their tune would change had it been the Supreme Court that was attacked by a violent mob sent by TFG while they were in session.
They’d have to be odd reasons to find a way to completely ignore the constitution the way justices are about to
If the rules set by the 14th amendment don’t apply because it “disenfranchises” voters, so do all other requirements including birthright citizenship. That was only imposed to prevent people from England coming over with ties to the king, I think we’re beyond that. Let anybody of any age run. Otherwise you’re disenfranchising me!
If the Court allows Donald on the ballot and doesn’t indicate the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional they should explain **in detail** situations in which it would apply.
If not now, when?
EDIT:
ALso, if the Supremes are so eager to “let the people decide” how can they let the limitations on minimum age (35 years old, or older) and having been born in the United States stand?
If we’re going to trust the voter’s decision on violent attempts to overthrow the government shouldn’t we accept their judgment on age and birthplace, too?
There’s only one potential defense of where the Justices seem to be going with this – and that is for there to be a matter of established law to bar someone from office.
I think it’s totally fair to say that you need a relevant criminal conviction to bar someone from office, and should explicitly empower federal prosecutors to seek barring an individual from future office under the 14th amendment as part of a case.
Anything falling short of that is utter horseshit and shreds what tiny scraps of nonexistent legitimacy the Supreme Court still enjoys.
The SCOTUS has had the preference to allow states to govern when convenient to their own views.
This is the best analysis of the oral argument that I’ve read so far. It gets right the legal contradictions the Court is creating with regard to state power to administer federal elections.
I wished Judge Luttig had been the one to plead the case for Colorado. He and Professor Lawrence Tribe would have made a great team. To explain to the court why not allowing an insurrectionist run for office. Was in the Best Interest of the Country. It’s The Rule of Law and to abide by the Constitution. If these SC Judges can’t understand that. Then we don’t need them. They are a waste of Taxpayer Money.
It’s really quite simple. They are cowards. They are all absolutely frozen at the prospect that they, not the “founders,” will have to make a decision. There is no one to point back to and say, “Well, they did it.” There’s no cover. They will have to own it. And since they’re cowards like most people, they’ll do anything but the right thing.
One line of questioning was about how, if they allow Colorados ruling to stand, any state can then remove a candidate from the ballot. Texas could remove Biden or California could remove Trump. First, this sounds like a threat to democrats more than anything. And my response to the Justices would be, if they engaged in insurrection that would be appropriate.
The only way we disqualify him at this point, is to VOTE!
31 comments
I’ll bet you six luxury vacation packages that there’s a real explanation for those strange views.
While I can understand some actual legal reasons for not disqualifying him YET (ie no convictions), the sophomoric reasoning by Roberts was pretty scary- it’s not up to the courts to appease an angry, disgruntled percentage of the population, it is to apply the law. People weren’t happy with integration back in the day, but it was the LAW. Being ready to ignore a clear amendment to the constitution because many might not like it is jettisoning your oath.
If the 14th Amendment Section 3 has any application it applies to the insurrectionist Donald Trump. The man boasts of it. He has never stopped insurrection. He runs a large and dangerous cult. He is disqualified. SCOTUS will only ever have this one opportunity. Beyond that it will be subsumed by the cult and become a rubber stamp for its lawlessness.
The thing to remember in answering the question on if states can disqualify a candidate from the ballot, those views also would have applied to Jefferson Davis.
Trump is still largely campaigning on the fact he did not lose the presidency and that the insurrection should have been successful. Beyond presidential immunity, variations of “I really won” has been his only other defense.
> “Will no one rid me of this turbulent yeast?”
States already have the authority to just not allow people on the ballot though. Every election cycle 3rd party canidates are denied listing on the ballot on a state by state basis. This no different.
It’s still unclear to me why the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over how Colorado administers the allocation of its electoral votes. If it’s considered a states rights issue the criteria a candidate needs to meet to appear on a ballot (signatures, a certain percentage of primary votes or previous general election votes, etc), whether that ballot can be mailed in or filled out in-person, whether you can vote early or after the polls close, etc–and we’re totally okay with the fact that every state has different rules and statutes for all of those things… why wouldn’t Colorado’s civil determination for the state of Colorado that Trump participated in an insurrection be considered a purely Colorado issue SCOTUS has no say in?
I understand the Supreme Courts decisions have a national impact, but I see this case as strictly having Colorado significance. Doesn’t the Constitution give states the right/duty to conduct their own votes?
It’s gonna be time soon for States to simply ignore SSC rulings in bad faith.
> US supreme court justices have strange views on Constitution
FTFY
So fucking tired of this shit
>The rest of the justices seemed to like the sound of that and were soon all asking questions about the scope of state authority over the administration of federal elections.
Is it not the states that administer federal elections? Aren’t there differing processes by state to even get on the ballot as a candidate?
I guess it’s also worth noting, he was impeached. The Senate’s only job was to vote on whether he should be removed from office (correct?). They voted not to and allowed him to finish out his term. He was however impeached and should therefore not be eligible to hold office again.
He’s obviously disqualified by the letter, spirit and intent of the law.
Anyone backing him has lost their goddamn minds and should not be listened to. He sat back and watched on January 6th. He did nothing to try to call off the insurrection for over three hours. He contacted no one in national security for the entire day. ***He didn’t lift one finger to facilitate a response to the attack.***
Everything else is equivocation and prevarication. There is no excuse for his potential Presidency to be considered legal, moral, or ethical.
Our other institutions have failed us. The Executive branch via Mueller and Trump’s cabinet ignored the threat and punted to Congress. Congress, due to McConnell, punted to the judicial branch. Now the judicial branch has a responsibility to do what is necessary. If it can’t defend itself from Trump’s attempt to usurp their purview of the constitutional order then all is lost. Get ready for the potential of a national nightmare because the people with the best protection in the world are too fucking worried about their own necks and legacies.
It makes sense when you consider they would have no problem making the ruling against a dem president.
But guys, the 14th amendment doesn’t name Trump specifically so it can’t really apply in this case.
These fucking morons have the gall to say the Office of the president isn’t a fucking officer of the United States. Yeah yeah yeah the way the law was written doesn’t explicitly say that but give me a fucking break here, if the president of the country isn’t an officer then I’ll just go fuck myself.
MAGA king walking free
This SC in this case is just looking to not have to make that decision. Our founding fathers gave Americans too much credit in that they believed we’d never elect someone as morally corrupt as trump. That we’d never elect a president who would try to undermine our constitution. It took over 200 years, but here we are. They, the SC justices, dont see it as their responsibility to preserve our constitution. Doing so would require them to make the decision that trump did in fact attempt an insurrection. They broadly interpret the constitution when it benefits their beliefs as in Roe v. Wade, but not in this case, where its literally spelled out for them.
They don’t want to do that right thing without feeling they are going to take a political hit by Trump and his cult followers.
They are sympathetic to the MAGA crowd and scared of them. It’s painfully obvious. They can’t even decide on a constitutional amendment that is crystal clear how this is going to go.
Trump got four of the the job. They feel they owe it to him to keep him on the ballot. Thomas has another motive, protecting his wife and her interference in the 2020 election
The Supreme Court is massively corrupt.
What pissed me off was all the “why should one state choose?” and I’m screaming at my screen “It’s before YOU so you can make a decision that EVERY OTHER STAE CAN ARE MAKE THE SAME DECISION!!!!” Like, that’s why shit gets to the SUPREME court in this country, so a supreme decision can be made that sets precedent for ALL STATES. Maddening.
I wonder if their tune would change had it been the Supreme Court that was attacked by a violent mob sent by TFG while they were in session.
They’d have to be odd reasons to find a way to completely ignore the constitution the way justices are about to
If the rules set by the 14th amendment don’t apply because it “disenfranchises” voters, so do all other requirements including birthright citizenship. That was only imposed to prevent people from England coming over with ties to the king, I think we’re beyond that. Let anybody of any age run. Otherwise you’re disenfranchising me!
If the Court allows Donald on the ballot and doesn’t indicate the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional they should explain **in detail** situations in which it would apply.
If not now, when?
EDIT:
ALso, if the Supremes are so eager to “let the people decide” how can they let the limitations on minimum age (35 years old, or older) and having been born in the United States stand?
If we’re going to trust the voter’s decision on violent attempts to overthrow the government shouldn’t we accept their judgment on age and birthplace, too?
There’s only one potential defense of where the Justices seem to be going with this – and that is for there to be a matter of established law to bar someone from office.
I think it’s totally fair to say that you need a relevant criminal conviction to bar someone from office, and should explicitly empower federal prosecutors to seek barring an individual from future office under the 14th amendment as part of a case.
Anything falling short of that is utter horseshit and shreds what tiny scraps of nonexistent legitimacy the Supreme Court still enjoys.
The SCOTUS has had the preference to allow states to govern when convenient to their own views.
This is the best analysis of the oral argument that I’ve read so far. It gets right the legal contradictions the Court is creating with regard to state power to administer federal elections.
I wished Judge Luttig had been the one to plead the case for Colorado. He and Professor Lawrence Tribe would have made a great team. To explain to the court why not allowing an insurrectionist run for office. Was in the Best Interest of the Country. It’s The Rule of Law and to abide by the Constitution. If these SC Judges can’t understand that. Then we don’t need them. They are a waste of Taxpayer Money.
It’s really quite simple. They are cowards. They are all absolutely frozen at the prospect that they, not the “founders,” will have to make a decision. There is no one to point back to and say, “Well, they did it.” There’s no cover. They will have to own it. And since they’re cowards like most people, they’ll do anything but the right thing.
One line of questioning was about how, if they allow Colorados ruling to stand, any state can then remove a candidate from the ballot. Texas could remove Biden or California could remove Trump. First, this sounds like a threat to democrats more than anything. And my response to the Justices would be, if they engaged in insurrection that would be appropriate.
The only way we disqualify him at this point, is to VOTE!