Of the arguments brought up in the Colorado case, there is one I like...

well the proper course would be to reject the electoral votes of that state which would well be a national government decision

 

What are you talking about? Yes he has! Proven in court and upheld on appeal.

 

He has not been tried for the crimes that qualify IE treason or sedition.
He'd have to be convicted in criminal court.
He hasn't been. Ergo, you're going to find when SCOTUS responds that it doesn't matter that Colorado tried to skip to the end of the process.

 

You clearly didn't listen to the oral arguments. The example you gave was primarily introduced by Kagan, not a "Trumpist."

There were also many arguments that were presented. This case clearly shows where people stand. Justice Jackson said it well when she said Colorado's arguments go against our democracy. The oral arguments were a victory for our democracy which is why the usual suspects are so upset.

The states never had this power in the first place. That's the whole point.

I think you should do some research and actually listen to some of the oral arguments.

 

I agree with that. Moreover, contrary to what one justice said, Colorado is not deciding who should be President, but rather who should NOT be President. Quite a different thing.

On R v W, the SC decided that the decision should be left to the individual states. Why not in the present case? Specially since the Colorado SC confirmed the decision, if I'm not mistaken.

 

Oh, examples please. J6 committee nonsense does count.

 

Gee what could be different about electing the president of the nation v having an abortion concerning your own womb?

How could one be a national issue and one a state issue? Can you think of a reason? Can you tell the class?

 

No!!! It was introduced by Trump's attorney in his briefing. Except he didn't reference it in his deposition. And even in his briefing it was barely mentioned. Seeing that he had NO good arguments, Justices Kagan referenced it and Justice Jackson asked him point blank why he was not making that his main argument.

Yes! All of them lousy and effectively dismissed by the Colorado attorneys. This one, BTW, was also rebutted by the Colorado attorneys. However, it's an argument that the independent justices would be willing to embrace and hand a 9-0 or 8-1 decision because it does the least damage to the country.

 

What the hell do you think this whole thread is about? If you don't know the basics of this case, why are you here?

 

There is no federal law on abortion. The 14th Amendment reserves the power to disqualify national candidates within the federal government. That's the entire point of Section 3. The 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War because they didn't trust Confederate states. It restricted the power of the states and granted additional powers to the federal government. They never would have wanted to give Confederate states the power to disqualify national candidates. The argument Colorado was making is that the 14th Amendment gives the states additional powers despite having no historical record of this being the case and no legal precedent to draw from.

Some issues are federal and things that aren't federal are reserved to the states. That's how federalism works.

 

You mean the case that SCOTUS maybe overturn unanimously, or at least with a supermajority? The one that has no bearing on Trump's participation in an "insurrection"?

 

I mean the adjudication that Trump participated in an insurrection.

 

You have to look at the context of the conversation. If Colorado starts a chain reaction of partisan liberal and conservative states using their "power" to disqualify candidates, the election will be decided by fewer states and will be largely determined by who exploited this "power" more than the other. It would have a great impact on the election and will likely be determinative.

 

Even Jackson said it didn't pertain to the President. There's no historical context that it did. There were many drafts of the 14th Amendment, some of which did include the President. It was debated and they ultimately decided to remove that position and only include the electors of the President and Vice President. The most recent Supreme Court precedent is that it doesn't either. If this point is addressed it will be 9-0 or 8-1 depending on whatever Sotomayor says. She isn't that bright so nobody ever knows what she'll do. Her exact words were that even if she took Jason Murray's position that it is unclear, why would the court take the side that is against democracy? So I'll ask you the same question. Why oppose democracy?

 

By a non criminal, state court, outside of its jurisdiction See 14th amendment. IE that's not how it works.

Or were you not listening to even the liberal justices? They all made their opposition to this fairly clear.

 

The constitutional issue is whether or not the Colorado Supreme Court can exclude Trump based on the 14th A. Whether there was an insurrection or not is NOT a Constitutional issue. However, this activist Supreme Court has made very activist decisions. So, though unlikely, there is no guarantee they won't rule that there was no Insurrection. At the moment, it has been adjudicated that there WAS. Which is what the poster was asking.

 

Which hasn't happened.

 

So many goalposts are being moved. Here is what you said,

"I think the arguments we have been discussing were addressed pretty much like I expected. Trumpist justices have NO arguments to revoke the Colorado decision...
Except one!
The argument is that one state should not be allowed to decide for others."

Your argument is that "Trumpist justices have no arguments other than one state should not be allowed to decide for others." This is ridiculous. As I said, if you had actually researched or listened to the oral arguments, you would have known it was Kagan who was pushing that argument. And she is not a so-called "Trumpist." You don't get to change the subject by claiming it was an argument from Trump's briefing. There were also many issues brought up in the oral arguments. And, if you actually read Trump's briefing, you'd know he itemized several arguments. So trying to claim this was the sole argument he brought up is laughable.

1. The president is not an "officer of the United States" [note: this is something even the liberal justices supported him on and coincides with precedent.]
2. President Trump did not "engage in an insurrection." [note: Biden's DoJ has not accused him of this either, and they are attacking him with everything they possibly can. The justices called his a lack of due process.]
3. Section 3 should be enforced only through Congress's chosen methods of enforcement [note: even the liberal justices agreed.]
4. Section 3 cannot be used to deny President Trump access to the ballot [note: even the liberal justices seem to agree.]
5. The Colorado Supreme Court violated the Electors Clause and the Colorado Election Code [note: even the liberal justices seem to agree the Colorado Supreme Court violated the Electors Clause.]

These were the five arguments Trump's attorneys laid out in his brief. We get it; many anti-Trumpers oppose our democracy. But let's be intellectually honest in the debate. You don't get to move the goalposts by claiming you said something entirely different. It's important to properly research arguments before presenting them, otherwise they'll be easily dismissed as ignorant.

 

So essentially it’s a punt argument that goes something like this:
The particular section of the amendment is a Federal rather than State decision so court remands it to Congress to clarify the amendment.

Effectively Trump can be on all ballots.

Therefore a narrow precedent is set that all courts below SC will follow. We receive the usual non-action from Congress rendering an entire section of the 14th amendment dead letter.

 

What adjudication? The Colorado SC blather fest? Do you realize that's about to be overturned?

 

NONSENSE. Hov can arguing that Trump violated the 14th Amendment NOT be a constitutional issue? You grasp that one or more of the liberal justices seem likely to join the decision - does that make them activists (by your definition) too?

 

The section isn't "dead." It still exists as written. The only thing that changed is states can't keep violating the Constitution.

Section 3 doesn't mention the President. It mentions electors of the President and Vice President. Section 5 also says Congress "shall" enforce the provisions of the Amendment, not the states. Nobody ever told the states they could do this. In fact, even during Reconstruction, there was a desire for states to get involved in this way, but they didn't.. because they couldn't. After the elections occurred, Congress would choose not to seat the winners of the election based on Section 3. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked. There's no other example in history where this happened any different.

 

Yes. And Jackson asked Trump's attorneys why that argument was barely mentioned in the deposition instead of giving it the most emphasis.

Bottom line, I personally think it's a lousy argument. But, given that expecting a rational ruling is out of the question, this is the argument that does the least damage. Trumpist justices were grasping for some argument to justify a ruling that had already been established in their minds the first time they heard the word "Trump". Kagan pointed it out to them.

The rest of the arguments were ridiculous and very effectively rebutted by the Colorado attorney. Actually, they were ALL effectively rebutted. But this one appears to be the one that independent justices might adhere to.

The other arguments have been discussed in other threads. Or you can open a thread if you think any of them deserves any attention. Personally, I think that would be moot, given that the one this thread was intended to discuss covers all bases that CAN be covered.

 

So first you say the "Trumpist Justices" only had this one argument.

Then when called out for being blatantly untrue you claim it was Trump's argument.

Then when called out that you are misrepresenting the facts you claim Trump barely even referenced it in the brief while still ignoring the fact that it wasn't Trump Justices who made this argument, it was Kagan. She is the one who introduced it and ran with it. She is the one who focused on it. She is the one who appears to be using it as the primary basis for her opinion on this case, not a Trumpist judge.

Your posts are just misdirection and false statements. The position is clearly extremely poorly researched and now you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to present misinformation in an attempt to not seem like the premise of this thread is blatantly untrue.

Let's stick to your premise, that "Trumpist Justices" have only "one" argument in this case. But the truth is that this is one of MANY arguments used in the oral arguments. And it was Kagan, not a "Trumpist Justice," who used it to help form her opinion on this case. This thread is a typical epic failure due to poor research of the facts. The entire premise isn't truthful, it's just a knee-jerk irrational attack on "Trumpism" while not understanding the basics of the issue at hand. There are many valid reasons to attack so-called "Trumpists," so I don't know why the choice here was based on false information. If it was intentional, it was a lie. If it was unintentional, it was ignorance and poor research.

 

Del.