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

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. For example, if the race were tight, and ONE's state decision decided who is the Candidate or, for that matter, the President; then it would only take a decision by the Supreme Court of that state to overturn the elections in ALL states.

THIS argument could mean a 9-0 decision against Colorado.

BUT... .before you jump up and down in joy. Consider this: the precedent would take away from the States quite a bit of power. Gorsuch's decision by which states could basically ascribed absolute power to the states about who can be on the ballot will be gone. Poof!!

I know many will not agree with me. Probably on both sides. But I believe this is a good basis for a decision that will not undermine democracy (to a certain point it would strengthen it), and will allow the Supreme Court to stay away from AGAIN exposing the obvious partisanship of the MAGA justices.

I don't know. This is my first impression after the arguments before SCOTUS today.

What say ye?

 

If Trump is going to get convicted, or disqualified (the first I think has some merit in some cases, the disqualification based on insurrection I find completely bogus), I hope it happens ASAP

 

I watched some of it, his lawyers are so bad the Supremes are actually making their case for them..

 

delete-found answer

 

Yes. They broadcasted them in their entirety.

 

yeah I recalled the audio feed after I posted it-hence the deletion

 

You apparently didn't listen very hard

"...
There were few, if any, surprises among the group of justices that make up the court’s furthest-right flank: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

All three expressed deep skepticism about the challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility and warned of the parade of horribles that would ensue if individual states were permitted to decide which presidential candidates were insurrectionists, absent a clear national standard passed by Congress.



The conservative trio that has served as the court’s median — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — also seemed keen on removing this call from individual states. That’s a grim sign for the Colorado challengers, as Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett were considered the conservative votes that most plausibly could have been in play.

“The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power, right?" Roberts asked at one point."
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court/arguments-takeaways-00140241

And

...“Well, when you look at Section 3, the term insurrection jumps out. And the questions are: What does that mean? How do you define it? Who decides? Who decides whether someone engaged in it? What processes– as justice, what processes are appropriate for figuring out whether someone did engage in that?”Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

"...

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked whether Section 3 was the only type of disqualification that could be removed by Congress.

“It's the only one like that, right?” He asked.

...."The question of who can enforce Section 3, with respect to a presidential candidate -- the consequences of what the Colorado Supreme Court did, as some people claim, would be quite severe,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

“It would seem to me … if the Colorado position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side. Some of those succeed. Some of them will have different standards of proof. Some of them will have different views about evidence,” Chief Justice Roberts said.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jus...-case-banning-trump-ballot/story?id=107067452

 

I honestly don’t understand your argument. Colorado’s decision is for Colorado, how are they making decisions for others?

 

Lets say the election comes down to who wins CO..... banning a candidate from the CO ballot would effectively decide the overall federal election.

 

Gorsuch destroyed Colorado's argument.

I'm paraphrasing...

Gorsuch: "If a president is automatically disqualified, then military officers would, at that moment, no long be obligated to follow the orders from that president"

Murray: No. There would be a legal procedure that would have to happen first."

 

What power would the states be losing?

 

First of all, let's be clear that one way or the other, this partisan Supreme Court would side against Colorado no matter what. Makes no difference if it's 6 to 3 or 9 to 0. So the independent justices will need to arrive at some agreement with the MAGA justices so they don't completely change the Constitution.

With that in mind imagine this. Just an example that could apply to the general elections or to the primaries. Let's say that Biden wins by 29 electoral votes. And that he wins Florida. Imagine the Florida Supreme Court (which is heavily partisan Republican) decides that Biden participated in some... insurrection. And that, for that reason, he is ineligible to serve. The decision by ONE state's supreme court (not their voters) would give Trump the win.

Now... there are many many caveats to the above. But it's one argument that sets a GOOD precedent: it takes power AWAY from the States. Gorsuch, for example, was an advocate that states could include or exclude from the ballot ANYBODY, or ANY reason. If this argument prevails, he would have to change that precept.

Again: it was UNAVOIDABLE that Colorado would win. Might as well get something out of it.

Full disclosure: I have always said that it's bad for the country to remove Trump from the ballot. I believe he would become a martyr for the right. I think the only way to defeat MAGA extremism is to defeat Trump at the polls.

 

Independent justices?...lol

 

It acknowledges that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to restrict the powers of the states.

 

The states don't have the power to enforce Section 3.

 

I disagree .

The outcome in any one state cannot be considered in the overall election. States have the authority to administer elections and the authority to set the rules for the elections they administer as long as they don’t violate the Constitution . A candidate that is removed can seek relief in the courts but any attempt to argue to be reinstated because they “might” win the election fails because since no one has the “right” to win an election. The right to vote is protected but the right to be elected is not.

 

Any decision that a state makes could affect other states in the way being claimed here - how electors are chosen, who is on the ballot, state restrictions or relaxations on polling and voting methods, ID rules, etc., etc. It's not just an issue of one state calling the candidate to heel on a constitutional requirement - such as sec. 3 - which does NOT require insurrection, by the way.

All these decisions are significant, and through the Electoral College affect all states in the manner specified.

It's time to federalize the presidential election rather than every state forming their own opinions and then amplifying those opinions through the electoral college.

 

I say this cockamamie nonsensical Colorado ruling never had a snowball's chance in hell of being upheld.

 

They have the power to enforce the other constitutional requirements of office. What makes this one different?

 

I don't agree. There is only one reason for disqualification under section 3, and that is if the candidate who formally swore an oath engaged in, and/or gave aid and comfort to, insurrection/insurrectionists. Well, that being true, then the likelihood of just one state removing the candidate from the ballot is nil, many other states will follow suit, so I don't see that is a problematic issue, which is, by the way,is what is happening. Another thing, the whole point was to bring the case to the court for a ruling, which, if they rule in CO's favor, the rule will apply nationally and the problem becomes moot at that juncture.

However,. this court spent a lot of time looking for any avenue they could find to not side with Colorado. This is, of course, what you and I predicted. I got the distinct impression that the shadow of Gore v Bush and the subsequent fallout the supreme court experienced from it loomed large on this court, and this particular one is a hot potato that everyone in the court wanted to let go of any way they could.

They were nitpicking on 'officer' with very little attention given to the elephant in the room, that a insurrectionist could become the next president which is what the framers most certainly did not want.

They nitpicked on whether the framers intended section 3 for the states, not federal, and all sorts of things that clearly told me they were looking for a way out of this, and they did not want to be the court (as the court in 2000) that denied a candidate a shot at the ballot, even if that candidate was an insurrectionist.

Hell, a whole hour had past into the arguments before the subject of 'insurrection' was even mentioned. Another thing, the atty for the respondents, the opening argument was amazingly short. There were many augments the CO side could have made but they didn't. This was brought to light by Neal Katyal, the MSNBC legal analyst who had argued some 50 cases before the court.

Robert's got into a whole hissy fit that if CO got it's way, then Repubs would do tit for tats. No, because either you commit an insurrection, or you don't, and any issue of insurrection can be appealed, where more sensible souls in the appellate courts will toss your case out of court if it is frivolous. Thus I find Robert's tit for tat argument not very compelling. If what he said were true, then why is the section 3 there, and when could, if ever, it be applied if that was the standard? Moreover, it's not a legal argument, it's a political one and I thought these guys were 'originalists' and strict 'what the thing says' guys without 'fear or favor' (to political considerations). Especially Gorsuch. Apparently not.

I was saddened by the whole thing.

 

You are right about the SC vote, but that IS a change to the constitution. They will decide to eliminate a section of the constitution without consulting congress or ratification. Their claims of strict scrutiny have long been total crap - an excuse when politically expedient.

I agree that facing MAGA straight up is the only way forward.

The authors of that section couldn't possibly have dreamed that America would accept insurrection.

 

By that logic, the states can make up any law they choose to DQ a Federal candidate. What's to stop them from it?

 

Amen! Only Brown even bothered noting that this is about insurrection.

It's only logical that other states held off until this ruling. That's common practice, and no indication of how many states support our constitution as written.

 

That's why Congress has DQ power and not the individual states.

Jackson asked a good question:

"My question is why the framers would have designed a system that would — could — result in interim disuniformity in this way?"

 

Saw some of it too....and agree, Trumps lawyers are very ineffective. ( probably because the really good ones are smart enough NOT to work for him)

Which ever way it goes, the message should be clear: Trump is NOT wanted on that ballot. Trump will spin it to his advantage, no matter how bizarre he sounds.