SCOTUS seems ready to strike down Colorado ballot ruling

[Merrill]

Mood shifts outside the court

Follow POLITICO's live coverage and analysis of the Supreme Court's oral arguments on whether Trump is barred by the 14th Amendment from running for president.

www.politico.com

No surprise here. As I and others pointed out, the Colorado ruling was a partisan atrocity. The decision by SCOTUS might be unanimously against it

 

[HTacianas]

Mood shifts outside the court

Follow POLITICO's live coverage and analysis of the Supreme Court's oral arguments on whether Trump is barred by the 14th Amendment from running for president.

www.politico.com

No surprise here. As I and others pointed out, the Colorado ruling was a partisan atrocity. The decision by SCOTUS might be unanimously against it

It should be overruled. It's an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.

 

[DaisyDay]

Mood shifts outside the court

Follow POLITICO's live coverage and analysis of the Supreme Court's oral arguments on whether Trump is barred by the 14th Amendment from running for president.

www.politico.com

No surprise here.

I wouldn't be surprised either way.

As I and others pointed out, the Colorado ruling was a partisan atrocity.

Partisan atrocity? The judges are non-partisan and the plaintiffs were Republicans.

Colorado Supreme Court

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

The decision by SCOTUS might be unanimously against it

Could be.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I didn't listen to the whole thing, but it's important to consider the arguments that were being made and what precedent would be set by striking it down. Mainly, it seems like Trumps lawyers were arguing that the President and Vice President are neither "Officers of the State" nor "Offices", that those 2 positions, and only those 2, are exempt from the 14th amendment, section 3 for... reasons. That seems... like a big ol' can of worms. Interestingly they did not argue that Trump had not engaged in insurrection against the State as far as I'm aware (like I said I didn't listen to the whole thing.)

 

[Merrill]

I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Partisan atrocity? The judges are non-partisan and the plaintiffs were Republicans.

Colorado Supreme Court

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Could be.

All the Colorado justices were appointed by Democratic governors

the ruling was one of the most partisan in US history, and it is one reason why SCOTUS is going to strike it down quickly

 

[Tinker Grey]

All the Colorado justices were appointed by Democratic governors

the ruling was one of the most partisan in US history, and it is one reason why SCOTUS is going to strike it down quickly

They may strike it down, but I'd wager there won't be one word about partisanship.

 

[DaisyDay]

All the Colorado justices were appointed by Democratic governors

the ruling was one of the most partisan in US history, and it is one reason why SCOTUS is going to strike it down quickly

Projection on steroids.

 

[Vambram]

Clarence Thomas Stumps Colorado's Anti-Trump Lawyer: Can't Give Example of States Disqualifying National Candidates

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who is known for rarely speaking, questioned attorney Jason Murray during oral arguments.

www.breitbart.com

Lots of good transcripts here from today's hearing in SCOTUS.

 

[stevil]

Seems the decision needs to be at the federal level rather than the state one. Maybe Insurrectionists should be barred from being on the ballot of all states.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Seems the decision needs to be at the federal level rather than the state one. Maybe Insurrectionists should be barred from being on the ballot of all states.

Well, it's an interesting question. The precedent is that elections are the purview of the states. So, if there is a question of whether somebody may be on the ballot of a state or barred from the ballot of that state, then it is a state question. Here, CO barred somebody from their ballot justifying the decision per the 14th amendment of the US constitution. (Their law explicitly allows them to whereas the MI(?) SC ruled that MI's laws do not allow this.)

Seems to me that all those state's rights advocates should be on CO's side. But, it never works that way, does it?

If SCOTUS rules in CO's favor, I imagine that they'd avoid the states' rights question and rule that DT was guilty of insurrection and that section 3 of amendment 14 applies.

As I'm not a constitutional scholar, I'll bet they'll find in DT's favor for reasons wholly unconvincing.

 

[Tuur]

Seems to me that all those state's rights advocates should be on CO's side. But, it never works that way, does it?

If SCOTUS rules in CO's favor, I imagine that they'd avoid the states' rights question and rule that DT was guilty of insurrection and that section 3 of amendment 14 applies.

That would put the SCOTUS in the position of convicting a person without a trial, something that would be a violation of the 6th Amendment. Far more likely they would rule it's within the state's power to remove candidates from primary ballots.

The questions seem to raise an interesting issue: Are the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments restrictions on the states? Honestly, until today I'd never considered that, despite the 14th Amendment being used to apply aspects of the 1st to the states. If so, they may argue that states could bar someone by the provisions in the 14th, but then we're right back to conviction without a trial. It will be interesting if the SCOTUS rules that Colorado has to remove people guilty of insurrection or rebellion from ballots, but that Trump has/had not been convicted and thus could not be removed.

Really, I'm surprised by the questioning. I thought they'd leave it to the states. The questions do raise some thorny issues.

 

[Merrill]

Projection on steroids.

incoherence on steroids

 

[stevil]

Well, it's an interesting question. The precedent is that elections are the purview of the states. So, if there is a question of whether somebody may be on the ballot of a state or barred from the ballot of that state, then it is a state question. Here, CO barred somebody from their ballot justifying the decision per the 14th amendment of the US constitution. (Their law explicitly allows them to whereas the MI(?) SC ruled that MI's laws do not allow this.)

Seems to me that all those state's rights advocates should be on CO's side. But, it never works that way, does it?

I found this interesting

At 2:38 into this video clip, the question was about whether a State can take someone off the ballot due to article 14.
The Lawyer that is presenting this case to the Supreme Court says that the Supreme Court case isn't about whether a State can do this or not, but instead it is about whether a President participating in an insurrection can be on the presidential ballot.

He says if the SC rules in his favour then this will DQ D Trump from all states.

 

[JustOneWay]

All the Colorado justices were appointed by Democratic governors

the ruling was one of the most partisan in US history, and it is one reason why SCOTUS is going to strike it down quickly

Most of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by republican presidents.

If the SC rules against Colorado, the ruling will be one of the most partisan in US history, and the reason why SCOTUS struck it down quickly.

This partisan thing goes both ways....

 

[DaisyDay]

incoherence on steroids

Good symmetry, but obviously false.

 

[DaisyDay]

Most of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by republican presidents.

If the SC rules against Colorado, the ruling will be one of the most partisan in US history, and the reason why SCOTUS struck it down quickly.

This partisan thing goes both ways....

It's even worse than that because the wife of one of the justices actively participated in the insurrection attempt, but he has not recused himself. No ethics but might makes right.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

That would put the SCOTUS in the position of convicting a person without a trial, something that would be a violation of the 6th Amendment. Far more likely they would rule it's within the state's power to remove candidates from primary ballots.

The questions seem to raise an interesting issue: Are the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments restrictions on the states? Honestly, until today I'd never considered that, despite the 14th Amendment being used to apply aspects of the 1st to the states. If so, they may argue that states could bar someone by the provisions in the 14th, but then we're right back to conviction without a trial. It will be interesting if the SCOTUS rules that Colorado has to remove people guilty of insurrection or rebellion from ballots, but that Trump has/had not been convicted and thus could not be removed.

Really, I'm surprised by the questioning. I thought they'd leave it to the states. The questions do raise some thorny issues.

Why do you guys keep talking about conviction?? 14 sec. 3 does not require a conviction of a crime. It says "engaged in." That's it. It's just a finding of fact. The CO SC found that fact to be true.

 

[Hank77]

I didn't listen to the whole thing, but it's important to consider the arguments that were being made and what precedent would be set by striking it down. Mainly, it seems like Trumps lawyers were arguing that the President and Vice President are neither "Officers of the State" nor "Offices", that those 2 positions, and only those 2, are exempt from the 14th amendment, section 3 for... reasons. That seems... like a big ol' can of worms. Interestingly they did not argue that Trump had not engaged in insurrection against the State as far as I'm aware (like I said I didn't listen to the whole thing.)

I listened to the whole thing but I need to read the written transcript as well. Right now I think that the major objection to the Colorado decision by both the conservative and liberal justices is the idea that one or two states could decide a national election and disenfranchise millions of voters in those states.

 

[Merrill]

Most of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by republican presidents.

If the SC rules against Colorado, the ruling will be one of the most partisan in US history, and the reason why SCOTUS struck it down quickly.

This partisan thing goes both ways....

I never said it didn't

But even Justice Jackson appears to believe the Colorado ruling is a bad one. The SCOTUS ruling could be unanimous

As I pointed out in other threads here, Justice Jackson looked at the history, intention, and purpose of section 3, and concluded that it was never intended to apply to the president--it was directed at state officials in Confederate states

so in the case of the high court, it is more of a question about originalism and textualism, not partisan politics.

 

[BCP1928]

I listened to the whole thing but I need to read the written transcript as well. Right now I think that the major objection to the Colorado decision by both the conservative and liberal justices is the idea that one or two states could decide a national election and disenfranchise millions of voters in those states.

Does taking Trump's name off the ballot prohibit a write-in vote? If not, how are the voters disenfranchised?