If Trump wins the Colorado case, I'll be disappointed, but not surprised.
Should states have the autonomy to decide who appears on the ballot? On paper, it feels like the answer is yes. But if the Supreme Court sides with Colorado, you know just as well as I do that there are other states who would throw Biden off the ballot in retaliation. It would be chaos.
The steepest downside to the Supreme Court ruling against Colorado is that Trump will claim it was "proof" he didn't engage in an insurrection. It will be enough to muddy the waters.
I've been home recovering from surgery, so I was able to listen to about 95% of the arguments. I agree with your take, but I want to add something, if you can bear with me.
On Jan 6, 2021, the building across the street from the supreme court was overrun by people wearing tactical gear, American flag-covered cowboy hats and trucker caps, who attempted by force to quash the results of our election and substitute their own will. They were there on behalf of the election loser, who told them to come and fight so the election would not stand. He watched live video of the riot they set off and did nothing to stop them.
We have an amendment in our constitution that says if you've taken an oath to honor our constitution and then act to up-end our government, you can't get elected again. So he was disqualified from trying to get back to office. The disqualification was appealed to big-brained people in black robes tasked with applying the words of that constitution. People who vow--strenuously--that the words must be read to mean what they say.
Today, without even questioning the fact the loser lit the fuse that brought about the over-running, the big brains said the words aren't good enough. Fuck me.
Sad agreement. It'd be a mess if the SCROTUS sided with CO over trump.
I'm just always going to be mad/disappointed, though. I mean, WTF. Why are so many of my fellow citizens so dumb and/or vile human beings? Why does trump even exist?
As much as I loathe him and wish for every possible consequence to rain down on him, I'm not surprised, and it likely is the right decision. Even though we all saw an insurrection with our own eyes, the man hasn't had due process yet. Now, when that due process does happen we'll see if it actually makes a difference, but the SC really has no good choice here, other than to overturn Colorado, as far as I, someone who has very little knowledge of the law and how the SC operates, outside of watching Law & Order, can see.
This was a long shot. I do like the symbolism of individual states rejecting him as a qualified candidate, however. That does send a message.
I think most of us thought/knew that the SC was looking for an off ramp as it's being called, and listening to the SCOTUS questions it was clear that they found it. My lay person's ears didn't even think the Colorado attorneys made good arguments.
I don't know that I'm disappointed because it was a given. Plus it's absolutely true that a victory would cause chaos in the future. When one of the Justices asked if they ruled in favor of Colorado what would stop other challenges from happening in the future, the attorney stated that there were guardrails in place to insure that bad faith challenges would be thwarted. The Justice asked, What guardrails?" I thought it funny that the conservative Justice intentionally or not, basically acknowledged that the guardrails are bullshit right now. I mean, these are the same guardrails that are barely holding and we're supposed to think that they would continue to hold for future (read: challenges to Democrats)?
Anyway, I'm more interested in the upcoming immunity case.
It really is amazing when we learn these guardrails and procedures and rules are useless when no one is willing to actually enforce them or it turns out there are no explicit laws for it. Like it should be a given that someone who has criminal charges against them shouldn't be president. And yet here we are.
If the language wasn't so blatantly clear that he is ineligable and the argument he is not guilty of insurrection so absurd on its face I could maybe accept this. But the Supreme court is compromised, so they were never going to do the hard and just thing and stop him from running like any other sane country would do when a former president refuses to step down and tries to overthrow democracy. Why did it take 4 fucking years to prosecute him then? WTF has the justice department been doing? Since the supreme court has such a hard on for states rights these days I am hoping they just say "let the states decide" and we get full pandemonium when they start banning candidates from both sides of the aisle. Maybe a constitutional crisis is exactly what we need right now, because frankly the American people have proven themselves to be too stupid to be trusted not to make Trump Supreme God Emperor of America for life. I'm just so, so, tired. Will this national nightmare never end?
I actually thought the issue was much simpler. My understanding is that the Colorado case applied to Trump appearing on the GOP primary ballot, not the general (if I'm wrong, please correct me, but the article keeps making reference to the primary).
The GOP is a political party, i.e. a club. Clubs can set their own rules for selecting leaders (the Presidential nominee is effectively, the "leader" of the party from a political point of view) - the constitution shouldn't have anything to do with it. If the GOP is satisfied that Trump for whatever reason is eligible to appear on the ballot for the primary election to select their own leader, then I don't know what the Constitution has to do with it.
That said, I have to preface my comment by noting that I'm a Canadian, and the method by which political parties select leaders, or even candidates, is entirely within the purview of that party's own rules/by-laws whatever. I cannot think of a scenario in which a sitting government could decide that an individual is ineligible to contest that party's internal election if the party itself is satisfied that they could. We're also not an insanely litigious country that rants and raves about "unelected judges" while running to those same courts every single time we experience an outcome we don't like.
If we're talking about the general, that's a different story - the constitution includes a provision specifically designed to renders someone ineligible for holding office, and states are constitutionally responsible for the administration of elections (something else I think is f**ked up down there - in Canada, we have separate, arm's length, non-partisan bodies that administer elections at each level of government and they operate with virtually no interference (though some have tried). Its exactly how you end up with this situation where Colorado makes a decision on ballot eligibility in its role of administering elections in the state, but the Court implies that Colorado's decision would somehow bind the rest of the country, because in a sense it would - you cant really have different states drawing different conclusions on the application of the constitution to the same individual based on the same set of facts.
Given the state of US politics today, I can somewhat understand the Court's reluctance to weigh in on this, at this time. I also agree that if the USSC decides in favour of Colorado, some dickwad MAGA-t like Abbot or De Santis will absolutely try to do the same to Biden and we'll have a shit show on our hands that will turn elections into an even bigger joke. I sincerely hope that whatever decision this almost hopelessly comprised court comes up with at least includes a framework for outlining when and how the 14th Amendment can be applied, lest it be rendered functionally meaningless. Of course that's what the impeachment process is supposed to do, if it functioned properly.
My bet is they’ll find for him in the Colorado ballot case, and they’ll find against him next week with his insane claim that he has absolute criminal immunity.
With respect what Dustin and the Supreme Court and pretty much everyone else, is dancing around here, including the Supreme Court is were the events of January 6th an insurrection? In Colorado they held a trial, admitted the testimony from Congress January 6th inquiry and said yes. They then applied the law and the 14th Amendment to the outcome of the trial. The decision, whatever decision is made by SCOTUS is NOT going to answer that question or raise it at all. As the Justices like to say let me ask the following question"If Donald Trump committed a murder in Colorado and they convicted him of murder and said he cannot run for President in Colorado because of the felony conviction of murder would other states be allowed to disqualify him for that murder? Why should Colorado decide what the other 49 states should do regarding the 14th Amendment? Maybe they shouldn't but SCOTUS should, either the 14th Amendment applies and is the law of the land or it, like impeachment, is meaningless drivel. What I heard in the questioning today was judicial cowardice.
You're not wrong, except if Colorado had found Trump guilty of murder, that would not have disqualified him from the Colorado ballot because felony convictions are not disqualifying.
It would have been nice if the Supreme Court had made a determination about whether he Trump engaged in an insurrection, but that wasn't the issue in front of the Court, and for whatever reason, no circumstance -- no matter how extraordinary -- is enough to convince the Court to decide an issue that's not in front of them.
"Aliens are attacking mankind! We need to know if it's OK to use space lasers to eradicate them! Humanity will be extinct if we don't act in the next 12 hours!"
"I'm sorry, but that's not the issue in front of the Court. The issue at hand is whether green beings from outer space are legally considered aliens. We cannot consider any other issue! What did the Founders say about oddly shaped creates from other planets?"
Actually the events of January 6th were the issue in front of the Court, invocation of the 14th Amendment was caused by those actions, that is why the Colorado attorney mentioned it several times. It is interesting to note that the Justices, to a person, never addressed that issue, ran like scared little bitches from it. As I said in my earlier post Judicial cowardice.
There is a statute defining the federal crime of insurrection. He hasn’t been convicted of it (nor is he facing the charge). I feel like that would make a difference in this case, but I hear you.
I'll note 2 things, A)the 14th Amendment does not specify convicted of insurrection B)What was the penalty for insurrection in the late 1800's? Death, there is a reason there were not trials for insurrection and a reason everyone involved in the Confederacy was looking for pardons. The "Originalist" Justices looking for the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment are being deliberately blind and obtuse when they make the point of a conviction.
If states should have less power, then we should get rid of the Senate. Only have a House.
The Senate gives low population states outsized power in the federal government. Why should NY or TX have the same number of senators (who make a lot of decisions without the house, and supersede the house in everything, AFAIK...) as the Dakotas?
If there's some major holes in that idea, please explain why we need 2 senators AND X reps from every state. I think the idea of the Senate was a good idea in principle, making all the states 'equal' in a way...But it doesn't seem to be working as intended...
Anyway, I do agree that the SCOTUS should rule against CO, because yeah. Clearly no one state should be able to make decisions for the whole nation.
If Trump wins the Colorado case, I'll be disappointed, but not surprised.
Should states have the autonomy to decide who appears on the ballot? On paper, it feels like the answer is yes. But if the Supreme Court sides with Colorado, you know just as well as I do that there are other states who would throw Biden off the ballot in retaliation. It would be chaos.
The steepest downside to the Supreme Court ruling against Colorado is that Trump will claim it was "proof" he didn't engage in an insurrection. It will be enough to muddy the waters.
Ugh, you're so right. He'll whip this up to "See? I won at The Supreme Court! I'm off the hook"
He will 100% do that and his gang of MAGA morons are going to be gloating all over the place. Do I need a drink or a lobotomy?
Also thanks for the easy to understand explanation, Dustin!
He always 'wins' with his base, though. I mean, he could say that, but if the SCOTUS actually ruled against him, he can say "DEEP STATE!!1!"
Nothing matters, reality is debatable, and this is how fascism takes over.
I've been home recovering from surgery, so I was able to listen to about 95% of the arguments. I agree with your take, but I want to add something, if you can bear with me.
On Jan 6, 2021, the building across the street from the supreme court was overrun by people wearing tactical gear, American flag-covered cowboy hats and trucker caps, who attempted by force to quash the results of our election and substitute their own will. They were there on behalf of the election loser, who told them to come and fight so the election would not stand. He watched live video of the riot they set off and did nothing to stop them.
We have an amendment in our constitution that says if you've taken an oath to honor our constitution and then act to up-end our government, you can't get elected again. So he was disqualified from trying to get back to office. The disqualification was appealed to big-brained people in black robes tasked with applying the words of that constitution. People who vow--strenuously--that the words must be read to mean what they say.
Today, without even questioning the fact the loser lit the fuse that brought about the over-running, the big brains said the words aren't good enough. Fuck me.
Sad agreement. It'd be a mess if the SCROTUS sided with CO over trump.
I'm just always going to be mad/disappointed, though. I mean, WTF. Why are so many of my fellow citizens so dumb and/or vile human beings? Why does trump even exist?
As much as I loathe him and wish for every possible consequence to rain down on him, I'm not surprised, and it likely is the right decision. Even though we all saw an insurrection with our own eyes, the man hasn't had due process yet. Now, when that due process does happen we'll see if it actually makes a difference, but the SC really has no good choice here, other than to overturn Colorado, as far as I, someone who has very little knowledge of the law and how the SC operates, outside of watching Law & Order, can see.
This was a long shot. I do like the symbolism of individual states rejecting him as a qualified candidate, however. That does send a message.
I think most of us thought/knew that the SC was looking for an off ramp as it's being called, and listening to the SCOTUS questions it was clear that they found it. My lay person's ears didn't even think the Colorado attorneys made good arguments.
I don't know that I'm disappointed because it was a given. Plus it's absolutely true that a victory would cause chaos in the future. When one of the Justices asked if they ruled in favor of Colorado what would stop other challenges from happening in the future, the attorney stated that there were guardrails in place to insure that bad faith challenges would be thwarted. The Justice asked, What guardrails?" I thought it funny that the conservative Justice intentionally or not, basically acknowledged that the guardrails are bullshit right now. I mean, these are the same guardrails that are barely holding and we're supposed to think that they would continue to hold for future (read: challenges to Democrats)?
Anyway, I'm more interested in the upcoming immunity case.
It really is amazing when we learn these guardrails and procedures and rules are useless when no one is willing to actually enforce them or it turns out there are no explicit laws for it. Like it should be a given that someone who has criminal charges against them shouldn't be president. And yet here we are.
If the language wasn't so blatantly clear that he is ineligable and the argument he is not guilty of insurrection so absurd on its face I could maybe accept this. But the Supreme court is compromised, so they were never going to do the hard and just thing and stop him from running like any other sane country would do when a former president refuses to step down and tries to overthrow democracy. Why did it take 4 fucking years to prosecute him then? WTF has the justice department been doing? Since the supreme court has such a hard on for states rights these days I am hoping they just say "let the states decide" and we get full pandemonium when they start banning candidates from both sides of the aisle. Maybe a constitutional crisis is exactly what we need right now, because frankly the American people have proven themselves to be too stupid to be trusted not to make Trump Supreme God Emperor of America for life. I'm just so, so, tired. Will this national nightmare never end?
This is a really great explanation. Thanks!
SCOTUS is broken.
I actually thought the issue was much simpler. My understanding is that the Colorado case applied to Trump appearing on the GOP primary ballot, not the general (if I'm wrong, please correct me, but the article keeps making reference to the primary).
The GOP is a political party, i.e. a club. Clubs can set their own rules for selecting leaders (the Presidential nominee is effectively, the "leader" of the party from a political point of view) - the constitution shouldn't have anything to do with it. If the GOP is satisfied that Trump for whatever reason is eligible to appear on the ballot for the primary election to select their own leader, then I don't know what the Constitution has to do with it.
That said, I have to preface my comment by noting that I'm a Canadian, and the method by which political parties select leaders, or even candidates, is entirely within the purview of that party's own rules/by-laws whatever. I cannot think of a scenario in which a sitting government could decide that an individual is ineligible to contest that party's internal election if the party itself is satisfied that they could. We're also not an insanely litigious country that rants and raves about "unelected judges" while running to those same courts every single time we experience an outcome we don't like.
If we're talking about the general, that's a different story - the constitution includes a provision specifically designed to renders someone ineligible for holding office, and states are constitutionally responsible for the administration of elections (something else I think is f**ked up down there - in Canada, we have separate, arm's length, non-partisan bodies that administer elections at each level of government and they operate with virtually no interference (though some have tried). Its exactly how you end up with this situation where Colorado makes a decision on ballot eligibility in its role of administering elections in the state, but the Court implies that Colorado's decision would somehow bind the rest of the country, because in a sense it would - you cant really have different states drawing different conclusions on the application of the constitution to the same individual based on the same set of facts.
Given the state of US politics today, I can somewhat understand the Court's reluctance to weigh in on this, at this time. I also agree that if the USSC decides in favour of Colorado, some dickwad MAGA-t like Abbot or De Santis will absolutely try to do the same to Biden and we'll have a shit show on our hands that will turn elections into an even bigger joke. I sincerely hope that whatever decision this almost hopelessly comprised court comes up with at least includes a framework for outlining when and how the 14th Amendment can be applied, lest it be rendered functionally meaningless. Of course that's what the impeachment process is supposed to do, if it functioned properly.
My bet is they’ll find for him in the Colorado ballot case, and they’ll find against him next week with his insane claim that he has absolute criminal immunity.
With respect what Dustin and the Supreme Court and pretty much everyone else, is dancing around here, including the Supreme Court is were the events of January 6th an insurrection? In Colorado they held a trial, admitted the testimony from Congress January 6th inquiry and said yes. They then applied the law and the 14th Amendment to the outcome of the trial. The decision, whatever decision is made by SCOTUS is NOT going to answer that question or raise it at all. As the Justices like to say let me ask the following question"If Donald Trump committed a murder in Colorado and they convicted him of murder and said he cannot run for President in Colorado because of the felony conviction of murder would other states be allowed to disqualify him for that murder? Why should Colorado decide what the other 49 states should do regarding the 14th Amendment? Maybe they shouldn't but SCOTUS should, either the 14th Amendment applies and is the law of the land or it, like impeachment, is meaningless drivel. What I heard in the questioning today was judicial cowardice.
You're not wrong, except if Colorado had found Trump guilty of murder, that would not have disqualified him from the Colorado ballot because felony convictions are not disqualifying.
It would have been nice if the Supreme Court had made a determination about whether he Trump engaged in an insurrection, but that wasn't the issue in front of the Court, and for whatever reason, no circumstance -- no matter how extraordinary -- is enough to convince the Court to decide an issue that's not in front of them.
"Aliens are attacking mankind! We need to know if it's OK to use space lasers to eradicate them! Humanity will be extinct if we don't act in the next 12 hours!"
"I'm sorry, but that's not the issue in front of the Court. The issue at hand is whether green beings from outer space are legally considered aliens. We cannot consider any other issue! What did the Founders say about oddly shaped creates from other planets?"
Actually the events of January 6th were the issue in front of the Court, invocation of the 14th Amendment was caused by those actions, that is why the Colorado attorney mentioned it several times. It is interesting to note that the Justices, to a person, never addressed that issue, ran like scared little bitches from it. As I said in my earlier post Judicial cowardice.
There is a statute defining the federal crime of insurrection. He hasn’t been convicted of it (nor is he facing the charge). I feel like that would make a difference in this case, but I hear you.
I'll note 2 things, A)the 14th Amendment does not specify convicted of insurrection B)What was the penalty for insurrection in the late 1800's? Death, there is a reason there were not trials for insurrection and a reason everyone involved in the Confederacy was looking for pardons. The "Originalist" Justices looking for the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment are being deliberately blind and obtuse when they make the point of a conviction.
If states should have less power, then we should get rid of the Senate. Only have a House.
The Senate gives low population states outsized power in the federal government. Why should NY or TX have the same number of senators (who make a lot of decisions without the house, and supersede the house in everything, AFAIK...) as the Dakotas?
If there's some major holes in that idea, please explain why we need 2 senators AND X reps from every state. I think the idea of the Senate was a good idea in principle, making all the states 'equal' in a way...But it doesn't seem to be working as intended...
Anyway, I do agree that the SCOTUS should rule against CO, because yeah. Clearly no one state should be able to make decisions for the whole nation.