US Politics: Ballot Mainetenance

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The idea that in 2024 we're going to get not one, but two Republicans to cross over and disqualify the republican frontrunner strikes me as extremely wishful thinking.  If you want to cling to the idea that it is the merits of the argument, rather than the disposition of the court, that will determine the decision, you are free to do so.  I'm not getting my hopes up. 

If I’m wrong, as I said, I will not be surprised.  If I’m correct… what happens?

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If I’m wrong, as I said, I will not be surprised.  If I’m correct… what happens?

You get to MC a public shaming of Trump and Thomas wherein they are tied together back to back riding a piebald hog from the Supreme Court to the Kennedy Center for a photo shoot and a teaditonal sur-le-cochon interview conducted by yourself.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

You get to MC a public shaming of Trump and Thomas wherein they are tied together back to back riding a piebald hog from the Supreme Court to the Kennedy Center for a photo shoot and a teaditonal sur-le-cochon interview conducted by yourself.  

That would simultaneously be kind of awesome and really not my cup of tea… I’m really pretty bad at insulting people.

[LongRider]

I see a claim made on Mastadon that "Starry Starry Knight@[email protected]

Thing is, strict adherence to the text of the #14thamendment requires #SCOTUS to pass the matter to #congress to "remove such disability"...

"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment sez:  Section 3
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Would anyone like to comment?  Will that clause have any on the affect the ruling being sent to the SC?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I see a claim made on Mastadon that "Starry Starry Knight@[email protected]

Thing is, strict adherence to the text of the #14thamendment requires #SCOTUS to pass the matter to #congress to "remove such disability"...

"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment sez:  Section 3
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Would anyone like to comment?  Will that clause have any on the affect the ruling being sent to the SC?

If they kick it to Congress… Trump is done.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If they kick it to Congress… Trump is done.  

Is he? He'd be, if the State Supreme Courts in swing states like Michigan follow suit (as they should). Colorado will ultimately not matter that much, as that's more of a blue state these days.

The message is important, he is not invulnerable, legally.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Is he? He'd be, if the State Supreme Courts in swing states like Michigan follow suit (as they should). Colorado will ultimately not matter that much, as that's more of a blue state these days.

The message is important, he is not invulnerable, legally.

Yes.  There is no way he gets a two third vote to restore his office holding privileges.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  There is no way he gets a two third vote to restore his office holding privileges.

Yes, but right now it's only about Colorado (how election are conducted is a matter for the states etc.) isn't it?

So does it affect other states findings? So does that mean, he would also be barred in other states? This is what I am not sure about. So what happens, if Michigan finds him not to be disqualified.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

I see a claim made on Mastadon that "Starry Starry Knight@[email protected]

Thing is, strict adherence to the text of the #14thamendment requires #SCOTUS to pass the matter to #congress to "remove such disability"...

"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment sez:  Section 3
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Would anyone like to comment?  Will that clause have any on the affect the ruling being sent to the SC?

Not really, because the important clause (that Roberts has already ruled on previously) is that the President is not any of the things here:

Quote

having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State

Specifically Roberts has ruled previously that no one who is directly elected is an officer of the US. 

Is that reasonable? Who the fuck knows? But Roberts isn't going to turn over his own precedent and the other justices aren't going to either given their makeup.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Another legal hot take (not by me, but apparently lawyer from another board)

It will be extremely interesting to see what happens here. Trump's lawyers have stated, as you would expect, that they will seek review from the Supreme Court. It seems certain that the Court will take the case. One could hardly imagine a more significant issue than whether the former president and likely Republican nominee is constitutionally barred from the office of president. Obviously if the Court reverses, then Trump can be on the primary election ballot and, if he wins the nomination, the general election ballot, everywhere. If the Court were to affirm and agree that, yes, the Colorado Supreme Court correctly held that Trump is barred from holding office, that would affect elections throughout the country. Secretaries of State would have to consider whether to remove Trump from the ballot (primary and eventually general if he were to qualify for the latter) on their own in their states. If they didn't throw him off, voters would force the issue by filing lawsuits. The Court could also affirm the Colorado Supreme Court based on the finding of fact made by the trial court that Trump engaged in insurrection, without accepting that fact as necessarily being true. (Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, give great deference to findings of fact made by the trial court.) Then there would be a flurry of litigation throughout the country. No doubt some state courts would end up concluding that Trump did not engage in insurrection and did not give aid and comfort to insurrectionists, and thus remains eligible to run for president. (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv for text of Fourteenth Amendment.) So you could end up with Trump on the ballot in some states and off in some others. A huge mess.

Edited December 20, 2023 by A Horse Named Stranger

[sologdin]

Don't know whether or not the CO supreme court is Dems or not

all seven have been appointed by democratic governors, but the judges themselves are non-partisan on paper.

 

Are state SC decisions subject to being overturned by SCOTUS or is that the end of the matter as far as Trump's ability to be on the Colorado ballot?

they are generally, but a pure question of state law is not something normally within its interest. the question becomes whether this case involves a pure question of state law or not. my reading of the opinion this morning and the dissents is that each is focused on the state election code, with some discussion of the 14th amendment and procedural due process.

 

SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of Trump. 

what do you think the legal, as opposed to political, basis of reversal would be? politically, i could see several conservative justices think that it's time to shut the fucking circus down.  

 

Will that clause have any on the affect the ruling being sent to the SC?

that language is discussed in the colorado opinion.  one implication to draw from it is that the disqualification clause is self-executing.  the section permits congress to remove the disqualification, but it does not require the judiciary to do anything like 'pass it back to congress.' there is no such thing as 'passing back to congress.'  this is not a hot potato or a marihuana pipe.

 

Is that reasonable? Who the fuck knows?

it is completely unreasonable.  the colorado opinion trashes the notion that the presidency is not an office.  

 

So does it affect other states findings? 

because the colorado opinion is focused on its own election code, the supreme court could decline to take the case and just let the states sort it out individually.  that would be consistent with the abortion decision.  or it could take the case and say that colorado got its election code right or wrong.  or they could also take the case and make a determination on the meaning of the section, one way or the other, which would likely filter down universally. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, sologdin said:

it is completely unreasonable.  the colorado opinion trashes the notion that the presidency is not an office.  

Yes, I'm sure Chief Justice Roberts will not take that as a giant red cape being waived in front of him. Famously SCOTUS justices are very reasonable when it comes to lower courts trashing their previously decided precedents and rulings. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Colorado the 1st state to have the KahunaZ this cycle and do what every state shouldve already.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

Don't know whether or not the CO supreme court is Dems or not

all seven have been appointed by democratic governors, but the judges themselves are non-partisan on paper.

 

Are state SC decisions subject to being overturned by SCOTUS or is that the end of the matter as far as Trump's ability to be on the Colorado ballot?

they are generally, but a pure question of state law is not something normally within its interest. the question becomes whether this case involves a pure question of state law or not. my reading of the opinion this morning and the dissents is that each is focused on the state election code, with some discussion of the 14th amendment and procedural due process.

 

SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of Trump. 

what do you think the legal, as opposed to political, basis of reversal would be? politically, i could see several conservative justices think that it's time to shut the fucking circus down.  

 

Will that clause have any on the affect the ruling being sent to the SC?

that language is discussed in the colorado opinion.  one implication to draw from it is that the disqualification clause is self-executing.  the section permits congress to remove the disqualification, but it does not require the judiciary to do anything like 'pass it back to congress.' there is no such thing as 'passing back to congress.'  this is not a hot potato or a marihuana pipe.

 

Is that reasonable? Who the fuck knows?

it is completely unreasonable.  the colorado opinion trashes the notion that the presidency is not an office.  

 

So does it affect other states findings? 

because the colorado opinion is focused on its own election code, the supreme court could decline to take the case and just let the states sort it out individually.  that would be consistent with the abortion decision.  or it could take the case and say that colorado got its election code right or wrong.  or they could also take the case and make a determination on the meaning of the section, one way or the other, which would likely filter down universally. 

I’m understandably curious to see how the SCOTUS goes here.  As you point out 14th Amendment, Section 3 can be seen on a textual basis as “self-executing”.  As such the Republican Party could have a very easy way to rid itself of Donald J. Trump…

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As such the Republican Party could have a very easy way to rid itself of Donald J. Trump…

Given the multitude of off-ramps that the Republicans could have taken these past 7 or so years, and yet did not, I wouldn't even consider it as a remote possibility. 

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m understandably curious to see how the SCOTUS goes here.  As you point out 14th Amendment, Section 3 can be seen on a textual basis as “self-executing”.  As such the Republican Party could have a very easy way to rid itself of Donald J. Trump…

What To Think About Colorado and the 14th Amendment

"I look forward to seeing how it shakes out. It’s no bad thing to have this Court put on the spot and tell us just what they think happened on January 6th 2021.'

Gift Share Link:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-to-think-about-colorado-and-the-14th-amendment/sharetoken/4FbOK79eqfEH

Quote

 

..... I don’t buy the idea that litigating this question is going to give Trump some perverse advantage. That’s twelve-dimensional chess hokum. We shouldn’t go down the rabbit hole of trying to ferret out how things that are on their face bad for Trump may by some twelfth-order reasoning actually be good for him. The merits of any argument are almost secondary. That whole thought process amounts to being afraid of your own shadow, a kind of intellectualized or sublimated timidity. Judgment, good; timidity, bad.

Whatever complaints Trump or anyone else might have about this, it’s the logical and inevitable result of trying to overthrow the United States government. Don’t want the hassle? Don’t try to overthrow the state. In other words, he brought it on himself. His problem, not ours. ....

.... I look forward to seeing how it shakes out. It’s no bad thing to have this Court put on the spot and tell us just what they think happened on January 6th 2021.

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m understandably curious to see how the SCOTUS goes here.  As you point out 14th Amendment, Section 3 can be seen on a textual basis as “self-executing”.  As such the Republican Party could have a very easy way to rid itself of Donald J. Trump…

They’ve had 8 years to get rid of him - nip it in the bud style - and didn’t. Then they’ve had 3+ years to get rid of him, and didn’t. Why would they do it now? 

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Specifically Roberts has ruled previously that no one who is directly elected is an officer of the US. 

Is that reasonable? Who the fuck knows? But Roberts isn't going to turn over his own precedent and the other justices aren't going to either given their makeup.

And yet the president isn't directly elected. Just one more reminder Roberts is also full of shit. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Given the multitude of off-ramps that the Republicans could have taken these past 7 or so years, and yet did not, I wouldn't even consider it as a remote possibility. 

This is different.  Three Justices have every reason to take out Trump.  The other six have an opportunity not available to other Republican Politicians.  They can lance the boil on the ass of the United States without having to answer for lancing it to the screaming masses of Trumpanistas.

I’m not saying they will… I’m saying they can with ample textual justification and without being able to be “primaried”.

[sologdin]

a giant red cape being waived in front of him

no doubt.  the reading that the presidency is not an 'office' is crazier than a shithouse rat.  textualists such as the justice gros fromage should appreciate art. II sec. 1:

Quote

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years

emphasis added. i'm sure there's a clever way to explain it away.  or maybe a not so clever one.  power has never required wit.  i'm handling a case that involves a mariner working for the US. even though the FECA excludes vessel crew from its scope, the supreme court has a case that says the FECA is a mariner's exclusive remedy.  so plenty of stupid to go around.

Edited December 20, 2023 by sologdin