I look forward to a quick resolution, and I hope it is unanimous and in Trump's favor. Let's get back to deciding the election on the merits, not disqualifying candidates.
January 5, 2024
"The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible for Colorado’s Republican primary ballot..."
"... because he had engaged in insurrection in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The case, which could alter the course of this year’s presidential election, will be argued on Feb. 8. The court will probably decide it quickly, as the primary season will soon be underway...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
51 comments:
Is the NYT taking it as a given that Trump legally "engaged in insurrection"? Because that's not at all a given.
because he had engaged in insurrection in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Nice. Nice and deliberate.
He just wanted Congress to do its constitutional job of investigating the legitimacy of the electors. Details of that responsibility are odd because the electors are not chosen as the Constitution contemplated, so it's a crazy procedure, but procedure it is.
Hey there's even a summary and explanation, for a Constitutional refresher
VEEP season 5 explainer
Professor Althouse says.. and I hope it is unanimous
If hopes and dreams, were Krispy Kremes.. We'd ALL be as fat as Chris Christie
I hope the Supremes have really good security. The mob will be sent as needed. Probably there will a "demonstration" early on, before the hearing, just to show some muscle, and as a fat hint of what happens if they rule the wrong way. Anybody who thinks otherwise, and wants to show support for (quaint!) the rule of law, justice and reason, will do so at their peril.
I hope there's an insurrection against unanimity.
That’s what she said.
The only possible unanimous decision would be in Trump's favor. Simply impossible, given the law and the personalities involved, that it would be unanimous upholding the Colorado Supreme Court.
But given the loon called Ketanji, it's unlikely to be unanimous. Trump'll get the decision but she'll spoil it. Roberts won't be able to hold the nine of them together.
A unanimous decision may be spined by Trump as some kind of endorsement against the rest of the cases.
And the Democrats will have themselves to thank.
Althouse: The Last Honest Good Faith Liberal?
Hope the decision is quick, with a better reasoned majority opinion.
Pelosi-gate, Whitmer conspiracy, journolistic cover-up, and Democrats denial of human and civil rights in progress.
"I hope it is unanimous and in Trump's favor. Let's get back to deciding the election on the merits, not disqualifying candidates."
I hope it is unanimous and in favor of rule by law. The fact that Trump is involved is irrelevant.
I look forward to a quick resolution, and I hope it is unanimous and in Trump's favor.
It won’t be unanimous in Trump’s favor. Have you forgotten that there are two DEI hires on the Court?
It seems to me that the assertion that the events that occurred in D.C. on January 6, 2021, constituted an "insurrection" is a threshhold question that must be thoroughly resolved by SCOTUS before anything else can follow.
"Insurrection" needs to be defined, and its legal and practical borders and limits need to be identified, to avoid it becoming a catch-all "magic" word that automatically shuts down policy and political disagreements, and protests re: grievances, that should be completely legitimate per the Constitution & related jurisprudence.
Accusations based on "insurrection" should be weapons that are used sparingly, if they are to be meaningful at all. IMHO
Althouse how would you expect it to be handled, if Barack Obama attempted to run for a third term?
I know; he wouldn't do it, because he isn't an authoritarian sociopath like Trump is. But my question is discrete; if Obama ran, and had his name -- tried to have his name -- placed on 50 state ballots, what would be the legal remedy? How would it play out, procedurally? Would state courts, backed by a Supreme Court cert. review, order that Obama's name be removed from all ballots? As being violative of clear terms of the 22nd Amendment?
By his policies' results and simply by being there, Trump has exposed the dumbocraps for the lower than whaleshit critters they are.
That's what makes him so much fun to watch at his rallies.
"A century of fighting for women's rights and in 2023 the women dems are celebrating have penises"
I hope it is unanimous and in favor of rule by law. The fact that Trump is involved is irrelevant.
Jupiter, well said, and a succinct statement of a big part ofwhat makes the right different from the left.
"Let's get back to deciding the election on the merits, not disqualifying candidates."
Let's get back to deciding the election on the merits, not trying to overturn election results based on knowingly false claims of election fraud,
"Let's get back to deciding the election on the merits, not disqualifying candidates."
Exactly. lets forget about what the constitution requires, its more trouble than its worth.
Thomas' check has cleared so his vote is already in.
From your lips to God’s ears, Professor.
Let's get back to deciding the election on the merits, not disqualifying candidates.
Let's get back to elections without absentee voter fraud.
It's not going to be a unanimous decision. The three liberal women on the Supreme Court aren't Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They'll do what they were appointed to do. Remember, RBG voted to stop the Al Gore never ending recount in targeted areas of FL based on equal protection under the law. This court cowered when faced with Texas vs. PA in 2020.
Anything could happen. I'm sure there is some personal fear on the court. Just like 2020.
The Court could take an easy out by finding that "insurrection" as used in the 14th Amendment refers only to the insurrection of 1860–1865. That would end all this nonsense.
The disqualification of Trump doesn't "decide an election." It is Trump who is being disqualified; not the Republican Party.
And Trump, per polling, isn't even the leading candidate per head-to-head polling versus Preisdent Biden. Both Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haler poll better versus Biden, than Trump. If political trickeration was the goal, disqualifying DeSantis and Haley would be smarter and more effective.
I've been accused, by several of the TrumpWing idiots who ply the Althouse comments pages, of "fearing" Trump the candidate. There is absolutely nothing I'd like better than to hand Donald "Alf Landon" Trump another electoral loss. I don't think there is any better way to grind down the Trump Cult than to keep hammering them with losses. Even though they don't even seem to understand that.
But there is absolutely no anti-Trump measure -- no criminal case, no civil case, no Constitutional provision -- that I want to leave on the table when it comes to attacking Trump. It's all attacking, all the time, all the way through 2024. Running through the tape.
I think it unlikely to be unanimous- most likely outcome is 7-2.
Originalism's time to shine. Now we will find out where SCOTUS stands regarding the Constitution.
If they do keep Trump off the ballot that's a lot of down ticket GOP turkeys who won't be swept into office again.
It was clearly a mostly peaceful protest. Too bad a Capitol policeman decided to turn it into a crowd worried for their lives.
I hope it’s quick, too. Otherwise it’s simply more time Trump or his team is involved in some sort of litigation. My cynical side presumes the time sync is the actual purpose of these cases. The Dems are as persistent as warm gum on the sole of your shoe.
Blogger Rich said...
“Originalism's time to shine. Now we will find out where SCOTUS stands regarding the Constitution.”
What if the SCOTUS decides that Trump wasn’t a Confederate or otherwise a compatriot of Jefferson Davis? I suppose that the lawfare kings and queens could reach back to Charlottesville and the “fine people” trope. But I’m siding with the Conlaw prof here: Trump should be defeated on the merits.
Remind me again of Biden’s reasons and merits for open borders.
Carl said...
" It was clearly a mostly peaceful protest. Too bad a Capitol policeman decided to turn it into a crowd worried for their lives.
"
What planet are you living on?
The Supremes have become a bit afraid of the lynch mob shouting outside the door. If anyone is guilty of insurrection maybe it's those who've gotten in the habit of intimidating the Robed Ones.
The Supremes showed their true color (yellow) when they refused to grant 'standing' to anyone (including a large number of states) who cried "foul" after the "votes" were counted.
Maybe, the case would take on added interest if, say, Texas took Biden off the ballot for allowing and encouraging invasion of our country.
Mutaman said...
Carl said...
" It was clearly a mostly peaceful protest. Too bad a Capitol policeman decided to turn it into a crowd worried for their lives.
"
"What planet are you living on?"
The one where the smart people live. If you behave yourself we'll let you come over and clean the toilets.
I just want my country back. Also Ashli Babbitts family filed a huge lawsuit against this evil government on the eve of January 6
FJB
At NKP - I suggest the following edit:
"The Supremes showed their true color (yellow) when they refused to grant 'standing' to anyone (including a large number of states) who cried "foul" after the "votes" were "counted.""
My prediction is that Roberts gets at least 8 votes for a decision that basically mirrors the SECOND dissent from the Colorado opinion. That dissent mainly focuses on the lack of federal enabling legislation to establish procedures for litigating claims of disqualification under section 3. The SCOTUS decision will be per curium and not reach the merits of whether J6 was an insurrection or whether Trump engaged in it. By limiting the decision to the threshold, jurisdiction question of whether Colorado or any state could purport to decide a section 3 case in the absence of federal legislation under section 5 authorizing them to do so, and establishing the requisite procedures for adjudication of such cases, Roberts will be able to get at least 2 of the 3 leftist justices on board. Limiting the scope of the decision to that one issue will also facilitate getting the decision out fairly quickly.
I think that Conrad is likely correct.
On Donald Trump's next inauguration day, Democrats will run amok, committing arson, vandalism, and aggravated assaults, just as they did on Inauguration Day in 2017. If hundreds of them are arrested, charged with insurrection, and jailed without bond for years without a trial, I trust LLR Chuck will be completely supportive of those measures and the malleable definitions of justice they entail.
“My prediction is that Roberts gets at least 8 votes for a decision that basically mirrors the SECOND dissent from the Colorado opinion. That dissent mainly focuses on the lack of federal enabling legislation to establish procedures for litigating claims of disqualification under section 3. The SCOTUS decision will be per curium and not reach the merits of whether J6 was an insurrection or whether Trump engaged in it. By limiting the decision to the threshold, jurisdiction question of whether Colorado or any state could purport to decide a section 3 case in the absence of federal legislation under section 5 authorizing them to do so, and establishing the requisite procedures for adjudication of such cases, Roberts will be able to get at least 2 of the 3 leftist justices on board. Limiting the scope of the decision to that one issue will also facilitate getting the decision out fairly quickly”
That sounds pretty good. Easiest ruling killing § 3 used against Trump here.
But if he can’t get the 8th vote, how far will he be able to go? Right now, I expect there are 3 votes for nuking § 3 from orbit, led by Thomas, writing the opinion. Two votes for a more focused use of nuclear weapons, and Roberts tagging along to keep Thomas from writing the opinion. I think that he needs at least one Dem (Kagen) for cover. Without her, I think that he loses most of his leverage with his 5 Republican colleagues. Two Dems would make the opinion look pretty good.
We must save our democracy...
By ignoring innocent until proven guilty (and, no, a pronouncement by the NYT does not count).
By using the power of the Federal government to stifle speech they do not like.
To allow millions upon millions of unvetted people to cross our borders.
To add trillions upon trillions to our massive debt.
To declare ordinary citizens a threat to our country.
To force us to make specific purchases (e.g. Obama Care and - very soon - EVs).
I agree with Conrad as well.
That does not speak highly of Roberts.
Future leftist shenanigans to follow.
Blogger Crazy World said...
“I just want my country back. Also Ashli Babbitts family filed a huge lawsuit against this evil government on the eve of January 6
FJB”
Well good. And the coward who shot her almost point blank needs to be relieved of his duties.
How lovely.
Would this also be your opinion if it had been a Muslim ex-president who had called for a violent jihad in order to stay in power? Or is Trump special in that way? Or would it all depend on whether the case still awaited adjudication?
If this had happened on January 6 2017 under Barack Obama how would your audience feel about subsequent eligibility?
If merits can’t include 14th amendment restrictions against violent insurrectionists gaining office then why even have laws in the first place?
Not to belabor the obvious hpudding, but insurrectionists use weapons. They don't just wander around like half-witted bumpkins.
At least Chuck is being honest that this is all political.
hpuddin
I admire your defense of Israel and the Jews and thought your arguments were well reasoned and to the point.
"Would this also be your opinion if it had been a Muslim ex-president who had called for a violent jihad in order to stay in power? Or is Trump special in that way? Or would it all depend on whether the case still awaited adjudication?"
Trump called for the protesters to be peaceful and repectful of the democratic process. That is documented. He asked Pelosi, who is in charge of the District of Columbia, three times if she wanted the national guard. He also advised her to beef up the DC police presence.
"
If this had happened on January 6 2017 under Barack Obama how would your audience feel about subsequent eligibility?"
President Obama on more than one occaision advised his followers to punch back twicew as hard. Direct quote.
"If merits can’t include 14th amendment restrictions against violent insurrectionists gaining office then why even have laws in the first place?"
By the definition of,"insurrection" there wasn't one.
One of the hardest things we as adults can do intellectually is step back from our preduices and examine our opinions coldly and honestly.
What planet are you living on?
The same question can be asked of you.
Rusty said...
"The one where the smart people live. If you behave yourself we'll let you come over and clean the toilets."
That would be great Rusty. I can finally put to use that toilet cleaning degree that I got from Trump university. It only cost me a couple hundred thousand intuition fees- I got a discount.
run, Arnold, run
Just remember to leave the seat up.
Post a Comment