The NYT describes the case — Trump v. Anderson — that is up for oral argument in the Supreme Court this morning.
You can listen in real time at the Court's website, here.
UPDATE: I listened to the entire argument in real time, and I have some things I want to say that require the transcript, but I did think that the conservative Justices accepted the argument that the President is not covered by the text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. And I believe that both Kagan and Jackson were concerned about letting the states decide this matter of such great national interest. Sotomayor wasn't strong on the other side. After the beginning, she was quiet for a long time, then spoke up and sounded, I'm sorry to say, lost.
पोस्ट्स
११३ टिप्पण्या:
"The provision was adopted after the Civil War to bar insurrectionists who had taken an oath to support the Constitution from holding office"
The definition of "insurrection" is the ever-moving goalpost feeding their psychosis. These people literally have no historical understanding of what that word even means.
I think the server for the Court's live audio is overwhelmed with traffic.
If SCOTUS is content to cross over to the liberal dark side on this one via standing laches moot or Scrödinger's Dictionary, the American experiment is pretty much over, innit?
A reasonably impartial summary indicating elite Democratic opinion is torn on whether destroying democracy to save it is such a bright idea.
This can't be happening- I was assured by knowledgeable life long Republicans that SCOTUS wouldn't take this case and let lower court rulings banning Trump stand.
A good opinion with the possible weak point that this issue requires an opinion applicable to all 50 states, not a state-by-state determination. In the general election it would seem to be a violation of voting rights protected by the Constitution if voters in some states get to vote for a candidate and other voters in other states do not.
My estimation is that courts (federal and state) are going to rule that:
• Voters get to decide political issues in elections.
• Judicial issues will move forward to trial and let juries decide questions of fact and judges those of law.
Constitutional governance in the US is based on the idea that some decisions are the realm of courts and others belong to the realm of voters.
There is a superb discussion of the issue in yesterday’s NYT which discusses the certification issues surrounding Lincoln's election in 1861 which are quite similar to January 6, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/supreme-court-trump-section-3.html
When you hear a politician or a media person say something or someone is a threat to our democracy, if you think you're a member of the group described by the word "our", you are fooling yourself.
I don't know, it might be fun to let the states kick each others opponent off the ballot, certainly Biden has instigated an invasion and it would be just as legal to kick off the ballot in republican states.
What a hoot that would be.
certainly Biden has instigated an invasion and it would be just as legal to kick off the ballot in republican states.
Don't hold your breath on that one. There is political affiliation asymmetry in rule of law now....
"if you think you're a member of the group described by the word "our", you are fooling yourself."
It's a small club, and "they" most definitely ARE NOT in it no matter how much they think they are.
Isn’t that section of the Radical Republicans revenge Amendment the Southern States simply a Bill of Attainder added on?
My biggest issue is that there is an exactly zero% chance an “ insurrection” narrative would have been tolerated or sustained by media for even a day had the political affiliations been reversed.
No person with even 2 functioning neurons could believe otherwise.
Trump attacked, rather than Colorado Supreme Court attacked the US Constitution.
Imagine for a moment, the SC announces Trump cannot be President.
So Trump will win Colorado? Cool.
I'm listening.
Keteji Brown - not real impressive. She interrupts a lot.
I wish I had access to the Colorado Supreme court's offical dissent on the ruling.
It is really good.
The collective left + media defined the even on Jan 6th as an insurrection.
It was not.
It was riot.
So, counselor, if Colorado disqualifies a candidate from a ballot, and then Congress later accepts Electoral College votes from other states for that person, hasn't Colorado wrongly interfered in and obstructed the presidential election?
Leland said...Trump attacked, rather than Colorado Supreme Court attacked the US Constitution.
How so? How did Trump attack the constitution?
I'll repeat what I said weeks ago: It's not the call of the states. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disqualification when it counts the electoral college votes.
Would the plenary power being argued to justify states from excluding candidates for national office apply only to candidates unpopular with members of the Democrat party and/or their supporters or would the powers apply broadly to everyone?
Would states not controlled by Democrats have the same plenary power?
A few things about Colorado voting:
#1 - Colorado's secretary of State - Jenna Griswold(D)- she is a known liar, dishonest to the core. She is a Radical progressive Leftist. She is not trust-worthy. She is also very immature.
Many of us know the truth about her- but she is protected by her authority, position and the media.
#2 - we have mail in voting.
#3 - the blueprint for making Colorado blue was used by the wealthy white left - and they were successful.
#4 - Colorado's GOP is a hot mess in imbeciles, short sided simpletons, and Trump-hating/Trump-loving dysfunctional delusionists.
They'd make nothing as podcasters.
Trump tried and failed to get Obama off the ballot because of his birth certificate. And, the Dems cried foul. Now, the Dems are trying to get Trump thrown off the ballot for the "insurrection" and the Trumpies are in tears. Boo hoo! And the next time the Republicans come up with a plan to get a Dem kicked off a ballot (which will happen in 5...4...3...2...) the Dems will completely forget about these prosecutions and consider the GOP move as brand new escalation that no one has seen before. And, there will be congressional hearings and impeachments. Which the Republicans will clutch their pearls about because who has seen such impeachments before? All the previous impeachments when we did them were different!
So many hearings, and yet, how many hearings has Congress had on Epstein Island? We've seen hearings on social media and UFOs. Remember how excited congress was about performance enhancing drugs in baseball? Remember all the hearings? So why such little interest in Lolita Express? Really by either side. It seems like its mutually assured destruction to open that can of worms. Doesn't it?
You know what you would find? One of the people who signed Epstein into the Clinton Whitehouse a bunch of times was a guy named Mark Middleton. You can and should google his story. He was a local Arkansas lawyer whose dad ran an HVAC company and he was one of Clinton's top early fundraisers. So he got a cushy appointment in the Clinton White House and used his access to get rich. He was busted collecting illegal campaign funds in Asia that the Clinton administration had to return. Eventually, he left the White House but kept holding himself out as working there and was busted taking his clients to lunch at the White House mess hall. The Clinton Administration banned him from the White House. This was the subject of... Congressional hearings back in the 1990s.
Where the story get tragic is disgraced Mark Middleton returned to Arkansas and worked at his dad's HVAC company and eventually died by suicide in 2022. He both hung himself *and* shot himself with a shotgun (which was found 30 feet away).
But, where the story gets interesting is that one of the people that Middleton flew on Lolita Express with in 1994 was Mr. Drain the Swamp, Donald Trump. Quick, let's all give Trump the benefit of the doubt and ASK NO QUESTIONS about why he is flying around in a pedophile's jet with a well-known Clinton grifter? I'm sure they talked about nothing. Why would they?
The real corruption is obvious and in our face but nobody cares because it hurts both sides. So, cry over your Trump prosecutions while you search for Obama's birth certificate and chant "Lock her up!" Both sides play the same games. The Democrats are just better at it.
As I said in December:
(1) A primary is the activity of a private political association, namely, a party. It is not a state function or action, even if the machinery of government is used for convenience. The state has no business telling parties who they can or cannot nominate for office, regardless of the 14th Amendment issue.
(2) The issue is not ripe for adjudication, that is, it is premature, because this is a primary, not a general election.
(3) Even in a presidential general election, the individual nominated candidates are not really the ones who are running. The electors are the ones who are running and are elected. Any 14th Amendment prohibition does not apply to them.
(4) At no point has Trump actually been adjudicated as having been involved in insurrection, such that the Colorado Supreme Court's action is a gross violation of due process.
(5) The Insurrection Clause does not apply to the presidency since the president is not an officer of the United States, nor is it an office under the United States. Rather, the president is the chief executive, an embodiment of the Executive Branch of government.
(6) The states do not have jurisdiction to determine violations of the 14th Amendment insurrection clause with respect to the presidency even if it did apply. That function of judgment belongs solely to Congress in receiving the votes of the Electoral College.
Even if this were to be upheld (which is never going to happen), the Colorado GOP will simply take their primary ball and go home to hold a state convention to pick delegates to the national convention. And there is nothing that Colorado could do to stop them from sending Trump delegates to the national convention.
Been listening, when the link isn't cutting out and resetting, which so far is much too often.
I wish I had access to the Colorado Supreme court's official dissent on the ruling.
Here:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
Sotomoyer - wow- she is out of it.
DD Driver said..
"Trump tried and failed to get Obama off the ballot because of his birth certificate."
Hillary planted that seed.
Maybe I am wrong - I do not recall Trump using legal action to get Obama off the ballot.
This whole circus should be tossed out for the incorrect use of the word "insurrection"
It was not an insurrection. It was a riot.
Insurrections require planning and weapons. Actual deadly weapons of war, and the actions of war.
Only Trump could make his detractors ask the Supreme Court to rewrite the constitution.
I predict an 8-1 decision in Trump’s favour. Maybe 7-2. Sotomayor and the newest member of the Supremes will probably vote to kick Trump off the ballot.
There’s no way a leaky Supreme Court is going to be unanimous on anything this important.
biden has dismantled our "democracy" from within. Open border.
btw- we are not a democracy.
We are a constitutional republic with democratic institutions.
Judge Jackson is back in my good graces.
Jackson say she does not understand a lot. Not impressive. Murray does not seem persuasive He refuse Gorsuch hypothetical. Stating that at the moment a President did an act of insurrection he is then he loses his Presidential authority.
Jackson say she does not understand a lot. Not impressive. Murray does not seem persuasive He refuse Gorsuch hypothetical. Stating that at the moment a President did an act of insurrection he is then he loses his Presidential authority.
Thought experiment.
Say Trump is disqualified.
What would you as a stymied Trump voter do? Or stop doing?
Would you simply accept it and vote for another candidate?
If you wouldn't accept it, what would your not accepting it look like...realistically?
Jason Murry is creeping me out. He's now saying - essentially - if Trump were to win - he'd need to be removed by congress because he is a threat to democracy!
good gravy. the left are deluded that they are obligated to be in power.
But, where the story gets interesting is that one of the people that Middleton flew on Lolita Express with in 1994 was Mr. Drain the Swamp, Donald Trump. Quick, let's all give Trump the benefit of the doubt and ASK NO QUESTIONS about why he is flying around in a pedophile's jet with a well-known Clinton grifter?
Do you have any evidence for this or are you blowing smoke again ?
Now is the part where you see the Jenna Griswold-D - radical Leninist prog - holds our state by the balls.
Imagine for a moment, the SC announces Trump cannot be President.
The left will like 8 years of Ron DeSantis a lot less than 4 years of Donald Trump. Yes, DeSantis and not Haley. He’s the only one Republicans can trust to understand the word “retribution.”
Re this "insurrection" narrative:
"This invasion of one's mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one's brain.” - George Orwell, On Politics and the English Language.
It is taboo to imagine that Democrats were capable of doing the same kind of false flag operation that the Nazis did with the Rechstag Fire, even though the Democrats, subsequent to J6, followed the Nazi playbook almost to the letter. They brought in troops to suppress demonstrations, they expanded the power of law enforcement to spy on their political enemies, they used it to shut down the speech of their political opposition, the suspended certain rights of the accused, letting non violent accused rot in jail for months and years without trial, etc, etc.
But you know how we know J6 wasn't a false flag? Because you can't buy MAGA gear without a thorough vetting and background check by Donald Trump's secret police, so the idea that anybody other than Trump supporters was behind the most extreme violence on that day is ridiculous on its face! They had MAGA gear! Besides, America has "magic dirt" that keeps the same false flags from being done here that have been done everywhere else for all of recorded history.
Without an honest and adversarial examination of what really happened on J6, which has not, and will not happen, we can only assume that the people who are preventing such an investigation, preventing the examination of much of the evidence, destroying evidence, the Democrats, were behind it.
Dershowitz says Trump's lawyers are doing a bad job but will narrowly win anyway.
Not sure why Trump just didn't hire Dershowitz.
Sort of on topic, what the fuck happened to Colorado?
My theory is the leftists flooded the schools and universities (Boulder, I see you), and socialism has spread like a cancer from there...
Jenna's bitch sez - "Federalism run amuck"
lol. oh no - we can't have federalism!
"federalism run amuck"
telling wording by Jenna Griswold's lackey.
So how is Roberts going to square the circle on this one? On one hand, he hates Trump and wants him to be destroyed. OTOH, he loves Federal judicial power and Federal power in general, and hates the idea of the states going off on their own and affecting Federal elections. He was completely against States setting term limits, and also against state legistatures having the sole voice in selecting electors.
My prediction? He will refuse to rule on whether Trump is an "insurrectionist" and simply state the matter is up to the Federal Courts and Congress.
I've looked at the insufferable Neal Katayl's X feed. He keeps writing that Trump is an insurrectionist. That's a legal conclusion.
I listened to the arguments. Interesting discussion, especially regarding the officer related clauses. As others have pointed out that's a sticky issue with real world constitutional impact.
The discussion on the record of the Colorado courts was interesting too. SCOTUS was really concerned about other potential trials and their records and how to square different evidentiary standards, etc.
I expect a 6-3 overturn. Probably a punt to Congress for them to enact legislation. Colorado's Supreme Court got too cute.
They finished talking about 15 min ago. (I lost connection when I tried to post this comment back then)
There are so many things that would have to be turned upside down for this case to be upheld that… I just can’t see it happening for the anti-Trump side.
A big rewriting of the constitution would have to take place.
“(2) The issue is not ripe for adjudication, that is, it is premature, because this is a primary, not a general election”
Maybe. Normally. But other states are trying to follow suit. And I don’t think that they will be able to duck the issue again this time. Their Ducking the issue in early 2021 was how FJB got installed in office. Ducking the issue resulted in their taking a side, that was highly unpopular with half or so of the voting public. Worse maybe, they invented a novel legal theory in order to do so. Moreover, the election could turn into a big mess, because there are several states talking about removing FJB for having given comfort and support to our enemies.
>>the Colorado Supreme Court's action is a gross violation of due process.
Due process.... I vaguely recall that used to be a thing here.
Now, it's "cancel culture".
I don't know, it might be fun to let the states kick each others opponent off the ballot,
========
is one way to 'gerrymander' the EC votes count
If the Colorado result stands, what happens if/when Trump wins? Does Colorado not accept this as President after declaring him ineligible?
I can imagine a situation where a handful of blue states kick him off the ballot but he wins the EC anyway.
Then what? He's not the President of those states?
I've looked at the insufferable Neal Katayl's X feed. He keeps writing that Trump is an insurrectionist. That's a legal conclusion
Wasn't there a CO (Kangaroo) court decision concluding such?
“The discussion on the record of the Colorado courts was interesting too. SCOTUS was really concerned about other potential trials and their records and how to square different evidentiary standards, etc.”
Essentially, I think, the setting of Due Process standards. I think that it is far too messy to address here, which is why I expect reversal on other grounds.
“I expect a 6-3 overturn. Probably a punt to Congress for them to enact legislation. Colorado's Supreme Court got too cute.”
If Thomas, Kennedy, and Gorsuch pick up Kavenaugh and Barrett, which I think is likely (they probably had at least one of them for Cert), Roberts will likely follow, to keep control over writing the opinion - keeping it away from Thomas, who is otherwise senior. You are essentially suggesting that they will find § 3 is not self executing. The Ted Cruz amici brief (signed by the bulk of Republicans in Congress makes a similar point - CO is attempting to usurp their plenary power to enforce § 3 through § 5. It’s quick and effective, obviating a need to delve into the messy Due Process issues. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they also, or instead, utilized the Officer rational.
The argument for: it's literally in the constitution.
The argument against: yeah but like people want to vote for him.
I've loved seeing constitutional fundamentalists and originalists suddenly decide that actually we should apply some nuance when interpreting the constitution and read it in today's context, ignoring what the framers would have meant. 2nd amendment rights next!
My favorite part of the whole affair though is that an excessively wide 14th amendment was at the heart of the Roe v Wade decision and was struck down in the Dobbs decision.
In Dobbs this very Supreme Court applied a literalist and historically-based conservative interpretation to find that the 14th amendment’s right to life, liberty and property cannot possibly extend to abortion as Roe v Wade had supposed because abortion could not have been in the eyes of the drafters at the time.
What approach then can the Supreme Court apply when interpreting the ambiguity in article 3? Are we to suppose that the new federal government after the civil war was not contemplating a loser encouraging his supporters (many of them southern and armed!) to “show strength” and eventually storm the Capitol to frustrate the constitutional process? Or perhaps that the “right to liberty” does not extend to abortion but does extend to that man’s right to be a candidate for the office of president or the right of every American to put him there? That seems strange when they were literally trying to do the opposite.
Any sensible historical view of the American government and its constitution would reveal that for over 200 years a primary concern of the American experiment has been to prevent people like Trump coming to power for the long term good of the republic. Indeed, two conservative legal heavyweight originalists conclude as much in "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" (search for a pdf — great read).
There is no argument in favor of Trump that simultaneously supports the causes American conservatives used to hold dear. If his supporters still want Trump to hold the office of President despite all the evidence and experience then they do not want to live in the United States. They want to join all the other eroded strongman democracies likeHungary, Turkey, Brazil and even maybe Russia.
Trump is simply incompatible with the constitutional republic; they may win the Presidency but lose America. Existential for both the Supreme Court and the Republic.
“ But you know how we know J6 wasn't a false flag? Because you can't buy MAGA gear without a thorough vetting and background check by Donald Trump's secret police, so the idea that anybody other than Trump supporters was behind the most extreme violence on that day is ridiculous on its face! They had MAGA gear! Besides, America has "magic dirt" that keeps the same false flags from being done here that have been done everywhere else for all of recorded history.”
Video of bus loads of AntiFA showing up wearing MAGA hats, etc.
They are easy to get online, and I walk by a store multiple times a day that sells MAGA and Trump hats to anyone who enters the store. It’s really hard to resist - even our dog now has a pink Trump collar.
“Jason Murry is creeping me out. He's now saying - essentially - if Trump were to win - he'd need to be removed by congress because he is a threat to democracy!
“good gravy. the left are deluded that they are obligated to be in power”
Their exclusive remedy is impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. Not going to happen.
The Justices were not buying the "insurrection" argument at all. And they spent a lot of time questioning why CO kept insisting the office of President is an "officer of the United States" when the Constitution lists who is and purposely leaves President off. I do recall lots of mocking of that point here (by the usual lifelong Republican Trump haters) when we pointed out the same thing. It is clearly excluded, as is VP. Alito put a fine point on it: "They could have included it if it was meant to apply" before noting the President "obviously is not an appointed officer of the United States.' He is the one who appoints officers."
Looks like probably 8-1 for Trump. Ketanji seems oblivious to the text of the Constitution. And Thomas spoke, again carefully teasing apart CO's weak argument. But he did speak. Awesome.
"Blogger D.D. Driver said...
Trump tried and failed to get Obama off the ballot because of his birth certificate. "
Please show me the case that was filed to do that.
Maybe I am wrong - I do not recall Trump using legal action to get Obama off the ballot.
Nope you are NOT wrong, April. DDD is full of shit as usual.
One of the four in the majority on the Colorado Supreme Court is up for judicial retention. That person should lose that race.
My theory is the leftists flooded the schools and universities (Boulder, I see you), and socialism has spread like a cancer from there...
No. Denver became a hub due to its central location in relation to the country, and a lot of white upper-middle class types moved out there because they loved the outdoors. Add in the fact that the Colorado right had a strong libertarian streak (I think that this is generally a characteristic of western conservatives) and you end up with a state where everything seemed fine right up until a critical mass was reached, and then the changes happened very rapidly.
"presidential qualifications" is the tag, but the meat of this story calls for a "sc justice qualifications" tag.
Bob Boyd asked: “If you wouldn't accept it, what would your not accepting it look like...realistically?“
My not accepting it would look like William Hutchings not accepting it 250 years ago.
I would enlist to fight in the war at the tender age of 70 (Hutchings was 15).
I’d likely see limited fighting at the Siege of Madison, during which time the CIA/FBI capture me and hold me prisoner.
However, because I’m so young, the Deep State would let me go.
After the war, I’ll settle down in my home state of Indiana, marry at the age of 77, and with my wife Sarah, have 15 children.
I’ll die at the age of 121 on May 2, 2075.
Hypothetically.
Pretty sad, I didn't realize this was brought by "republican" electors. But I should not be surprised.
After reading Althouse's update I think I might have mistaken Sotomayor for Jackson near the end. Also, PowerLine's Scott Johnson believes SCOTUS will unanimously overturn CO.
Just listen to the Buddhist masters as they speak. Sometimes the wise sound... lost.
/s
The transcripts normally turn up here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2023
There's nothing there yet
Why feel sorry for Sotomayor? She's an idiot and totally out of her league, which is the very, very minor league, like the Z league. There's only one reason she's on the Court.
Bob Boyd said...
When you hear a politician or a media person say something or someone is a threat to our democracy, if you think you're a member of the group described by the word "our", you are fooling yourself.
Bob wins the year
"Add in the fact that the Colorado right had a strong libertarian streak"
You mean losers. Liberatarians with their "anything for a buck" philosphy are catnip to the Left. They put up a weak fake fight against the Left, then fold when someone waves a dollar bill in their face. The losertarians cant form alliances with working class voters or appeal to anyone except the Greedy and the well to do.
If you look at California, you'll see all the 1990s losertarians either joined the Democrats, dropped out of politics, or ran off to Colorado or other states. And that's all they're good for: Running away and being cranks and eccentrics.
Sotomayor sounded "lost." That's because "But Trump!!!" Is not a Constitutional argument.
Rich.
Go study what Mark wrote. He seems to have a much firmer, open minded grasp of the constitution question thasn you do.
You just might learn something. I know I did.
D.D. Driver said...
Trump tried and failed to get Obama off the ballot because of his birth certificate.
1: Hilary Clinton was the one who started the "he's not a natural born US Citizen" line.
2: The US Constitution requires that you be a natural born US Citizen in order to be President. Whether you are or aren't is a factual question
3:The US Constitution very explicitly does NOT prevent an "insurrectionist" from being President of the US. Because "Officers under the United States" are ALL appointed positions. That's why the 14th Amendment mentions Senators and Representatives
4: Section 5 of the 14th says Congress shall have the power to enforce it. That means States do NOT have the power
5: You can not "cure" "not being a natural born US Citizen". If you aren't one, you can't be President.
You CAN "cure" being an "insurrectionist", with a 2/3 vote of Congress.
Therefore, not being a natural born US Citizen keeps you from being able to run for teh office.
being an "insurrectionist" does NOT keep you from running for office, because if you win teh election, Congress can "cure" your status, and you can take your seat.
So, thank you for playing, we appreciate your ability to have absolutely no clue, but still blather on
I find it touching and cute that naive bumpkins still believe the Democrat SCOTUS judges look at the legal/Constitutional text and use it to come to their descision.
As shown a million times, the liberal/left judges will vote Left no matter what. If they don't, its usually for tactical reasons. They decide what benifits the liberal/left then cut their judicial opinon cloth to fit the result they want.
Put Kagan, Sotomayor and whats her name on the Colorado Supreme court and they'd have voted with the majority. What they will say as SCOTUS judges is anyone's guess. I'm betting some sort of tactical retreat and alliance with Roberts to maximize the damage to Trump.
Thank you for your candor regarding Justice Sotomayor.
Couple of things:
1. If Colorado has decided Trump is inelligible and he runs. Then he wins. Do they then not have to adhere to any Federal laws or rules established during his term?
And related:
2. Murray said Trump was ineligible to hold the Office immediately when J6 occurred. Because he had participated in Insurrection (Against his own gov't, but who's counting?). His every utterance and order thereafter were illegal, therefore.
It occurs to me that, given these notions as predicates, any president at any time could be ignored because any one person could convince a compliant media that that president had behaved in such a way as to be instantly ineligible to hold office. i.e., Vindman. He says in his opinion Trump tried to extort Zelensky for political gain. Therefore: TREASON! Media swoon over this existential threat to "Their Democracy."
So it's not as far-fetched an idea as some might think. Been there, done that.
This case has far reaching implications and must be clearly decided.
D.D. Driver--If Elon Musk decided to run for President and someone petitioned to have him removed from the ballot (because not born in the US), would that be illegitimate in your opinion?
Trump raised questions about whether Obama was qualified to be President. He did not act as a state actor to have him removed from the process.
There is a world of difference.
I was heartened that the Justices focused on the ridiculous negative impact on democracy of having one State disrupt a national election based on vaguely written S3 grounds. Even Brown raised that flag, I believe.
"Ketanji seems oblivious to the text of the Constitution."
Well, she's not a Founding Father, is she? So how could she be expected to be able to explain what's in it?
Are we to suppose that the new federal government after the civil war was not contemplating a loser encouraging his supporters (many of them southern and armed!) to “show strength” and eventually storm the Capitol to frustrate the constitutional process?
Why would they be contemplating that? That issue had already been settled by the war itself.
Seems like they were contemplating a former confederate winning election and becoming President. Why would they feel the need for a constitutional amendment to disqualify those who had lost their elections? Those who lost were, by definition, already disqualified.
Rich recommends the article "The Sweep and Force of Section Three."
Sorry, Rich, not very convincing at all. But since you made no substantive case for the article, I see no reason to make a case against it.
My view is that every Confederate officer was already officially designated as an insurrectionist by virtue of the Confederacy having been officially designated a rebellion against the Constitution to be suppressed by an actual war. So it really did not take a special act of Congress to determine their status at that time if any of them sought elected office. No one has ever officially designated Jan. 6 an insurrection, despite all the hoopla from the left. My guess is the SC will find that without some determination of that and a due process conviction of Trump on those grounds there is no basis for excluding Trump. I also think they will determine that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment clearly and very sensibly prevents a single state from disrupting all of American political life on its own without an act by Congress. Finally, there is the clear and not trivial distinction between "office" and "officer," plus the failure of the amendment to include the President specifically in its list of specifically who it applies to, which makes it reasonably clear the President was not intended to be included in who this amendment applies to. I have read somewhere that the President was on an earlier draft of the amendment and then later removed. Am I right about that. I'm not sure. But if so, that sort of seals it making it clear his absence was intended.
Anyway, these are my three reasons, and I am curious to see if the SC agrees.
RED QUEEN. Verdict first. Trial later v
Umm, Meade - is that the smartest thing to be posting on your WIFE’S blog?
Sotomayor...sounded, I'm sorry to say, lost.
Oh, she may be weary
And justices they do get weary
Wearing that same old shaggy robe, yeah, yeah
https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/07/obscure-statute-could-disqualify-states-like-colorado-from-kicking-trump-off-the-ballot/
"Obscure Statute Could Disqualify States Like Colorado From Kicking Trump Off The Ballot"
That was definitely a fun and informative oral argument to listen to.
No problem. Biden off the GA ballot for stealing confidential documents. Docs which he should never have removed and over which he had zero authority to declassify.
Greg the Class Traitor writes, "Hilary Clinton was the one who started the 'he's not a natural born US Citizen' line."
Clinton certainly raised this in her campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination, however, Obama launched this so-called conspiracy theory by consenting to the convenient falsehood promoted by his literary agent, one Miriam Goderich, in 1991 to enhance his image as an author to prospective publishers. More desirous of fortune and fame than the primacy of truth, Obama made no effort to correct his biography from more than 17 years. Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Rich is NBC.
LOL.
@Bruce Hayden - tim was being sarcastic.
An array of interesting and compelling arguments that suggest the final ruling will preserve wide access to the ballot for candidates. Russia, Iran, China et al have commissions which approve candidates; the United States should not go down that path.
A favorable ruling on disqualification is another liberal "no hoper."
I look forward to reading a very interesting Supreme Court opinion just as the appeals court ruling on Trump's immunity claim was a great step forward on improving the legal functioning of our republic — an always necessary improvement to keep a constitutional republic adapting to changing times.
A rules-based order always benefits from better and clearer rules tested by real life.
I tried to listen but kept losing the stream and gave up after 15-20 minutes.
Perhaps if Ann posts a link to the transcript I'll read it as what I heard was interesting
In the bits I did here, I heard a couple of mentions of "Justice Smores" I gathered that they were talking about Sotomayor and could not pronounce her name properly (So-toe-my-or)
Or is there some other judge or justice Smores that they were talking about.
I just checked her Wikipedia. Did you know that She is the third woman, first woman of color, the first Hispanic, and first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court
I think this is the first time I've seen both hispanic and latino used together like this. It is like saying that our hostess is not just a woman but she is also a female. It's a twofer!
Nothing in the entry about her being a "Nyorican" or born to Puerto Rican parents. That would have been more correct and actually useful.
John Henry
"After the beginning, she was quiet for a long time, then spoke up and sounded, I'm sorry to say, lost."
She's an AA hire. Of course she's lost. The usual procedure in such cases is that, having been allowed to play a game that you are unable to play well, you complain, to the same authority that allowed you to play in the first place, that the other players aren't playing fair. You are then granted additional special accommodations, until finally it is declared that the game has not been played correctly if you did not win. This is called "disparate impact". Sotomayor's problem, as the runt of the litter, is that the authority which placed her in the game is unable to change the rules of that game. For the last fifteen years, poor little Sonia has been craning her neck to watch the other players passing and shooting, far over her head, in a space she cannot even reach with her tiny, ineffectual little limbs. She's tired! She's had enough! Someone blow a whistle!
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
If you wouldn't accept it, what would your not accepting it look like...realistically?
We don't have any electors here in Puerto Rico so not much I can do on election day. We may, or may not, have a Republican primary here and I will vote for PEDJT if possible. If he is not on the ballot, I would write him in if possible or just make 1 big X, spoiling my ballot. I do this in a lot of elections where I don't like anyone.
If I was in the upper 50, I would do the same.
John Henry
"The definition of "insurrection" is the ever-moving goalpost feeding their psychosis. These people literally have no historical understanding of what that word even means."
I know, one is tempted, to discuss their actions as if they desired the same things that we desire, but lack the wisdom or the insight to understand how to achieve them. But in fact, while the followers may be stupid, the leaders are not. They know full well what they do. There is a law regarding "insurrection", and there is a piece called "Trump" that they wish to remove from the board. People like our hostess taught them how to construct an argument for any desired outcome, beginning from any given law. All that is needed is to argue that "Trump" = "insurrection". And they know that when you hammer on a door, even if the door does not open, its hinges are weakened. One day, they believe, it will open. No matter what the law may now say, it can eventually be made to mean exactly and only what they want it to mean.
Are they mistaken? I see little cause for optimism.
there is an exactly zero% chance an “ insurrection” narrative would have been tolerated or sustained by media for even a day had the political affiliations been reversed.
Even “riot” would have disappeared from the Left’s Newspeak dictionary if that were the case. The usual media description would be “protest” or “demonstration”, and most of their venom would have been reserved for the cop who shot an unarmed protester dead.
It's up
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-719_feah.pdf
Sotomayer is a diversity hire. Go say on her.
..but I did think that the conservative Justices accepted the argument that the President is not covered by the text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. And I believe that both Kagan and Jackson were concerned about letting the states decide this matter of such great national interest.
...somewhere in some very expensive enclave, Ray Epps shrugs...
Strange new respect for Justice Jackson.
Her individual questioning for Trump's lawyer at the end of his presentation was spot on.
Why wasn't the President included in Section 3? because no one was worried about a Confederate being elected President in a nationwide election. They were worried about Confederates being elected in elections in former Confederate States, so they blocked that.
It's nice to know she's not a complete idiot. because sometimes she has seemed that way
MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
We are here because, for the first time since the War of 1812, our nation's capitol came under violent assault.
Oh bullsh!t. if Jan 6 was "violent assault", then so was the Left's attempts to block the Kavanaugh vote. Then so was the rioting that happened during Trump's inauguration.
Then so were probably dozens of Left wing riots and "protests" that have happened since the 1960s.
Do you have to be a lobotomized ignoramus and moron to be on the Left, or does it just really help?
As long as Sotomayer can take a call from Chuck Schumer, she can do the job she was put in place to do.
Rich said...
The argument for: it's literally in the constitution.
The argument against: yeah but like people want to vote for him.
It's literally in the US Constitution that Congress shall have the power to enforce the 14th by appropriate legislation.
You want to point to the legislation Congress passed to let a State District court decide a candidate is an insurrectionist?
It's literally in teh Constitution that the only Federal Elected officials it applies to are Senators and Representatives, not the President
It's figuratively in the US Constitution that you are a moron
In a hundred years some misguided souls will want to tear down a statue of Meade.
JUSTICE ALITO: Suppose there's a country that proclaims again and again and again that the United States is its biggest enemy and suppose that the president of the United States for diplomatic reasons think that it's in the best interests of the United States to provide funds or release funds so that they can be used by that -- by that country.
Could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy and, therefore, keep that person off the ballot?
MR. MURRAY: No, Your Honor. This Court has never interpreted the aid and comfort language, which also is present in the Treason Clause, but commentators have suggested -- it's been rarely applied because treason prosecutions are so rare, but commentators have suggested that, first of all, that aid and comfort really only applies in the context of a declared war or at least an adversarial relationship where there is, in fact, a war between two countries.
Gosh, you mean like when troops supplied by Iran, i mean this hypothetical country, launch what are known as "acts of war", such as bombing a US military base and killing US soldiers?
Clearly both Biden and Obama are insurrectionists and traitors, and because Section 3 is "self enforcing", this means Biden is no longer President of the US (he's not allowed to "hold office"), so I guess that means the military must now stop listening to him.
The fun is never ending here
" After the beginning, she was quiet for a long time, then spoke up and sounded, I'm sorry to say, lost."
Not to worry. When it's time to make a decision, all she needs to do is watch to see what her progressive colleagues decide.
Trump tried and failed to get Obama off the ballot because of his birth certificate.
He did? I must've missed that.
It would be helpful if you could provide the process Trump used to keep Obama off the ballot. Thanks.
If his supporters still want Trump to hold the office of President despite all the evidence and experience then they do not want to live in the United States.
And just what do you plan to do should it come about? Huh?
I'm all ears.
Sotomayor wasn't strong on the other side. After the beginning, she was quiet for a long time, then spoke up and sounded, I'm sorry to say, lost.
This is her final questioning of Trump's Attorney:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Would that be true if we were to hold more narrowly in a reversal that it's not Section 3 that's at issue but Thornton and others as to whether Section 3 can be enforced by states against the president?
MR. MITCHELL: That would extend to every presidential candidate --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Exactly.
MR. MITCHELL: -- not just our client. That's correct.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Not just to yours.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Okay. Thank you.
Even she can see what a complete and total loser of a case this is. She's "lost" because she knows that Trump is going to win this one, so all she can do by voting against him is tie herself to something so obviously stupid that even she would be embarrassed to support it.
So she's looked for a way to make this not about Trump, not about whether or not Jan 6 was an "insurrection." And she found one.
So she's going to say, probably already has said "make it 'the President is not an Officer under the US', and I'll make it 9-0."
So that's my prediction: 9-0, the 14th doesn't apply to the President, and States do not have the power to exclude candidates froth ballot in Federal elections under Section 3.
Jackson was aggressively asking questions that pushed why it was entirely reasonable for the Presidency not to be covered (Congress was worried about what was happening in Southern States, notate nation as a whole), Kagan and Roberts were both heavily pushing "the 14th isn't about giving States power, it's about taking power away from them", all three of the lefties hate Federalism, the text of the Amendment says :
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
None of them want to see this case again, in any form.
So, 9-0 the TDS losers lose
Well to be fair, Sotomayor is not the best we have to offer
So Meade would Johnny Tremain it.
I bet they don't assign that book in schools anymore.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा