# SCOTUS hears the case on Trump's eligibility on February 8, 2024 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [February 6, 2024, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204 "2024-02-06T20:25:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/81 "2024-02-08T16:44:06Z")
I was thinking just how painful it must be if you’re DJ Trump and you’re watching _both_ of these attorneys make arguments … _after_ your extensive experience with Alina Habba representing you. But then I remembered Doctors Dunning and Kruger. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/82 "2024-02-08T16:48:28Z")
Kagan in the Anti-Trump camp. I think she and Jackson want this to be all or none, not just ineligible in Colorado. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/83 "2024-02-08T16:48:30Z")
48 states have a winner take all electors rule. maine and nebraska do not. that is part of the court cases in the states that have cases regarding the fake electors. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/84 "2024-02-08T16:50:52Z")
If Trump wins, could Colorado under the State election powers say no elector may vote for a candidate that _the state_ has determined committed insurrection under A14(3)? ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/85 "2024-02-08T16:51:51Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > > [@Jas09](#): > > > > The “candidates aren’t officers” route leads to madness. > > This whole Trump didn’t commit insurrection nor give aid and comfort to those who did is already at that level of madness. But candidates are not officers is more true for presidents as we don’t even vote for president, but only for electors (which are not officers, nor are they insurrectionists (hopefully). And though states may vary, there is no federal requirement for an elector to vote for their candidate. So all it is would be electors for Trump, who then can cast their vote for an eligible person . Not sure whether or how this ties into your point … but electors for President, while not officers of the U.S. are specifically enumerated in the **[Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv)**: > ## 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. One thing I cannot understand is how the President doesn’t fall clearly under the “_hold **any** office, civil or military, under the United States_” part. But, I guess that’s why I’m not a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/86 "2024-02-08T16:54:01Z")
This is not going well for Colorado. There are too many holes in their argument that the usual suspects can use to allow Trump to run. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/87 "2024-02-08T16:54:58Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > > [@rocking\_chair](#): > > > > could the court say trump is off the ballot unless congress votes otherwise? there is a portion that states congress can lift the ban. > > That wasn’t a crazy argument. Since congress CAN remove the impediment of the 14th Amendment by a 2/3 vote, they said, he should be allowed to run, win, and apply to congress for a vote to allow him to serve. (He _would_ never get 2/3 of both houses, but that’s not important to the argument, only that he _could_.)I really hope they don’t go that route, but it wasn’t a completely bonkers legal argument. A strict reading of Section 3 makes that particular legal argument unassailable, IMHO. But again: not a lawyer and don’t understand why there’s so many disparate “clear readings” of Section 3. Hypothetically: A court made up of nine Elena Kagans pretty much summarily shuts the door on all of this, correct? ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/88 "2024-02-08T16:55:44Z")
Kavanaugh triggers this response from me: Trump tries to invalidate the national vote, overruling the will of the American people. Somebody tries to hold him accountable. Trump supporters cry that we should “let the people decide.” You literally cannot make this stuff up. But Kavanaugh raises the very issue. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/89 "2024-02-08T16:58:10Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This is not going well for Colorado. IMO, there is zero chance that this court will rule Trump ineligible to be elected or to be on the ballot, regardless of the arguments presented. None. It’s a political potato that is far too hot. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/90 "2024-02-08T16:58:13Z")
murray is doing a bit better… the justices are hitting him very hard, and he really isn’t doing very well arguing back. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/91 "2024-02-08T16:59:49Z")
Listening to the oral arguments, it’s pretty clear that the Colorado case will be overruled and the issue of Trump being ineligible to be President will be punted. There are some pretty clear issues that have political motivations (the very idea that the 14th stops insurrectionists from holding office, except for the most important office in the Constitution, is insane to me), but nobody on the court seems overly interested in upholding the ruling. And I get so fucking frustrated with the donning of ashes and rending of garments by the right wing justices over the possibility that they may have to decide if Trump is an insurrectionist. As if actually judging something is beyond their capabilities, especially when they’ve already shown their willingness to lie about/make up facts in a case before them. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/92 "2024-02-08T17:01:10Z")
“The reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the Constitution doesn’t require that he be given another chance,” Murray says. I mean, in a sane world, that would pretty much be the end of the argument. Alas… ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/93 "2024-02-08T17:03:19Z")
murray did give a good argument on the office question. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/94 "2024-02-08T17:05:27Z")
> [@DavidNRockies](#): > > But Kavanaugh raises the very issue. Maybe he deserves a drink with Billy, Joey, Frankie & Jerkoff Jonny. Murray closes by telling the Justices what they want to hear: Trump needs to be convicted of insurrection. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/95 "2024-02-08T17:07:09Z")
> [@DavidNRockies](#): > > Kavanaugh triggers this response from me: Kavanaugh pissed me off with his idea that Section 3 of the 15th Amendment in outlawing insurrectionists from holding office necessitates a conviction under the Insurrection Act (adopted 80 years later) before it applies in so … stupid. Just plain stupid. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/96 "2024-02-08T17:08:44Z")
He apparently was paying attention to Trump, et al: At his Impeachment, we were told that this is “for the Courts to decide.” In Court, we are told that “this is a matter for Impeachment.” Yeah. It’s crazy-making. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/97 "2024-02-08T17:08:49Z")
Stevenson off to a strong start. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/98 "2024-02-08T17:10:12Z")
Agreed. My point further is that each of the blind men can find a different justification for that result. I’m also sure they’re going to weasel their decision so they can fall back on state’s rights in future cases. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/99 "2024-02-08T17:10:46Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Kavanaugh pissed me off with his idea that Section 3 of the 15th Amendment in outlawing insurrectionists from holding office necessitates a conviction under the Insurrection Act (adopted 80 years later) before it applies in so … stupid. Just plain stupid. But he likes beer. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/100 "2024-02-08T17:12:03Z")
stevenson should have done the main argument. she is doing very well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204.md?page=6)