Trying to analogize to residency requirements, but counsel almost stepped in it by stating that that a candidate would have to affirm that they intended to reside in the state they are seeking election in. That would mean that Trump would have to affirm he planned to seek a petition from Congress removing the 14th amendment disability (which of course he will never do).
Is it Kagan speaking now? Because it sounds like she’s having none of that argument.
Hard for me to tell. We had Thomas ask the first question. Then Roberts chimed in. And now I think it’s Kagan but I don’t know their voices well enough to tell.
ETA: But yeah, she’s having none of it wrt this Griffins Case argument.
ETA2: Kagan just chimed in. So that must have been someone else - maybe Sotomayor?
somehow trump has a competent lawyer.
thomas, roberts, sotomayor, kagen. so far
I’m watching on the WP youtube channel- they’re displaying photos of the justice currently asking questions.
on to barrett.
msnbc also does pictures.
Link? I’m on PBS.
Sounds like the Justices are trying to prompt him to keep it simple: Congress deal with Federal officials under Section 3 while States deal with state officials under Section 3 That might actually be a winning argument.
Here we go. Alito is laying out the road map.
But the 14th amendment has a “due process” built into it. Anyone barred from office can have that lifted, by a 2/3 majority vote in each house of Congress. There’s nothing stopping Trump, or his allies in Congress, trying to achieve that. Well, except reality, of course.
It really doesn’t. It has a process for appeal built into it, but it’s unclear on how insurrection should be determined in the first place.
Great question: So he could change from an insurrectionist to a non-insurrectionist?
These arguments about the fact that Congress can lift the disability seem very odd to me. It would seem to require that a candidate intends to seek a waiver in order to remain on the ballot.
I think he is saying that Congress could lift the disability after the election if he wins so he could take office even if ineligible at the time of election.
Also, Trump actually did try to lead the crowd to storm Congress. He wanted to. He was prevented from doing so by his Secret Service detail.
i believe mitchell is stating that trump has the right to run, if he won, congress would have time to lift the ban between the election and inauguration.
this seems to be a better argument than the “officer” thing.
what happens if congress does not lift the ban?
Especially given that Trump conceded the point in 2020 when he removed K&D LLC v. Trump to federal court under 28 USC 1442 which permits officers of the US to do so.
Cork Wine Bar, a restaurant on the edge of the District of Columbia’s U Street corridor, competes with President Donald Trump’s eponymous Pennsylvania Avenue hotel. Cork brought suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging violations of the District’s common law of unfair competition. President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court denied Cork’s motion to remand the case, then dismissed its complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
Yeah, I get it. But in his example regarding residency requirements he stated that a state could remove a candidate from the ballot unless they affirmed (perhaps via affidavit or something) that the intended to live in the state if elected.
like dr oz?
I have been listening in since MSNBC got their audio sorted out and I agree, this lawyer is not making me reach for the mute button like most Trump attorneys do. Having said that, there is a great comedy sketch playing out in my mind where Alina Habba is trying to argue this case and keeps having to stop because she doesn’t know what collateral estoppel is.
Interesting to hear laughter from time to time, I wasn’t expect any. Justice Kagan got a chuckle out of the courtroom with “…then I must be right”,