some justices do play for laughs.
the textual argument is getting interesting.
In the amendment itself, congress has the ability to pass laws on how the amendment is to be applied to a real candidate. Alito seems to lean toward that. There was mention of the self-executing term. I did not catch the words. I think Alito is going to work toward some technical “lawyer term” excuse for the final decision. But it may come out to this. We do not have laws in effect for this election. “Good luck next time, liberals!”
Hillary Clinton was interviewed by MSNBC yesterday, and she predicted that the SCOTUS will punt back to the states – they manage presidential elections, so they can decide how to enforce 14A. Which will result in chaos, of course.
Also…has anybody pointed out that the presidential oath includes the words “the OFFICE of president of the United States”? Wouldn’t that make the president an officer?
i believe mr mitchell is defining “officer” as an appointed office not an elected office.
Citing a precedent in the Making Shit Up law book, no doubt.
Counsel is making an absurd argument. He is arguing:
-
Per the Griffin case, states cannot enforce the 14th amendment absent Congressional legislation of a process to do so.
-
That process would require criminal conviction for insurrection.
-
Presidents are immune from prosecution for acts taken in office; therefore he cannot be convicted of insurrection nor barred from holding office.
That would mean that a president could attempt an insurrection to remain in office as permanent dictator and be both immune from prosecution while remaining eligible for office and potentially try again. I think he’s trying to avoid connecting those dots, given the absurdity of the argument, but slipped up a moment ago.
Colorado Voters’ attorney is up.
justice jackson with the bazinga. an unorganized insurrection?
I do think it’s hysterical when Trump supporters invoke the “nobody is THAT incompetent” defense.
This question from Thomas regarding “has this ever happened before” is kinda stupid, right?
Ballots didn’t even exist back then, so of course no state could have removed a candidate from a ballot.
mr murray is getting pounded a bit.
Murray just alluded to Gorsuch having made a prior ruling, in an earlier position, in favor of the States having the right to determine who’s on their ballots 
It generated a laugh.
John Roberts: if we accept this sane position, why shouldn’t we expect an insane position from the other party?
If Trump is a criminal, then why isn’t Biden?
Hard to hear this shit.
ETA: Murray’s reaching his stride.
Yeah, I agree. The Court can easily define “insurrection” as used in the 14th, articulate the minimum due process requirements states must follow (including standards and burdens of proof), and note that state’s application of the 14th are subject to federal judicial review. It’s not that complicated, especially for the highest court in the land.
Dammit had a meeting. Back now.
My question is why can’t we expect Congress to react by saying, “States are declaring him ineligible. Let’s act before the election.”
Because half of Congress is under the control of the GOP, who couldn’t muster a consensus to confirm that ice cream is yummy if their lives depended on it?
New term for me: De Facto Officer Doctrine.
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.
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.
So in failure to act keeps him ineligible. I’m referring to Trump’s lawyer claim that Congress can lift the disability after the election before the inaguration.
Alito has an interesting point. Was Pence the President under Section 3 after Jan 3rd IF Trump committed insurrection? Murray blew the answer about how to remove him. Let’s put Alito as For Trump right now.
ETA: Jackson YES!!! Addressing uniformity the issue I’ve been harping on.
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.