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.
Kagan in the Anti-Trump camp. I think she and Jackson want this to be all or none, not just ineligible in Colorado.
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.
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)?
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
murray is doing a bit better… the justices are hitting him very hard, and he really isn’t doing very well arguing back.
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.
“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…
murray did give a good argument on the office question.
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.
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.
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.
Stevenson off to a strong start.
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.
But he likes beer.
stevenson should have done the main argument. she is doing very well.