IANAL, but ISTM that this is a HUGE deal if it isn’t overturned, and I doubt this SCOTUS has the courage to make big, big decisions like this unless they aid the Republican party and their priorities.
Because they are biased?
Anyway, I don’t think they will overturn it with all the dictator talk.
Judges don’t like that because it means less power for them.
Anybody happen to catch this part of the Decision?
¶55 As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” 495 F. App’x at 948
Nice.
Didn’t Gorsuch leave Colorado to take a job inside the Beltway, somewhere??
Maybe. But in a scenario where Colorado is the only Trumpless state, there would be someone’s name or names on the November GOP presidential line, and the Colorado GOP would work hard so its voters knew that those electors planned to vote for Trump. Then it would only hurt viable local GOP candidates a smidgen.
From a discussion board standpoint, what would be really interesting is what happens if Trump is denied the nomination and asks his supporters to stay home. It would be the ultimate test of the turnout hypothesis beloved here, especially if Haley got the nomination. Looks to me that she would beat Joe in a landslide, blasting the turnout hypothesis to smithereens (although my last link is a cherry-pick, so no certainty).
I get the impression that many powerful people in/behind the Republican Party would much prefer Trump gone, if they could do it without becoming pariahs to the base themselves. And that includes people on the SC, who don’t need to pander to anyone. If I were a betting man, I’d say 60-70% probability they overturn, but I don’t think it’s at all certain.
I have mixed feelings about this. While I’m certainly happy to see Trump’s actions come back to bite him in the ass, I am also worried this will further erode people’s confidence in fair elections.
What would have happened if the Colorado courts had dragged this out long enough that SCOTUS didn’t have enough time to do anything about it before the election?
How do consequences for attempting to overturn an election erode confidence in fair elections, exactly?
Same with me.
If I was writing the constitution from scratch, I would not have any qualification for the presidency other than, maybe, the term limit. Respect the will of the voters!
However, if there ever was a case where the courts should deny a likely winner a place on the presidential ballot, Trump is it.
Another arena for mixed feelings: If Biden won after Trump was denied the ballot, that would really erode confidence. But if another Republican won, the disqualification would look to have been more fair.
In sane times you’d have a point, but these are hardly sane times. To low information Trump supporters this will look like the Deep States, RINOS, or whatever else they’re railing against trying to subvert the will of the people by preventing the Orange Messiah from reclaiming his rightful crown. But then these types would cry foul even if Trump won the next election. Like I said, I have mixed feelings about this. But the court should make their decisions based on the law rather than how it might look.
Except that SCOTUS ruled specifically in a Colorado case that Colorado electors can’t do that. They are bound to the candidate they are electors for.
I feel like it’s worth interjecting something obvious here.
Trump supporters limit their discussion and consideration to the events at the Capitol on January 6th - The Barbarians At The Gate.
Putting aside the fact that those same Trump supporters insist that the mob did nothing whatsoever wrong…
January 6th was like a movie. All we saw was the actors. What we didn’t see – and what Trump supporters don’t even believe exists – are all of the production crew that worked behind the scenes to make the movie.
They also didn’t see – and don’t believe they exist – the editing crew, the catering staff, the transportation people, the insurance people, the set medics, the money people, etc., etc.
They think the angry, misled, deeply broken refuse that stormed the Capitol WAS the whole show.
They have no idea.
But then again: there’s basically no subject that you can mention where there answer isn’t the same: they have no idea.
We, as humans, and We, as Dopers, should never lose sight of the real story, and how close we potentially came to losing our Democracy.
When we consider the Courts’ decisions, the GA and DoJ cases, what might potentially come before the SCOTUS, and what we think should happen, we should be ever mindful of the whole enchilada.
Also, too: I love Mexican food.
Was 14th Amendment Section 3 ever tested in court post-Civil War? Did anyone try to run for office and be disqualified because of their participation in the insurrection?
The answer to the last post is: No and No.
Congress passed the Amnesty Act of 1872 so former confederates could serve in Congress even if they had taken a federal oath of office before the Civil War.
This will not happen for Trump because it requires a 2/3 vote in both houses.
EDIT: I was just thinking of the Civil War context. See next post.
I’d like to think you are correct about this. I really do.
I do not have that faith that conservatives won’t go to crazy-town. They have repeatedly stepped over lines we all thought would never happen. Why not this one?
At least 8 officials have been disqualified under the insurrection clause. Table in the article. Six were before 1900.
Is that only on a first vote?
It seems to me that as the party of chaotic evil, if this holds up the Republicans should find some other candidate named Donald Trump and put them on the Colorado ballot. Or maybe a Mr. Trumpy McTrumpface.
Just a smart-arse drive by post from a higgnrunt furriner whose country’s dinky little legislatures seem to rather less vulnerable to these machinations.
Westminister doctrine - separation of powers