Yeah. I wonder how Trump will punish Colorado if he wins.
The difficulty for the Democratic appointees to rule this way is because the majority was taking the conservative constitutional position, as show by Gorsuch’s earlier ruling. Ignoring the partisanship of the situation, the Republican justices would uphold the Colorado ruling. The reason the Supreme Court might not is because of naked partisanship on the part of the Republican justices. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Democratic justices also siding against the Colorado decision, because they tend to take a more pragmatic approach.
My worthless prediction: Supreme Court rules 8-1 (Kagan dissenting) to overturn the Colorado court.
That bold statesman Vivek Ramaswamy has said he’s removing himself from the ballot in Colorado in sympathy for Trump. If others follow suit, it could be interesting, but probably not pivotal?
The “party of state’s rights” doesn’t seem to care for the way that the state of Colorado runs a Colorado election in the state of Colorado.
I know this is hyperbolic, but I’m thinking about moving all my money to cash around 01-November.
That’s an interesting electoral strategy. Best wishes to him with it!
Or gold.
He does seem to have forgotten he’s supposed to want to win.
There’s two different constitutional issues at play in this case; only one was under consideration in Gorsuch’s ruling.
The first issue is whether the state can deny ballot access on grounds of ineligibility under the federal Constitution. Gorsuch’s earlier ruling held that the states do have that constitutional power. I don’t know if I would characterise that as a conservative position?
The other question is the nature of the alleged ineligibility. From a quick skim of Gorsuch’s ruling, he didn’t really deal with that. But that’s the major issue here: what does s. 3 of the 14th Amendment mean?
I could see the Supreme Court generally accepting Gorsuch’s analysis on the power of the state to deny ballot access for ineligibility, but then splitting all over the place on the s. 3 issue, since it is a case of first impression with major political consequences.
I believe that is true only if the electors are pledged electors. It’s possible to have unpledged electors who can’t, by definition, be faithless. If a set of unpledged electors were put forth by the Republican party in a state where Trump was not allowed on the ballot, I’d think most voters could guess who they might vote for.
I did not know that; thanks; TIL.
Sure, a civil trial. Kind of like with OJ Simpson. But the key is he had a trial, not some government official declaring he was guilty of sexual assault. That is my issue with Norther Piper’s position, that he effectively wants Trump off the ballot for with effectively (though technically not exactly) a bill of attainder. I never said there had to be a criminal trial, a civil trial would work just as well.
Can an elector cast a vote for a constitutionally unqualified candidate, and if so, can that vote be counted? There must be some precedent for this. On the face of it, ISTM that a vote for an unqualified candidate must be void.
No. It’s throwing Brandon off the ballot.
Oooooo… I misspelled “ballot” as “ballet”. I get all the jokes now. 
Next, in 1872, Democratic presidential nominee Horace Greeley lost the general election and then unexpectedly died less than a month later, before the electors could meet and vote. Most Democratic electors voted for someone else, but three stuck to their pledge and voted for the deceased Greeley. Another debate ensued in Congress at the electoral count, with some arguing that a deceased candidate is no longer a “person” and thus inherently ineligible. The House ultimately voted against counting these three votes and the Senate voted in favor of counting them. Under the rules in place at the time, both houses had to agree to count a vote, so the votes for Greeley were not counted.
I agree overall, though maybe 7-2. I think the idea that this SC would make such a consequential decision on such quicksand-like ground to be ludicrous. I expect a quick (in SC terms) slapdown of the CO court ruling. Though of course I hope I am wrong!
Bolding mine.
But where is this definition? AFAICT, the Constitution doesn’t define “insurrection,” so the determination that Trump participated in one is strictly up to the Colorado Secretary of State.
I, of course, agree with the CSoS 100%. But I can certainly see the argument that one person’s decision (as opposed to that made in a civil or criminal trial) doesn’t meet constitutional muster. Otherwise, what’s to stop the batshit crazy Texas SoS from deciding that Joe Biden saying hello to Hunter’s business partners was participation in an insurrection and that Joe is ineligible to be on the Texas ballot?
And remember, just because it makes absolutely no sense doesn’t mean a Republican won’t do it.
Deciding that Trump is ineligible to run for office is conservative in the sense that it’s the textualist and originalist reading of the Constitution, including the states’ retention of powers. Liberal judicial decisions tend to be more practical, considering the impacts of the decision on the individuals and the populace as a whole (the “justice for all” ideal).
The better decision would be to keep Trump on the ballot, simply because it’s illiberal and instable to prevent people from voting for their widely preferred candidate. Some of the Republican justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) don’t care about that and will vote their partisanship over any judicial principles. Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett are persuadable on the merits; I could see them going either way depending if the plain reading takes priority for them or not. I think the three Democratic appointees would tend to vote to overturn because of the negative impacts upholding would have, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them dissented for partisanship.
I’m absolutely sure that Roberts will be trying to get a unanimous decision–that’s the only way to preserve the Court’s dignity. No more than one justice will hold out against that.
Edited to add:
My personal feelings are that Trump should not be on the ballot. But this process of removing him from the ballot is not good law.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is set to introduce a bill barring federal funds for election administration from states “misusing” the 14th Amendment.
Maybe I haven’t had enough coffee yet, but I don’t see anything in the article about withholding federal funds.
What it says is:
The bill aims to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002, adding language to the law stating that the Supreme Court has “sole jurisdiction to decide claims arising out of section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”