Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[Elixir]

This would allow Southern States to ignore the 14th Amendment?

Would HAVE ALLOWED.

No. The whole point was to eliminate it. A reading of the 14th Amendment is that of an order, not a suggestion.

I’m agreeing with you there.

Of course they’ll raise that strawman, but as a question, the answer wouldn’t really bear on the current circumstance.

I think it does, as if Colorado says so, what is the basis for another state to disagree? Alito is right in asking that.

Another State may have a different set of factual findings upon which to base their decision, they may have (often do have) very different primary - and even Federal - election structures and rules etc.
They are already specifically given the power to run elections.

…

Thomas is trying to say that the Amendment disqualifies a person to be seated, not elected. A fine argument that is cutting the hair pretty damn fine. Oh, you can elect them... you just can't seat them? I think this is the angle they'll find on. It is awful though. How can they actually say that Trump can be elected President, but he can't be seated. Who, how can you stop that?

Yeah, beauty eh?
So the seat remains vacant? Order of succession applies? Do they get to claim a number for their presidency (e.g. 47) if they are succeeded before being seated?
Clowns in suits and robes, shying away from plain speech - except Mr Murray for Colorado.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The dudes on the bench are pissing on about how shitty the 14th Amendment is written. It is their fucking job to address that.

They really seem to be arguing that the 14th Amendment has no teeth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Disenfranchising the voters"?!

FFS!

For me, I don't know why they don't argue that the 14th doesn't give the state a choice. It is an order. I get the feel that this is a 7-2 to 9-0 against Colorado.

 

[Elixir]

I don't know why they don't argue that the 14th doesn't give the state a choice.

Maybe because they have always anrgued otherwise re States’ rights? Or because the Constitution specifically appoints States to run elections in their States, there’s a factual finding by a State Supreme Court that Trump is an insurrectionist - and they seem disinclined to take on review of the facts.

So … you’re probably right. I just can’t imagine the humongous steaming pile of hypocritical judicial crap they will stand on to make that ruling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know why they don't argue that the 14th doesn't give the state a choice.

Maybe because they have always anrgued otherwise re States’ rights? Or because the Constitution specifically appoints States to run elections in their States, there’s a factual finding by a State Supreme Court that Trump is an insurrectionist - and they seem disinclined to take on review of the facts.

I told you they wouldn't bite on that. I told you why.

Kavanaugh wins the day though with his 'let the people decide if someone waged an insurgency' plea. Fuck!

So … you’re probably right. I just can’t imagine the humongous steaming pile of hypocritical judicial crap they will stand on to make that ruling.

There are legitimate issues regarding this, regardless if you want to recognize it:

• Who gets to call it insurrection.
  • It sounds like the answer is "Congress" or possibly even "no one". They won't rule that, but I was a bit disturbed by the lack of teeth some of the dudes on the bench seemed to think the 14th Amendment actually had
• Et tu Colorado?
  • The argument made by Colorado was that they could individually kick Trump off the ballot. Justices weren't persuaded by that. They seemed to think if one, then all.
  • And what if one state concludes X and another concludes Y. How do you reconcile it?
    • My thought was "THAT IS YOUR DAMN JOB!!!"
• What insurrection?
  • They evacuated Congress. There was an angry mob almost on top of Congress and that resulted in a person being killed by security. If you were in office, you'd been evacuated too!
• What is the disqualification?
  • Running for office
  • Being elected
  • Being seated
    • This is an interesting angle, as it is written as if it is from being seated. But the idea that it only prevented seating an elected person sounds like a dubious interpretation of the law.
• Does this apply to the President?
  • It does not explicitly say the President or Vice President. It does say "any office, civil or military", which those two are.
  • Certainly the manner in how elections happen these days is notably different than the old days. And certainly if there was this idea that the 14th Amendment applied to Senators, why in the heck wouldn't it apply to the President.

It is a very ugly case, that would have been resolved had the GOP done their damn job. But we know the GOP is complicit with the Trump Administration, even the ones that wouldn't have supported the insurrection. So they sat on their hands, we are stuck with this legal case with no viable outcome. Expect a 7-2 to 9-0 ruling, maybe 9-0, but with 3 or 5 different Justice groups putting in their two cents, that will not help address this issue for the future.

 

[TomC]

It seems to me that a big problem here is confusing political parties with government agencies. Political parties are private enterprises. Political parties can nominate anyone they want to run on their slate.

What state governments, legislatures and courts, are expected to do is make state level decisions. If they decide not to send any EC delegates supporting an insurrectionist, that's not just their right it's their duty. And they can define "insurrection" for themselves.

If the Republican Party insists on running a candidate ineligible for an EC delegate from Colorado they can. That doesn't obligate Colorado to send any EC delegates supporting them.
IOW, the GOP can run Trump in Colorado. But he won't get an EC delegate. Because state law prohibits insurrectionist candidates from getting EC delegates from Colorado.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

So … you’re probably right. I just can’t imagine the humongous steaming pile of hypocritical judicial crap they will stand on to make that ruling.

There are legitimate issues regarding this, regardless if you want to recognize it:

• Who gets to call it insurrection.
  • It sounds like the answer is "Congress" or possibly even "no one"

That's a "well duh" question. Why not let the people already vested with the power to exclude non-conforming candidates decide?
That's how the CO case came to be. They decided, Trump's goons took them to court and lost, all the way up to the CO SC.
SCOTUS has no business depriving them of their Constitutionally granted "states' right" to decide who is qualified.
As was pointed out, there are already Constitutionally disqualified (non natives and underaged) on ballots in other States. If they want to add an insurrectionist, that's their prerogative. Colorado keeps non-native born 'Murkins off. Oh - and insurrectionists.
Big deal. If you don't want your candidate disqualified in Colorado, don't nominate a naturalized citizen, a 25 year old or an insurrectionist. Problem solved.

• And what if one state concludes X and another concludes Y. How do you reconcile it?
  • My thought was "THAT IS YOUR DAMN JOB!!!"

Lulz! Yeah - if it's even a job. Let them conclude what they conclude.
It doesn't need to coincide, and in fact IT ALREADY DOESN'T COINCIDE.
It's not a problem. I think it was Justice Kagan who just said "That's a feature of our system, it's not a bug."

• What insurrection?
  • They evacuated Congress. There was an angry mob almost on top of Congress and that resulted in a person being killed by security. If you were in office, you'd been evacuated too!
• What is the disqualification?
  • Running for office
  • Being elected
  • Being seated
    • This is an interesting angle, as it is written as if it is from being seated. But the idea that it only prevented seating an elected person sounds like a dubious interpretation of the law.

Yabut I like it, sort of. Let the MoFo run. He's going to lose anyway. If he gets disqualified, say Hello to President Nikki.
The questions are whether or not he and his Congressional co-conspirators will be allowed to stage another insurrection to install their tangerine turd, and whether it will succeed.

• Does this apply to the President?
  • It does not explicitly say the President or Vice President. It does say "any office, civil or military", which those two are.
  • Certainly the manner in how elections happen these days is notably different than the old days. And certainly if there was this idea that the 14th Amendment applied to Senators, why in the heck wouldn't it apply to the President.

Stupid stupid shit. I don't know why they even allow this crap to waste the Court's time.

Expect a 7-2 to 9-0 ruling ...that will not help address this issue for the future.

Another reason to turn it back to the States and slam the door on the whole mess.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems to me that a big problem here is confusing political parties with government agencies. Political parties are private enterprises. Political parties can nominate anyone they want to run on their slate.

What state governments, legislatures and courts, are expected to do is make state level decisions. If they decide not to send any EC delegates supporting an insurrectionist, that's not just their right it's their duty. And they can define "insurrection" for themselves.

It doesn't say in the 14th Amendment who defines insurrection. And I'm uncertain as to not sending the electoral college delegates. One argument that Thomas made was that the 14th Amendment says you are not allowed to be seated. It doesn't say not elected. I find this interpretation ridiculous as how does this even work? It'd be up to Congress to disqualify them... maybe.

If the Republican Party insists on running a candidate ineligible for an EC delegate from Colorado they can. That doesn't obligate Colorado to send any EC delegates supporting them.

I think this applies more to the primary itself, as I think the parties pay for the primary. But for the Federal election, while SCOTUS didn't discuss this, I'd think the State would have standing here to object. Because if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator). They paid for an election and don't get representation, a double whammy.

 

[Elixir]

if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator).

Like George Santos' seat, it becomes vacant? Yeah, if you elect a dumfuk scammer to represent you, and thereby temporarily forfeit that degree of representation, too bad. You screwed up.

 

[TomC]

Because if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator). They paid for an election and don't get representation, a double whammy.

It's not without representation. They will be represented in the EC by delegates who vote for legal candidates. And they'll be represented by the EC vote winner, regardless of who the U.S. electorate voted for. Just like always.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator).

Like George Santos' seat, it becomes vacant? Yeah, if you elect a dumfuk scammer to represent you, and thereby temporarily forfeit that degree of representation, too bad. You screwed up.

But we are talking about the State. They pay for the election. Their government pays for the election that will impact how Federal funding impacts their region of or the entire state. To say a state has no say, I think that is complicated as well. SCOTUS wass ruling to allow this, so we didn't get hypotheticals, but the one that should have been raised is a guy along with 20 people had weapons, and stormed the capitol building, killing dozens. Somehow this dude wants to run for US House seat. It is undoubted that he was guilty of violating the 14th Amendment. Does the state have no say?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator). They paid for an election and don't get representation, a double whammy.

It's not without representation. They will be represented in the EC by delegates who vote for legal candidates. And they'll be represented by the EC vote winner, regardless of who the U.S. electorate voted for. Just like always.
Tom

That doesn't apply to a Senator or House Representative.

 

[Elixir]

if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator).

Like George Santos' seat, it becomes vacant? Yeah, if you elect a dumfuk scammer to represent you, and thereby temporarily forfeit that degree of representation, too bad. You screwed up.

But we are talking about the State. They pay for the election. Their government pays for the election that will impact how Federal funding impacts their region of or the entire state. To say a state has no say, I think that is complicated as well. SCOTUS wass ruling to allow this, so we didn't get hypotheticals, but the one that should have been raised is a guy along with 20 people had weapons, and stormed the capitol building, killing dozens. Somehow this dude wants to run for US House seat. It is undoubted that he was guilty of violating the 14th Amendment. Does the state have no say?

Why should it take extreme examples to illustrate the point? It is self evident tha Trump is an insurrectionist. He says himself he wants to “suspend” the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator).

Like George Santos' seat, it becomes vacant? Yeah, if you elect a dumfuk scammer to represent you, and thereby temporarily forfeit that degree of representation, too bad. You screwed up.

But we are talking about the State. They pay for the election. Their government pays for the election that will impact how Federal funding impacts their region of or the entire state. To say a state has no say, I think that is complicated as well. SCOTUS wass ruling to allow this, so we didn't get hypotheticals, but the one that should have been raised is a guy along with 20 people had weapons, and stormed the capitol building, killing dozens. Somehow this dude wants to run for US House seat. It is undoubted that he was guilty of violating the 14th Amendment. Does the state have no say?

Why should it take extreme examples to illustrate the point? It is self evident tha Trump is an insurrectionist. He says himself he wants to “suspend” the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.

The short answer is "The GOP".

The long answer will be shortened to *SCOTUS doesn't want to create a standard*. Again, there was a Constitutional solution to this. Though, it'd be argued there was a backup in the 14th Amendment. But who gets to say there is an insurrection. SCOTUS today said either Congress or nobody. It sounded quite a bit like SCOTUS said the 3rd article of the 14th Amendment is shit... and they weren't going to fix it.

 

[TomC]

Because if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator). They paid for an election and don't get representation, a double whammy.

It's not without representation. They will be represented in the EC by delegates who vote for legal candidates. And they'll be represented by the EC vote winner, regardless of who the U.S. electorate voted for. Just like always.
Tom

That doesn't apply to a Senator or House Representative.

Nor did I refer to Capitol Hill representatives.
I'd be fine with refusing to allow insurrectionists to get elected to that as well. But that isn't what we're talking about.

We are talking about POTUS. In particular, a POTUS candidate who brags about his insurrection.
That's it.

I have no problem with a state government deciding not to support an insurrectionist with EC delegates.
Do you?
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I have no problem with a state government deciding not to support an insurrectionist with EC delegates.
Do you?

I have a problem with it because if Trump is off the ballot, Dems will lose the election and the GQP president will pardon Trump.
But in principle I wouldn’t change the fact that STATES ALREADY DECIDE WHO IS ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE TO BE ON BALLOTS. It seems like SCOTUS is about to change that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because if that candidate wins, they aren't supposed to get seated, and they are without representation (for Rep / Senator). They paid for an election and don't get representation, a double whammy.

It's not without representation. They will be represented in the EC by delegates who vote for legal candidates. And they'll be represented by the EC vote winner, regardless of who the U.S. electorate voted for. Just like always.
Tom

That doesn't apply to a Senator or House Representative.

Nor did I refer to Capitol Hill representatives.

Yeah, but I did and you responded to it. The question being posed is State's ability to preemptively prevent it, due to the cost and loss of representation. One of the abiding things with law interpretation is it has to be assumed the law makes sense, so a person can't come up with an alternative crazy idea on it, if it isn't a viable interpretation.

I'd be fine with refusing to allow insurrectionists to get elected to that as well. But that isn't what we're talking about.

We are talking about the third article of the 14th Amendment, which includes Representatives and Senators. Justice Thomas asked what the penalty was, and it indicated in a blind reading of the article that a person is only prevented from being seated, not being elected. But I hold that interpretation as being problematic as a state would endure needless loss having to have an insurrectionist be on the ballot and potentially winning. That comes at a cost, so that, in my ignorant POV, opens up the door to a preemptive removal from the ballot.

We are talking about POTUS. In particular, a POTUS candidate who brags about his insurrection.
That's it.

We are trying to interpret the 14th Amendment, so all of it counts as part of the discussion.

I have no problem with a state government deciding not to support an insurrectionist with EC delegates.
Do you?

I personally feel it is way past the time to be doing such things. There is no way in heck this can be settled in the time allotted between election day and the counting of the electoral votes. That in turn makes this in to a "Constitutional Clusterfuck" that could get even worse and have the potential to send the election to Congress because no one got 270+ electoral votes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

They brought up the insurrection law:

18 U.S. Code § 2383​

Which has a disqualification, so they are saying that the government could have tried Trump under this law but chose not to.

 

[Rhea]

But who gets to say there is an insurrection. SCOTUS today said either Congress or nobody. It sounded quite a bit like SCOTUS said the 3rd article of the 14th Amendment is shit... and they weren't going to fix it.

Congress already did, when they impeached him for insurrection.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, basically it seems the answer from SCOTUS will be “we don’t know how to do this part of the Constitution so why don’t we just not do it.”

It will be interesting to see the logic they use and then what the legal ramifications of their decision will be.