What's a SCOTUS to do?

[houndawg]

Trump lawyer says Trump expects some consideration from the SCOTUS judges he worked so hard to appoint. So: do they keep him on the ballot and let the donks keep the White House? Or: do they take him off the ballot and hugely increase their odds of putting a conk in the White House?

[houndawg]

prediction: SCOTUS finds a way to punt, Trump stays on ballot, Donks keep the White House. Unless Biden croaks

[UNI88]

Trump lawyer says Trump expects some consideration from the SCOTUS judges he worked so hard to appoint. So: do they keep him on the ballot and let the donks keep the White House? Or: do they take him off the ballot and hugely increase their odds of putting a conk in the White House?

Wait a second - trump expects some "consideration" from justices he appointed but his MAGAt yahoo followers go apoplectic if anyone involved in a legal action against him has so much as had a picture taken with biden?

[kalm]

prediction: SCOTUS finds a way to punt, Trump stays on ballot, Donks keep the White House. Unless Biden croaks

It seems like a total toss up.

There are 16 additional states waiting in the wings where’s he’s being contested as a candidate on some level.

[GannonFan]

prediction: SCOTUS finds a way to punt, Trump stays on ballot, Donks keep the White House. Unless Biden croaks

It seems like a total toss up.

There are 16 additional states waiting in the wings where’s he’s being contested as a candidate on some level.

I have a hard time seeing it as a toss-up. Do you really think the SCOTUS will go the route of all 50 states deciding on their own whether a person stays on the ballot or not? That seems unlikely. That opens it up to tremendous malfeasance. Already there are rumblings to toss off Representatives that challenge election results, as folks in Congress have been doing increasingly, on both sides of the aisle, since 2000. Leaving it open for 50 states to come up with 50 interpretations is unlikely for a SCOTUS that has already agreed to hear the case. I also don't think you'll see this SCOTUS (or likely any other in the future) deciding on their own to toss someone off the ballots - that's a real ballsy step for any court to take, and certainly with the make-up of this court, I don't see them deciding to make that decision on their own.

The most likely outcome is the Court will say you have to have a process in place that allows due process to either convict someone of insurrection or a similar due process to strike someone for a ballot for the same. I don't think any of the states so far have really done that.

I do hope whatever the Court decides they find a way to make it unanimous. Whatever they decide, the worst thing to do would be to go 5-4 or 6-3 with it and make it partisan.

I do think he stays on the ballot, and if he does then the Dems likely hold on to the White House. Trump is just that abominable.

[BDKJMU]

It seems like a total toss up.

There are 16 additional states waiting in the wings where’s he’s being contested as a candidate on some level.

I have a hard time seeing it as a toss-up. Do you really think the SCOTUS will go the route of all 50 states deciding on their own whether a person stays on the ballot or not? That seems unlikely. That opens it up to tremendous malfeasance. Already there are rumblings to toss off Representatives that challenge election results, as folks in Congress have been doing increasingly, on both sides of the aisle, since 2000. Leaving it open for 50 states to come up with 50 interpretations is unlikely for a SCOTUS that has already agreed to hear the case. I also don't think you'll see this SCOTUS (or likely any other in the future) deciding on their own to toss someone off the ballots - that's a real ballsy step for any court to take, and certainly with the make-up of this court, I don't see them deciding to make that decision on their own.

The most likely outcome is the Court will say you have to have a process in place that allows due process to either convict someone of insurrection or a similar due process to strike someone for a ballot for the same. I don't think any of the states so far have really done that.

I do hope whatever the Court decides they find a way to make it unanimous. Whatever they decide, the worst thing to do would be to go 5-4 or 6-3 with it and make it partisan.

I do think he stays on the ballot, and if he does then the Dems likely hold on to the White House. Trump is just that abominable.

It will be 6-3 or 7-2..

[GannonFan]

I have a hard time seeing it as a toss-up. Do you really think the SCOTUS will go the route of all 50 states deciding on their own whether a person stays on the ballot or not? That seems unlikely. That opens it up to tremendous malfeasance. Already there are rumblings to toss off Representatives that challenge election results, as folks in Congress have been doing increasingly, on both sides of the aisle, since 2000. Leaving it open for 50 states to come up with 50 interpretations is unlikely for a SCOTUS that has already agreed to hear the case. I also don't think you'll see this SCOTUS (or likely any other in the future) deciding on their own to toss someone off the ballots - that's a real ballsy step for any court to take, and certainly with the make-up of this court, I don't see them deciding to make that decision on their own.

The most likely outcome is the Court will say you have to have a process in place that allows due process to either convict someone of insurrection or a similar due process to strike someone for a ballot for the same. I don't think any of the states so far have really done that.

I do hope whatever the Court decides they find a way to make it unanimous. Whatever they decide, the worst thing to do would be to go 5-4 or 6-3 with it and make it partisan.

I do think he stays on the ballot, and if he does then the Dems likely hold on to the White House. Trump is just that abominable.

It will be 6-3 or 7-2..

We'll see. I'm not so sure.

[Skjellyfetti]

My prediction:

- Alito writes some spittle-covered, firebrand opinion on how the CO supreme court is actually committing insurrection by trying to keep Trump off the ballot, and alluding to the possibility that the a strict reading of the Constitution might technically require them to be stripped, tarred, and feathered, and put in stocks.

- Thomas writes some oblique, ponderous thing that is internally well-reasoned but that chooses for its sources and citations the most bizzarro-land stuff, including citations from Confederate courts and the English Civil War, demonstrating that 14A somehow only precludes people who publicly swore an oath to God, with hand on a holy book, to explicitly overthrow the government, or something.

- Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett find some obscure, hyper-technical reason why 14 does or doesn't apply that only applies to thir specific election, in this specific case.

- Sotomayor and Jackson find that, yeah, duh, he fomented insurrection and so, yeah, duh, he is ineligible to hold office and btw yeah the presidency is an office and president is an officer, because duh. Possibly signing onto an opinion written by Gorsuch, whose hands are kinda tied on this one...

idk whether they will rule Trump can be on the ballot or not, I guess that depends on whatever the higher-ups at Fed Soc want to keep riding the Trump momentum or prefer to quit while they are ahead.

[houndawg]

It will be 6-3 or 7-2..

We'll see. I'm not so sure.

Agreed - it will be 5-4 with Roberts joining the minority.

[houndawg]

My prediction:

- Alito writes some spittle-covered, firebrand opinion on how the CO supreme court is actually committing insurrection by trying to keep Trump off the ballot, and alluding to the possibility that the a strict reading of the Constitution might technically require them to be stripped, tarred, and feathered, and put in stocks.

- Thomas writes some oblique, ponderous thing that is internally well-reasoned but that chooses for its sources and citations the most bizzarro-land stuff, including citations from Confederate courts and the English Civil War, demonstrating that 14A somehow only precludes people who publicly swore an oath to God, with hand on a holy book, to explicitly overthrow the government, or something.

- Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett find some obscure, hyper-technical reason why 14 does or doesn't apply that only applies to thir specific election, in this specific case.

- Sotomayor and Jackson find that, yeah, duh, he fomented insurrection and so, yeah, duh, he is ineligible to hold office and btw yeah the presidency is an office and president is an officer, because duh. Possibly signing onto an opinion written by Gorsuch, whose hands are kinda tied on this one...

idk whether they will rule Trump can be on the ballot or not, I guess that depends on whatever the higher-ups at Fed Soc want to keep riding the Trump momentum or prefer to quit while they are ahead.

I think Roberts isn't very happy when he looks at how The Roberts Court is going to be viewed by History.

[houndawg]

Trump lawyer says Trump expects some consideration from the SCOTUS judges he worked so hard to appoint. So: do they keep him on the ballot and let the donks keep the White House? Or: do they take him off the ballot and hugely increase their odds of putting a conk in the White House?

Wait a second - trump expects some "consideration" from justices he appointed but his MAGAt yahoo followers go apoplectic if anyone involved in a legal action against him has so much as had a picture taken with biden?

yes

[Caribbean Hen]

I really hate to say it about a Puerto Rican, but Soto has to be the dumbest Supreme Court justice of all time

The DOAT

[kalm]

My prediction:

- Alito writes some spittle-covered, firebrand opinion on how the CO supreme court is actually committing insurrection by trying to keep Trump off the ballot, and alluding to the possibility that the a strict reading of the Constitution might technically require them to be stripped, tarred, and feathered, and put in stocks.

- Thomas writes some oblique, ponderous thing that is internally well-reasoned but that chooses for its sources and citations the most bizzarro-land stuff, including citations from Confederate courts and the English Civil War, demonstrating that 14A somehow only precludes people who publicly swore an oath to God, with hand on a holy book, to explicitly overthrow the government, or something.

- Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett find some obscure, hyper-technical reason why 14 does or doesn't apply that only applies to thir specific election, in this specific case.

- Sotomayor and Jackson find that, yeah, duh, he fomented insurrection and so, yeah, duh, he is ineligible to hold office and btw yeah the presidency is an office and president is an officer, because duh. Possibly signing onto an opinion written by Gorsuch, whose hands are kinda tied on this one...

idk whether they will rule Trump can be on the ballot or not, I guess that depends on whatever the higher-ups at Fed Soc want to keep riding the Trump momentum or prefer to quit while they are ahead.

That last paragraph is highly cynical and I’m here for it.

[kalm]

It seems like a total toss up.

There are 16 additional states waiting in the wings where’s he’s being contested as a candidate on some level.

I have a hard time seeing it as a toss-up. Do you really think the SCOTUS will go the route of all 50 states deciding on their own whether a person stays on the ballot or not? That seems unlikely. That opens it up to tremendous malfeasance. Already there are rumblings to toss off Representatives that challenge election results, as folks in Congress have been doing increasingly, on both sides of the aisle, since 2000. Leaving it open for 50 states to come up with 50 interpretations is unlikely for a SCOTUS that has already agreed to hear the case. I also don't think you'll see this SCOTUS (or likely any other in the future) deciding on their own to toss someone off the ballots - that's a real ballsy step for any court to take, and certainly with the make-up of this court, I don't see them deciding to make that decision on their own.

The most likely outcome is the Court will say you have to have a process in place that allows due process to either convict someone of insurrection or a similar due process to strike someone for a ballot for the same. I don't think any of the states so far have really done that.

I do hope whatever the Court decides they find a way to make it unanimous. Whatever they decide, the worst thing to do would be to go 5-4 or 6-3 with it and make it partisan.

I do think he stays on the ballot, and if he does then the Dems likely hold on to the White House. Trump is just that abominable.

I say toss up as it seems the law pundits are having difficulty calling it either way.

Regarding states and processes we’ve already scene Maine and Colorado have different types. I’m not saying they’re satisfactory but they are different. The fact it’s a federal election throws a wrinkle into everything.

[houndawg]

I really hate to say it about a Puerto Rican, but Soto has to be the dumbest Supreme Court justice of all time

The DOAT

I don't know where she belongs in the ranking except that wherever it is its many rungs above Clarence Thomas

[BDKJMU]

I really hate to say it about a Puerto Rican, but Soto has to be the dumbest Supreme Court justice of all time

The DOAT

I don't know where she belongs in the ranking except that wherever it is its many rungs above Clarence Thomas

Well, unlike the other black justice, I bet Thomas knows what a woman is..

[UNI88]

I don't know where she belongs in the ranking except that wherever it is its many rungs above Clarence Thomas

Well, unlike the other black justice, I bet Thomas knows what a woman is..

But he can't tell the difference between a troll and a human ...

[houndawg]

Well, unlike the other black justice, I bet Thomas knows what a woman is..

But he can't tell the difference between a troll and a human ...

and a wookie

[GannonFan]

I have a hard time seeing it as a toss-up. Do you really think the SCOTUS will go the route of all 50 states deciding on their own whether a person stays on the ballot or not? That seems unlikely. That opens it up to tremendous malfeasance. Already there are rumblings to toss off Representatives that challenge election results, as folks in Congress have been doing increasingly, on both sides of the aisle, since 2000. Leaving it open for 50 states to come up with 50 interpretations is unlikely for a SCOTUS that has already agreed to hear the case. I also don't think you'll see this SCOTUS (or likely any other in the future) deciding on their own to toss someone off the ballots - that's a real ballsy step for any court to take, and certainly with the make-up of this court, I don't see them deciding to make that decision on their own.

The most likely outcome is the Court will say you have to have a process in place that allows due process to either convict someone of insurrection or a similar due process to strike someone for a ballot for the same. I don't think any of the states so far have really done that.

I do hope whatever the Court decides they find a way to make it unanimous. Whatever they decide, the worst thing to do would be to go 5-4 or 6-3 with it and make it partisan.

I do think he stays on the ballot, and if he does then the Dems likely hold on to the White House. Trump is just that abominable.

I say toss up as it seems the law pundits are having difficulty calling it either way.

Regarding states and processes we’ve already scene Maine and Colorado have different types. I’m not saying they’re satisfactory but they are different. The fact it’s a federal election throws a wrinkle into everything.

Like everyone else these days, law pundits are incredibly partisan and media-hungry. Hard to trust any of them any more given that they'll say whatever suits their particular schtick.

[kalm]

I say toss up as it seems the law pundits are having difficulty calling it either way.

Regarding states and processes we’ve already scene Maine and Colorado have different types. I’m not saying they’re satisfactory but they are different. The fact it’s a federal election throws a wrinkle into everything.

Like everyone else these days, law pundits are incredibly partisan and media-hungry. Hard to trust any of them any more given that they'll say whatever suits their particular schtick.

Skepticism is healthy.

I’m just saying a number of them will typically make a strong prediction either way. With this issue they all seem to be saying ‘who knows?’

[GannonFan]

Like everyone else these days, law pundits are incredibly partisan and media-hungry. Hard to trust any of them any more given that they'll say whatever suits their particular schtick.

Skepticism is healthy.

I’m just saying a number of them will typically make a strong prediction either way. With this issue they all seem to be saying ‘who knows?’

Nothing wrong with skepticism, as long as it doesn't perpetually get in the way of coming to a conclusion.

As for this case, you could see two outcomes. I, for one, can't even fathom why this clause wouldn't apply to the President. That part, and arguing that the President is immune from this part of the amendment, is just silly. Hopefully the Court at least goes 9-0 on that part of the argument.

As for whether Trump is an insurrectionist, even if he is (pretty good argument that he is, as I said, I would've voted to impeach and I would've voted to remove from office), I still think there's a due process of going through before we get to that. People talking about Sec 3 of the amendment tend not to point to Sec 5 of the amendment, where Congress is given the power to enforce this amendment. I think it's a fairly straightforward argument that Congress did just that when it wrote into 18 US Code 2383 the penalty for insurrection or rebellion, and that the wording there very closely resembles the wording in the amendment. So if it exists in the criminal code, why can anyone be found guilty of violating that code without an actual criminal trial? Is there any other crime out there where we can just declare someone guilty without a trial? I still would be surprised if this isn't 9-0 as well. Maybe Sotomayor dissents because she seems to have taken up the Clarence Thomas role but on the left side of the court, but I would be very surprised if Kagan goes that route, and I would be surprised if Gorsuch takes such a leap as to dissent as well. Brown Jackson is too new for me to have any read on what she'd do. My prediction is likely 8-1, but I could see 7-2 or 9-0.

Would've been great if we did something more productive over the last 3 years and just charged and convicted Trump of insurrection - heck, it's been more than a year since the 1/6 commission finished, but hey, that would take out all the political scheming then and what fun would that be?

[Pwns]

Opening arguments underway...Kagan seems really skeptical of Colorado's arguments and not really sure that KBJ does too. We all know that the Wise Latina is just going to do her thing. But yeah, I can see what GannonFan is saying here.

[kalm]

[Caribbean Hen]

Opening arguments underway...Kagan seems really skeptical of Colorado's arguments and not really sure that KBJ does too. We all know that the Wise Latina is just going to do her thing. But yeah, I can see what GannonFan is saying here.

The wise Latina? C’mon she’s the DOAT

[GannonFan]

If this thing isn't 9-0 I would be a little surprised. And even if it's not 9-0, I doubt there are actually dissents, more like concurring opinions, maybe even multiple ones. Even all 3 liberal justices were signaling significant skepticism with Colorado's position on this.