Here's Politico's live-blogging... https://www.politico.com/live-updat...ficer-of-the-united-states-explainer-00140226
Wow... any question as to which way alito is already leaning? Justice Samuel Alito raised questions about whether it was proper for the Colorado Supreme Court to allow the House report on the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to be used as evidence. That’s the first time the insurrection — the primary basis for the Colorado case and for all of the 14th Amendment cases — has been mentioned during these arguments. ERICA ORDEN 02/08/2024, 10:37AM ET
My guess is that the court will find a majority (potentially a large one) to rule that Section 3 isn't self executing. That allows the SC to avoid ruling on the merits of Section 3 and instead say that Congress has to pass a statute to operationalize Section 3. In the background, I'd think that the liberals would trade backing this in exchange for denying cert to the case involving presidential immunity (which would allow the DC court ruling to stand). I figure Alito and Thomas will rule that Section 3 doesn't apply at all to Trump for whatever insane reasons they come up with but I can see Roberts cobbling a majority to rule in favor of Trump on the self-execution argument.
Here's where the supreme court will likely land to protect trump... Chief Justice John Roberts may not buy Colorado's argument A sharp line of questioning reveals something. KYLE CHENEY 02/08/2024, 11:22AM ET Chief Justice Roberts may have tipped both his — and perhaps the whole court’s — hand. Amid a series of sharp questions by the conservative justices for those seeking Trump’s disqualification, Roberts made plain that he does not buy the conclusion that the 14th Amendment was meant to permit states to determine whether a candidate was an ineligible insurrectionist. It’s “a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th Amendment,” Roberts said, noting that the position would have empowered the former Confederate states to weigh in on whether a candidate is disqualified from holding federal office. The 14th amendment was passed to constrain states’ rights and empower the federal government, Roberts said, and is “the last place you’d look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to enforce the presidential election process.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh immediately picked up on Roberts' question, reinforcing the point in a line of skeptical questions to the lawyers for the Colorado challengers. The skeptical questions from Roberts and Kavanaugh are not a good sign for the challengers, because those two justices are considered the challengers' most gettable votes among the court's conservative majority. Justice Elena Kagan followed up suggesting it would be “extraordinary” for a single state to effectively influence the entire nation’s presidential election.
And it appears that the trump, er, roberts supreme court will reject Colorado's argument and allow trump to run, regardless if he was guilty of insurrection. Not surprising, and sets up the expected next decision by this tainted court to protect trump re: immunity. I wonder if this completely removes the 14th amendment? At least Section 3?
Paradoxical. So, the state cannot disqualify a 14-year-old from running for POTUS? Not going to read too much into those line of questioning.... yet
The 14th Amendment case meets the election interference case The ex-president has contended he’s immune from federal prosecution. KYLE CHENEY 02/08/2024, 11:09AM ET During a relatively friendly line of questioning, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Mitchell on whether a person could conceivably be prosecuted under the federal insurrection law and — if convicted — automatically disqualified from holding office. Mitchell said generally, yes, but not in Trump’s case. That’s because the ex-president has contended he’s immune from federal prosecution for the actions he took as president, particularly as they relate to his effort to subvert the 2020 election. It’s notable because Trump’s attorneys have described an exceedingly narrow set of ways that a former president could be disqualified from holding office under the Insurrection Clause. Now, they say, one of those avenues is not an option. Trump is expected to go to the Supreme Court as soon as next week to argue that he is immune from criminal charges related to his effort to overturn the election in 2020, yet another Supreme Court showdown that could dramatically influence the result in 2024.
I suspect these rulings are only intended to protect trump, so the court will probably find a way to carve out the ability to protect age restrictions, citizenship requirements. Though they may allow a third term if trump lives long enough.
No it wont. This is just one section of the 14th amendment and this will likely be a very technical ruling rather than some sweeping interpretation. They're likely going to do a few things: 1. Rule that the section isn't self executing. Congress has to pass legislation to to operationalize the section. 2. When it comes to the president, the operationalized procedure should be federal in nature. All the justices seems to be concerned with the idea of states making their own choices as to who they choose to disqualify. Consequently, the argument would be that legislation should create a uniform process for disqualification for federal office holders that likely would involve federal courts. 3. States can operationalize section 3 for state officials so state supreme courts and legislatures can figure that part out independently of this one. And frankly, this isn't an unreasonable of a position to take.
I am not opposed to this position... this case was bound to go against CO from the start. But... what are the odds that a state will get congress to pass legislation? Especially since I believe it will require a super majority to pass. If trump was proven to commit a crime (and if should really be in quotes, since he has), congress would not act to allow a state to remove him. They didn't get a supermajority to impeach him after all. So for all intents, states are only now able to act on state elections, which was not stated in the amendment. Which does seem a significant change to the Constitution, no?
I doubt they keep him off the ballot and to be honest I am ok with that; he needs to be beaten fair and square...............not that the extreme right will accept it, but the Amercian people should decide who is President....................now if he is convicted between now and then so be it.
That would the USSC legislating from the bench. Plain reading of Section 3 is that it is self executing. If Trump wins the 2024 election but before the Electoral College votes are counted, this hot mess will land back in their laps.
I think this is really the big story here that'll really be the thing that impacts how we move forward with the validity of our rule of law. This has more to do with the inconsistencies that the court has ruled in with regards to Roe v Wade overturning than this case. The Supreme Court when ruled by the hard right, continually conflicts itself in order to serve it's political ambitions over and over again. We saw it with Citizens United. We saw it with Roe, and it's just a cascading affect that'll lead to such ill legitimacy that eventually the executive branch, and ultimately at some point the military will just ignore rulings. And this is something that could impact Conservatives if there is a liberal in power in the future who has command, and respect of the military, and they just decide that the a court who has conflicted itself too many times and is illegitimate doesn't need to be followed.
