"This Court should affirm and uphold Colorado’s right to exclude from its presidential ballots ineligible insurrectionists." Also: So many amicus briefs.
Clearly, the most powerful pieces written by the Respondents and supportive AC point toward the correctness of the Colorado SC decision, arguing strongly upon constitution grounds for rightfully barring tRump under §3. But, as is noted, the petitioners are taking the "political" route to argue against removing the insurrectionist, and which, I'm sorry to say, a SCOTUS majority is likely to tee up in overturning the CO ruling. It is what it is, but I'm hopeful of some stinging dissents that would embrace much of the constitutional arguments for tossing tRump off the ballot, not just in Colorado, but in any other states' ballots where the same §3 arguments can be raised.
Which raises the salient question: If the Constitution can't protect us against an insurrectionist running for federal office, who or what can?
One of the briefs noted the confusion the term "self-executing" brings.
After all, Colorado law provides a means to execute it. There was a process. See also, Maine and other states. It is not as if challengers (Republicans and independents, to be clear, here) just went to the Colorado court and asked them to remove him from the ballot.
There was a process in place to challenge illegibility. Another thing that comes up is the power states have over choosing electors. After all Bush v. Gore told us the people don't directly elect presidents. The faithless electors' cases from a few years ago also noted this.
If they cared about exposing their own, self-serving & ideologically driven hypocrisy, they might have a tough time of it. Unfortunately for the country & our Constitution, the MAGA 5 remain as impervious to shame & legitimate accusations of inconsistency as their gilded idol. I hope great leaders & legal minds are developing contingencies for when the highest court throws the rule of law itself under the Trump Treason Express Train. I will not be ruled by these tyrants.
Thank you so much, Chris! Excellent summaries of some of the most compelling arguments for the plaintiffs and the State and the flaws of the appellants’ arguments. The links to the briefs are very helpful!
My only concern here is if the Supreme Court says "Yes, a state can remove Trump from the ballot" that a bunch of red states will try to remove Biden from the ballot in retaliation, esp. if the Republicans keep pushing forward with ridiculous impeachment attempts, and we could end up with a whole bunch of states' voters essentially disenfranchised pending Supreme Court decisions...
Clearly, the most powerful pieces written by the Respondents and supportive AC point toward the correctness of the Colorado SC decision, arguing strongly upon constitution grounds for rightfully barring tRump under §3. But, as is noted, the petitioners are taking the "political" route to argue against removing the insurrectionist, and which, I'm sorry to say, a SCOTUS majority is likely to tee up in overturning the CO ruling. It is what it is, but I'm hopeful of some stinging dissents that would embrace much of the constitutional arguments for tossing tRump off the ballot, not just in Colorado, but in any other states' ballots where the same §3 arguments can be raised.
Which raises the salient question: If the Constitution can't protect us against an insurrectionist running for federal office, who or what can?
One of the briefs noted the confusion the term "self-executing" brings.
After all, Colorado law provides a means to execute it. There was a process. See also, Maine and other states. It is not as if challengers (Republicans and independents, to be clear, here) just went to the Colorado court and asked them to remove him from the ballot.
There was a process in place to challenge illegibility. Another thing that comes up is the power states have over choosing electors. After all Bush v. Gore told us the people don't directly elect presidents. The faithless electors' cases from a few years ago also noted this.
It’s going to be fascinating to see how the textualists maneuver out of this jam.
If they cared about exposing their own, self-serving & ideologically driven hypocrisy, they might have a tough time of it. Unfortunately for the country & our Constitution, the MAGA 5 remain as impervious to shame & legitimate accusations of inconsistency as their gilded idol. I hope great leaders & legal minds are developing contingencies for when the highest court throws the rule of law itself under the Trump Treason Express Train. I will not be ruled by these tyrants.
Thank you, Chris. Powerful arguments for Colorado.
Glad you mentioned the Amars’ brief, which seems to not be getting its due.
Your summaries of briefs (on all cases) continue to make this non-lawyer smarter.
Thank you.
Terrific report !
Thank you so much, Chris! Excellent summaries of some of the most compelling arguments for the plaintiffs and the State and the flaws of the appellants’ arguments. The links to the briefs are very helpful!
8 Feb 24
Today is HUGE !
Listen-in @ SCOTUS and C-SPAN and CNN and more…LIVESTREAM audio:
Trump’s Disqualification at SCOTUS — Live AUDIO — NO TV cams allowed .
https://www.supreme.court.gov/oral_argument/live.aspx
Yoo and Eastman continue to exemplify the banality of evil.
My only concern here is if the Supreme Court says "Yes, a state can remove Trump from the ballot" that a bunch of red states will try to remove Biden from the ballot in retaliation, esp. if the Republicans keep pushing forward with ridiculous impeachment attempts, and we could end up with a whole bunch of states' voters essentially disenfranchised pending Supreme Court decisions...
I'm expecting this to be a 9-0 judgement in favor of Trump staying on the ballot, at most I could see Justice Jackson dissenting.