It's wild to me that President Trump has so many active appellate cases that his best and most qualified appellate advocate, John Sauer (who clerked for Justice Scalia and for Judge Luttig) is too busy with the DC Circuit immunity case to author a cert petition for the Colorado case. Instead, Trump turns to a politico, Harmeet Dhillon, who is wholly unqualified to be filing briefs before the Court. I just finished reading the cert petition and it's kind of terrible.
Quality of lawyering at the Court matters a lot. It's lacking here in a major way.
Excellent synopsis. Hoping for an expedited answer from SCOTUS. Fingers crossed. Poorly drafted question followed by poorly constructed derivative questions for SCOTUS. Their hands will be full if and when they grant cert.
One of the reasons, I would think, the Court would want to avoid the question of whether Trump's actions constituted insurrection, and considering the evidence of the Jan. 6 committee as part of that question is that it becomes exceedingly difficult for Thomas not to recuse.
I would expect that there will be a request for recusal in any event. If the question before the Court pertains to the issues from Colorado Republicans cert request, Thomas can argue against recusal. Ginny Thomas was actively involved and communicating with those assisting Trump in Jan 6. events! She was interviewed by Jan. 6 Committee!
Similar arguments for recusal in the upcoming question/case about Obstruction for Jan 6. participants and also expected Trump immunity case.
I haven't been following this at all but my 1st impression is that any questions would be factual - was the law correctly applied to the facts. In broad terms, I don't think there's any doubt that there was an insurrection IMHO it was more like a riot e.g., someone organized a demonstration and it got out of hand. I don't even know if it was a jury trial or if Donald Trump waived his right to trial by jury. Objectively, I don't see any difference between Donald Trump and any other republican - except excessive attention whoredom and severe hubristic pride. Bottom line, Donald Trump is a product of USA electoral democracy. Those to the left of the SPM hyphen have no real issue with those to the right of the hyphen their only real difference is the result e.g., no it's not supposed to turn out that way. But it did. All of this is like symptomatic medicine,
The interesting thing about this case to me is that, from a conservative judicial philosophy, the Supreme Court should *obviously* affirm. I feel gaslighted whenever someone argues that the president isn't an "officer of the United States" or that "beyond a reasonable doubt" *must* be the legal standard for a civil ballot disqualification issue. The arguments for reversing are borderline frivolous from a Scalia-type philosophy!
From a conservative *political* perspective, however, the Court should embrace "living constitutionalism" and reverse.
Just an FYI. If removing a political rival from the ballot is in the deck of cards, it will be swiftly used by conservatives against democrats. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Doesn’t matter from an originalist perspective. Also, I just believe this is true, so it doesn’t matter what the predictions are. People also predicted violence after Brown v. Board of Education.
Also, this is just based on reality. If Republicans want to try to do it to Democrats, be my guest. Joe Biden didn’t incite an insurrection (and if some Democrat does in the future, I don’t want them to be president!)
Who cares what you think? A republican sec of state and republican court can come to any conclusion they want and there is a precedent for that framework now. Republicans are already calling failure to enforce the southern border as an "invasion." Do you really think it is a stretch that they may call that "invasion" an "insurrection?" Based on my experience in politics, that is exactly what the "far right" will do.
I guess I just have more faith in judges and the rule of law than you do.
If you're right, though, we're already in an irredeemably bad place as a country and might as well do whatever we want.
I do think it's insane and frivolous to call the situation at the border an "invasion" and, obviously, to call it an "insurrection." And guess what? The uber-conservative Fifth Circuit also rejected that argument.
Nothing Colorado or the Supreme Court or you or me do will stop the far right from being insane.
Oh no, watch out, the Republicans might engage in indefensible anti-democratic tactics! We must all stay perfectly quiet, lest we cause this unbelievable, never-before-seen move from the GOP.
I mean, I get that in theory, but not in reality. The Supreme Court would have stayed these rulings — CO and ME — if they hadn’t stayed them themselves, so, these were, I think, prudent actions to prevent what Trump would have called a “win” through stays by the Supreme Court.
Yeah, there's no way they don't let him off the hook and make it a political question (i.e. for the voters to decide). It's just a matter of how they get there.
It's wild to me that President Trump has so many active appellate cases that his best and most qualified appellate advocate, John Sauer (who clerked for Justice Scalia and for Judge Luttig) is too busy with the DC Circuit immunity case to author a cert petition for the Colorado case. Instead, Trump turns to a politico, Harmeet Dhillon, who is wholly unqualified to be filing briefs before the Court. I just finished reading the cert petition and it's kind of terrible.
Quality of lawyering at the Court matters a lot. It's lacking here in a major way.
It should, but the expectation is that the court is political so it probably won't.
Thanks for this helpful info.
Chris G,
Excellent synopsis. Hoping for an expedited answer from SCOTUS. Fingers crossed. Poorly drafted question followed by poorly constructed derivative questions for SCOTUS. Their hands will be full if and when they grant cert.
Thanks. And, agreed, re: Trump’s QP. They could grant both petitions, but just take the first two Colorado GOP questions presented.
One of the reasons, I would think, the Court would want to avoid the question of whether Trump's actions constituted insurrection, and considering the evidence of the Jan. 6 committee as part of that question is that it becomes exceedingly difficult for Thomas not to recuse.
I would expect that there will be a request for recusal in any event. If the question before the Court pertains to the issues from Colorado Republicans cert request, Thomas can argue against recusal. Ginny Thomas was actively involved and communicating with those assisting Trump in Jan 6. events! She was interviewed by Jan. 6 Committee!
Similar arguments for recusal in the upcoming question/case about Obstruction for Jan 6. participants and also expected Trump immunity case.
Yes, this is what happens when ~40% of the country is rebelling; the rot is everywhere.
DJT is daring SCOTUS to uphold the law. Even these Justices must call his bluff and perform their duty. The rule of law is at stake.
At their level, the rule of law has been dead since Citizens United
I certainly hope they treat this the same way they treated Jack Smith request.
I haven't been following this at all but my 1st impression is that any questions would be factual - was the law correctly applied to the facts. In broad terms, I don't think there's any doubt that there was an insurrection IMHO it was more like a riot e.g., someone organized a demonstration and it got out of hand. I don't even know if it was a jury trial or if Donald Trump waived his right to trial by jury. Objectively, I don't see any difference between Donald Trump and any other republican - except excessive attention whoredom and severe hubristic pride. Bottom line, Donald Trump is a product of USA electoral democracy. Those to the left of the SPM hyphen have no real issue with those to the right of the hyphen their only real difference is the result e.g., no it's not supposed to turn out that way. But it did. All of this is like symptomatic medicine,
The interesting thing about this case to me is that, from a conservative judicial philosophy, the Supreme Court should *obviously* affirm. I feel gaslighted whenever someone argues that the president isn't an "officer of the United States" or that "beyond a reasonable doubt" *must* be the legal standard for a civil ballot disqualification issue. The arguments for reversing are borderline frivolous from a Scalia-type philosophy!
From a conservative *political* perspective, however, the Court should embrace "living constitutionalism" and reverse.
Just an FYI. If removing a political rival from the ballot is in the deck of cards, it will be swiftly used by conservatives against democrats. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Doesn’t matter from an originalist perspective. Also, I just believe this is true, so it doesn’t matter what the predictions are. People also predicted violence after Brown v. Board of Education.
Also, this is just based on reality. If Republicans want to try to do it to Democrats, be my guest. Joe Biden didn’t incite an insurrection (and if some Democrat does in the future, I don’t want them to be president!)
Who cares what you think? A republican sec of state and republican court can come to any conclusion they want and there is a precedent for that framework now. Republicans are already calling failure to enforce the southern border as an "invasion." Do you really think it is a stretch that they may call that "invasion" an "insurrection?" Based on my experience in politics, that is exactly what the "far right" will do.
I guess I just have more faith in judges and the rule of law than you do.
If you're right, though, we're already in an irredeemably bad place as a country and might as well do whatever we want.
I do think it's insane and frivolous to call the situation at the border an "invasion" and, obviously, to call it an "insurrection." And guess what? The uber-conservative Fifth Circuit also rejected that argument.
Nothing Colorado or the Supreme Court or you or me do will stop the far right from being insane.
Oh no, watch out, the Republicans might engage in indefensible anti-democratic tactics! We must all stay perfectly quiet, lest we cause this unbelievable, never-before-seen move from the GOP.
SCOCO’s having stayed its own ruling kind of flips the script as far as urgency goes.
I mean, I get that in theory, but not in reality. The Supreme Court would have stayed these rulings — CO and ME — if they hadn’t stayed them themselves, so, these were, I think, prudent actions to prevent what Trump would have called a “win” through stays by the Supreme Court.
I don’t understand why he’s doing this. He’s the nominee. Why is he wasting everybody’s time?
1. He's not the nominee.
2. He lost the argument on the Fourteenth Amendment issue in Colorado and is not on the primary ballot unless he appeals (and wins).
3. He's doubtless also concerned that more states could reach the same conclusion, as Maine's secretary of state did last week.
Delay, delay, delay
Yeah, there's no way they don't let him off the hook and make it a political question (i.e. for the voters to decide). It's just a matter of how they get there.