I can't speak for Colorado, but in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Constitution is not under the purvue of the Federal Supreme Court, unless there is a direct conflict. Because there are different...
I can't speak for Colorado, but in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Constitution is not under the purvue of the Federal Supreme Court, unless there is a direct conflict. Because there are different rights enshrined in the PA one that do not apply federally.
Colorado is fully within its rights to determine rules for who gets on ballots.
But in this case, the specific provision at issue is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That makes it a justiciable matter by SCOTUS.
But in this case, the specific provision at issue is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That makes it a justiciable matter by SCOTUS.
Is that really true in this case though? This isn't really about state law; this is about the US Constitution. Colorado is free to set their own state laws regarding qualifying for a ballot, but...
Is that really true in this case though? This isn't really about state law; this is about the US Constitution. Colorado is free to set their own state laws regarding qualifying for a ballot, but this ruling was based on provisions of the US Constitution. The US Constitution states that insurrectionists cannot serve in any office, not Colorado law or the Colorado constitution. This question directly relates to interpretation of the federal constitution, thus it makes sense that SCOTUS should review it.
Isn't the only matter being interpreted whether or not Donald Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion"? So it's not a matter of interpreting the Amendment?
Isn't the only matter being interpreted whether or not Donald Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion"? So it's not a matter of interpreting the Amendment?
There was also some nonsense about whether the president is ‘an officer’ of the US, and whether their oath means they have to ‘support’ the constitution (it instead uses ‘ preserve, protect and...
There was also some nonsense about whether the president is ‘an officer’ of the US, and whether their oath means they have to ‘support’ the constitution (it instead uses ‘ preserve, protect and defend’). Plenty of room for this garbage court to opportunistically textualism their way out of this if they want (which they probably will)
Wow. They really seem to be skirting with a can of worms that puts the President above the law. If all of these cases succeeded then the President would seem to be able to commit any number of...
Wow. They really seem to be skirting with a can of worms that puts the President above the law. If all of these cases succeeded then the President would seem to be able to commit any number of felonies without retribution other than impeachment.
Even, for instance, shoot a man in Times Square. The thing that oligarchs and fascists don't seem to get is that installing a king won't protect their ability to make unlimited money, because a...
Even, for instance, shoot a man in Times Square.
The thing that oligarchs and fascists don't seem to get is that installing a king won't protect their ability to make unlimited money, because a king will just take whatever he wants, no matter how much lip service he pays to property rights. At least until the knives are sunk in his back, but by then it's too late.
I've been thinking about Julius Caesar, and how the whole "dictator for life" thing went down. Caesar, like Trump, was a populist demagogue, but he came by his popularity by spreading the spoils of war and genocide among his armies. Trump did it by leveraging mass media and the Internet to stoke fear, uncertainty and doubt. I honestly don't know which is more effective, but I'm pretty sure there won't be a gaggle of senators willing to risk a death sentence to kack him.
The Roman Republic was built on loot (important for motivating soldiers), so that wasn't new to Caesar. War was profitable then, and agricultural wealth was based on the amount of land controlled....
The Roman Republic was built on loot (important for motivating soldiers), so that wasn't new to Caesar. War was profitable then, and agricultural wealth was based on the amount of land controlled.
It's interesting history, but there's little in common with modern government, sources of wealth, or ways of war.
Oh, I wasn't really trying to draw a direct parallel. I know enough of my history to know it never really repeats itself in all particulars. There are interesting similarities, however. That's...
Oh, I wasn't really trying to draw a direct parallel. I know enough of my history to know it never really repeats itself in all particulars.
There are interesting similarities, however. That's true for any halfway democratic nation that falls to fascism, but in particular I think the Romans and Americans share a hubristic and largely unexamined sense of their own exceptionalism. We both spent centuries priding ourselves on having thrown off the yoke of kings, only to let our institutions foster oligarchy, then autocracy. We both built our empires on slavery and genocide, to differing degrees.
The founding and constitutional generations of the US were consciously aping the Roman Republic, after all. Many of them fought to safeguard the US from some of the things that led to Rome's descent into tyranny as well. We're seeing now how well those safeguards have held.
That's a shame, because you really should - Caesar was really corrupt. Astonishingly corrupt, and he kept on delaying the consequences of his corruption for years and decades (IIRC, he couldn't be...
Oh, I wasn't really trying to draw a direct parallel.
That's a shame, because you really should - Caesar was really corrupt. Astonishingly corrupt, and he kept on delaying the consequences of his corruption for years and decades (IIRC, he couldn't be prosecuted for his crimes during his term as consul and he kept refreshing his term), and this led to his crossing the rubicon once he'd had no other method of avoiding those consequences.
Based on my understanding, the ruling is stayed until Jan 4. The printing deadline for CO ballots is Jan 5. If the federal Supreme Court opts to do nothing, it sounds like the ruling goes into...
Based on my understanding, the ruling is stayed until Jan 4. The printing deadline for CO ballots is Jan 5. If the federal Supreme Court opts to do nothing, it sounds like the ruling goes into effect again, and Trump cannot appear on the CO primary ballot.
I say this just to make the point that if nothing happens from the SC, the ruling goes forward. So on paper, I guess the SC /could/ simply ignore this.
Anyone heard if the SC says they intend to lean in before the printing deadline?
The current ruling is on hold, not in effect, until the US Supreme Court rules on the matter. If they're still deliberating on the 5th, this means there is no ruling currently in effect and...
The current ruling is on hold, not in effect, until the US Supreme Court rules on the matter. If they're still deliberating on the 5th, this means there is no ruling currently in effect and therefore he will probably get on the ballot. Source
My prediction: Supreme Court does not decide before the deadline, he gets on the ballot, and they decide the case is mooted.
Specifically the ruling is on hold until Jan 4 if the Trump campaign has not appealed by then. If they appeal, he'll be on the ballot. If they appeal and SCOTUS rules in his favor, he'll be on the...
Specifically the ruling is on hold until Jan 4 if the Trump campaign has not appealed by then.
If they appeal, he'll be on the ballot.
If they appeal and SCOTUS rules in his favor, he'll be on the ballot.
If they don't appeal, he won't be on the ballot.
If they appeal and SCOTUS rules in Colorado's favor (fat chance), he won't be on the ballot.
Technically correct, but held within the first option if they appeal and SCOTUS elects to not take the case after Jan 4 or in the last option if they appeal and SCOTUS elects to not take the case...
Technically correct, but held within the first option if they appeal and SCOTUS elects to not take the case after Jan 4 or in the last option if they appeal and SCOTUS elects to not take the case before Jan 4.
Idk all the specifics but I do know that many states have deadlines for printing their ballots (hence the Jan 5th deadline in the first place) and that it is exceedingly difficult if not...
Idk all the specifics but I do know that many states have deadlines for printing their ballots (hence the Jan 5th deadline in the first place) and that it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible to alter the ballots after that. There have been instances where dead people are on ballots since they die after the deadline.
It would be incredibly unclear what would happen if the Supreme Court rules after the 5th that he cannot be on the ballot. No idea what happens then.
There's about 0 way ANY SC, let alone the current one, would let this fly. This is an extremely serious thing to do (just legally remove someone from a ballot), and isn't going to be allowed...
There's about 0 way ANY SC, let alone the current one, would let this fly. This is an extremely serious thing to do (just legally remove someone from a ballot), and isn't going to be allowed without a hell of a lot of concrete basis, and unless Trump is convicted in a court of law, FOR insurrection, it's not going to be enough.
I'm sorta summarizing because I'm also not a lawyer but have read quite a bit about this. There are certainly ways this could apply to trump, but none of those things have occurred yet, and I'm...
I'm sorta summarizing because I'm also not a lawyer but have read quite a bit about this. There are certainly ways this could apply to trump, but none of those things have occurred yet, and I'm not sure if they will, or if the charges currently against him even qualify.
I hate Trump more than anything. Not sure we should do this. It'll just be a tool to use against Dems and progressives. Future headline from Fox: Alabama removes Biden from ballot - claims Biden...
I hate Trump more than anything.
Not sure we should do this. It'll just be a tool to use against Dems and progressives.
Future headline from Fox: Alabama removes Biden from ballot - claims Biden immigration policy "worst insurrection in American history."
this exact same argument crops up every single time. Trump shouldn't be impeached, because then impeachment will be used as merely a political tool and Republicans will impeach Democratic...
Exemplary
this exact same argument crops up every single time.
Trump shouldn't be impeached, because then impeachment will be used as merely a political tool and Republicans will impeach Democratic presidents over trivial bullshit.
(the implicit argument being that if Democrats take some sort of high road and refrain from impeaching Trump, then Republicans will also take a high road and refrain from impeaching Democratic presidents over trivial bullshit...I would encourage anyone who believes this to read about US politics in the late 1990s)
we shouldn't have Biden pack the Supreme Court, because then Republican presidents will also pack the Supreme Court when they're in charge.
(again, the implicit argument being that if Democrats unilaterally disarm and hold themselves to some imaginary standard, that Republicans will be inspired to hold themselves to a similar standard and not pack the Supreme Court unfairly...this again ignores actual recent history)
and there are just countless examples of this. Democrats want universal healthcare, Republicans oppose it. if the Democrats try to shove through what they want, the Republicans might put up a brick wall of obstructionism. OK, so instead the Democrats should offer a compromise by basing their healthcare plan on a state-level one that was implemented by a Republican governor. surely that would forestall Republican obstructionism, right?
Future headline from Fox: Alabama removes Biden from ballot
there is no need to invent fictional "what if Democrats do X, and then Republicans do Y in response?" scenarios. variations on the "what if Republicans do Y?" scenarios are already happening. it's pretty clear that Republican behavior is not dependent on whether Democrats take some imaginary "high road" or not.
This is not the argument being made by anyone serious about this. There's 0 way the republicans will take the high road, but eroding various checks and balances (like packing the supreme court)...
(the implicit argument being that if Democrats take some sort of high road and refrain from impeaching Trump, then Republicans will also take a high road and refrain from impeaching Democratic presidents over trivial bullshit...I would encourage anyone who believes this to read about US politics in the late 1990s)
This is not the argument being made by anyone serious about this. There's 0 way the republicans will take the high road, but eroding various checks and balances (like packing the supreme court) opens up SO many opportunities for bad actors.
It's not just about right now, it's about 20 years from now.
Clearly that particular check hasn't worked seeing as the Supreme Court is today functionally a second, Republican-controlled legislative branch and a vastly more effective one at achieving...
but eroding various checks and balances (like packing the supreme court) opens up SO many opportunities for bad actors
Clearly that particular check hasn't worked seeing as the Supreme Court is today functionally a second, Republican-controlled legislative branch and a vastly more effective one at achieving right-wing policy aims than Congress is! It's already filled with bad actors and being openly used by bad actors!
It's not just about right now, it's about 20 years from now.
It actually is about right now! Harmful policies that are eroding democracy in the US and hurting people are being put in place and enforced right now! And they have no plans of stopping - why would they? Twenty years from now is not going to be any better if stringent and effective action is not taken to stop the Republican Party. Seriously, what is the alternative?
You are vastly underestimating how much worse the court could be, and it's frankly not as bad as people like to make it out. Them passing laws more effectively than congress is (left or right...
Clearly that particular check hasn't worked seeing as the Supreme Court is today functionally a second, Republican-controlled legislative branch and a vastly more effective one at achieving right-wing policy aims than Congress is! It's already filled with bad actors and being openly used by bad actors!
You are vastly underestimating how much worse the court could be, and it's frankly not as bad as people like to make it out.
Them passing laws more effectively than congress is (left or right wing) an issue with congress, not exactly the court or its ability to check various powers.
Them achieving right wing policy aims, which concerning, has been mostly under situations that were already on shaky ground (roe has always been famous as being decided on really vulnerable logic and for DECADES it was recommended it get passed into Law from congress if they wanted it to stick around).
The corruption stuff like with scalia or now thomas is absolutely a problem, but arguably something that the whole checks and balances of powers is SUPPOSED to handle, and falls within parameters.
On the other hand, they have NOT, for example, just said that Trump is innocent of all things, or backed many of his plays, especially in regards to Jan 6th. Something Trump 100% would've done (and probably will do if he wins again) had he been able to pack the court with cult members rather than being forced to just pick extremely right wing judges who still said "got mine" when trump came to them hoping for the courts backing.
It's not just about right now, it's about 20 years from now.
It actually is about right now!
Yeah..that's why i said "not just". It is the actions taken 20 years ago that have allowed for things to get to this point.
I think the part of the left that wants to abandon these institutional barriers doesn't see any value in them when Trump or someone else could also just tear them down at any time. The problem...
I think the part of the left that wants to abandon these institutional barriers doesn't see any value in them when Trump or someone else could also just tear them down at any time.
The problem they don't seem to realize is that weaponizing them first doesn't actually prevent the other side from using them against you in the future unless you're planning on your own form of undemocratic takeover. It's an objectively worse state to be in, because it all but guarantees they will be used against you in a future where people need to pay even less lip service to democracy.
To be fair it's not just a "left" thing, as more classical right members have the same short sighted blinders on, let alone the lunatics supporting trump who just see it as "anything I disagree...
To be fair it's not just a "left" thing, as more classical right members have the same short sighted blinders on, let alone the lunatics supporting trump who just see it as "anything I disagree with should go".
How about a democratic takeover, then? The only reason the Rs have a chance of winning presidential elections is their illegal gerrymandering and voter suppression. If the dems had the power to...
doesn't actually prevent the other side from using them against you in the future unless you're planning on your own form of undemocratic takeover.
How about a democratic takeover, then? The only reason the Rs have a chance of winning presidential elections is their illegal gerrymandering and voter suppression. If the dems had the power to actually quash that, the Rs would consistently lose in a landslide.
That's why we have a court process. You don't want partisan officials just ruling by fiat that someone is an insurrectionist and thus ineligible for the ballot. But it is something that should be...
That's why we have a court process. You don't want partisan officials just ruling by fiat that someone is an insurrectionist and thus ineligible for the ballot. But it is something that should be decidable in court. There should be an orderly process for someone's candidacy to be challenged in court. A hearing is held, and the accused person can make their case with full due process. If they think the court ruled in error, then they can appeal the ruling, potentially all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This is the process we used for our most serious of crimes and conviction. If regular trials, court hearings, and an appeals process are good enough for a felony murder trial, then they're good enough for deciding whether someone is eligible to serve as president.
The important question you need to answer is, if this isn't the process to enforce the 14th amendment, what is? This is literally the US constitution we're talking about. The Constitution says that insurrectionists cannot serve in any federal office. We need to have some way of enforcing this. What could be a more fair and impartial way of enforcing this than a court hearing with all the due process that we give to any other legal process?
I agree that we need to worry about this being wielded in a biased and bad-faith manner. And that is why we don't want random state secretaries of state just declaring people insurrectionists. That's why we need an orderly process for courts to rule whether individuals are barred or not. And that is exactly what the Colorado Supreme Court has done in this case.
While I'm sure they'll make these claims, the lawsuit was brought by Republicans. They also don't want Trump to compete with their preferred candidates.
While I'm sure they'll make these claims, the lawsuit was brought by Republicans. They also don't want Trump to compete with their preferred candidates.
I'm not sure a jury trial would be the best from an accuracy standpoint. It is probably much better for the appearance of impartial justice, but I could not trust a jury to accurately understand...
I'm not sure a jury trial would be the best from an accuracy standpoint. It is probably much better for the appearance of impartial justice, but I could not trust a jury to accurately understand what nuances may exist between "that's an insurrection" and "incitement of a riot." I could see it going inaccurate either way: either they collectively say "fuck that guy" and label it an insurrection or they ask "was it really that bad?" and end up settling on inciteful, but not an insurrection.
I'm really disappointed to see so much hand-wringing over this ruling in this thread. If we're so concerned with with the possibility that Republicans might use a reasonable and quite frankly...
I'm really disappointed to see so much hand-wringing over this ruling in this thread.
If we're so concerned with with the possibility that Republicans might use a reasonable and quite frankly overly cautious application of very straight forward laws as an excuse to politicize the judicial process then why aren't we concerned about Democrats doing the same thing? The answer is because we're all acutely aware of the fact that the Republican party is a bad faith actor intent on bending and breaking the law to cement their power permanently. Which makes it insane that we're giving the time of day to consider how we might avoid giving them the ability to act in bad faith, as if it's not something they'll do regardless of how far backwards we bend to accommodate their transgressions. It honestly makes me think that most of the people putting forward these arguments are themselves bad faith actors trying to muddy the waters.
Let's just take a moment to consider if Biden doesn't want to leave office. He has the capitol police and national guard tied up elsewhere and hires a domestic mercenary group to attack congress. The last 3 years show that the only negative outcome for him would be, assuming that the attack failed, that he's not allowed to have his name on the ballot in Colorado, which would presumably require 3 years of legal battles to get to that point.
I'm going to again remind everyone that we don't need to imagine this for the case of Trump since he not only incited an insurrection on live television, he has promised that he will be an authoritarian and has sworn to take revenge on his political enemies if he regains power.
Plenty of dictators throughout history have relied on courts (which they first purge, and then stack with loyalists) to provide themselves with a veneer of legitimacy. Which is bad for the people...
Plenty of dictators throughout history have relied on courts (which they first purge, and then stack with loyalists) to provide themselves with a veneer of legitimacy. Which is bad for the people that would get purged, but potentially not so bad if you're a sycophant.
Just look at Russia. The courts there are working overtime, given all the new terrorism and anti Russia laws they've passed to criminalise criticism of the war.
Just look at Russia. The courts there are working overtime, given all the new terrorism and anti Russia laws they've passed to criminalise criticism of the war.
I genuinely wonder: If Trump gets elected again, how many days will it be before he begins publicly musing on changing the 22nd amendment (super fast search tells me that's where they're set,...
I genuinely wonder: If Trump gets elected again, how many days will it be before he begins publicly musing on changing the 22nd amendment (super fast search tells me that's where they're set, please correct me if I'm wrong) to allow Russian-style "term limits".
The bar for amending the constitution is very high. You need a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and then the amendment has to be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures....
The bar for amending the constitution is very high. You need a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and then the amendment has to be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. And I believe a new amendment is the only way to alter a previous amendment; that's how it was done for Prohibition (the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st).
Frankly, I wouldn’t count on legal process to stop them if they decided to try this. The Capitol riots were illegal too, and that didn’t stop anything.
Frankly, I wouldn’t count on legal process to stop them if they decided to try this. The Capitol riots were illegal too, and that didn’t stop anything.
But they were only put in prison because it failed. The illegality of their action didn't stop them, it just meant that there was punishment after the fact. That sort of situation just means it's...
But they were only put in prison because it failed. The illegality of their action didn't stop them, it just meant that there was punishment after the fact. That sort of situation just means it's more important that the bad actors be truly ready to win before they try again.
That's how law enforcement usually works. Laws don't prevent people from breaking them. Though, from a physical point of view, they wouldn't have gotten as far if the Capitol Police were better...
That's how law enforcement usually works. Laws don't prevent people from breaking them.
Though, from a physical point of view, they wouldn't have gotten as far if the Capitol Police were better prepared, and it was a good thing they were able to protect members of Congress.
From a legal point of view, it seems like it was doomed from the start? It's unclear how they could possibly have changed election results by holding members of Congress hostage or worse.
The barriers to passing a Constitutional Amendment are rather different, anyway. I suppose they could claim anything they want or just ignore the Constitution entirely.
Can anyone post some unbiased links or something that detail what his role actually was in the insurrection? I'll be honest that I haven't followed the situation too closely (going through...
Can anyone post some unbiased links or something that detail what his role actually was in the insurrection?
I'll be honest that I haven't followed the situation too closely (going through residency > staying 100% current with politics) but what I had seen since then honestly didn't seem like he was literally saying "Storm the capitol."
I've seen other statements that just made him look stupid and like he was out of his element but would appreciate if others could share some of that info demonstrating clear guilt. Trump is not a smart person and super obnoxious, which has always made every story against him just as bad because people get lost in their feelings without necessarily holding onto the facts
There is a lot of content. More than I can easily remember or summarize off the top of my head. I've been following articles and reached some conclusions but I can't be convincing right now. The...
There is a lot of content. More than I can easily remember or summarize off the top of my head. I've been following articles and reached some conclusions but I can't be convincing right now.
The testimony in the upcoming Georgia trial and the DC January 6 trial will make a lot of information public. At the moment, the details I can easily point to are in the tapes of the January 6 hearings, but Republicans will say that those were organized by Democrats.
In Georgia, several of Trump's associates have pleaded guilty and agreed to testify.
Ultra conservative judges to find Biden committed insurrection in 3...2...1... (Seriously. If the Supreme Court allows any judge to remove a presidential candidate over a finding of fact that the...
Ultra conservative judges to find Biden committed insurrection in 3...2...1...
(Seriously. If the Supreme Court allows any judge to remove a presidential candidate over a finding of fact that the candidate committed insurrection, it does not bode well for democracy in the USA. )
Sure, but that was a very different situation and context and I'm not sure it makes sense to simply transplant that process into today's context. I personally think Trump committed insurrection...
Sure, but that was a very different situation and context and I'm not sure it makes sense to simply transplant that process into today's context. I personally think Trump committed insurrection and that he should be disqualified, but I am not sure I agree with that action being taken without due process with regards to that claim. I am genuinely unsure. What is the standard then for removing someone from the ballot? Does it have to be a finding of fact in a court hearing that they committed insurrection? What if a congressional committee concludes they committed insurrection? What if a state court or state legislature determines the same? To me, being convicted after a trial is the best and least likely to be abused standard we will get.
I agree, I thought that is more or less what I was saying. I don't think the impeachment should be taken as him getting his due process because it is so different than a trial by jury. My point...
I agree, I thought that is more or less what I was saying. I don't think the impeachment should be taken as him getting his due process because it is so different than a trial by jury. My point was just that him being impeached does not mean he got his due process, and if we did want to take it that way, then we would have to conclude he got his due process and was acquitted.
The conservative judges are pushing a (highly selective) "originalist" interpretation of the constitution. They basically ask - how would someone interpret the constitution back when it was...
Sure, but that was a very different situation and context and I'm not sure it makes sense to simply transplant that process into today's context.
The conservative judges are pushing a (highly selective) "originalist" interpretation of the constitution.
They basically ask - how would someone interpret the constitution back when it was written.
I agree with all your points, except for the first.
Yeah, I disagree with the conservative judges on a lot, including this. I don’t think originalism makes a lot of sense and I don’t see why we should apply it here.
Yeah, I disagree with the conservative judges on a lot, including this. I don’t think originalism makes a lot of sense and I don’t see why we should apply it here.
The law doesn't need to make sense. It is the law. Similarly, the Supreme Court doesn't need to follow good precedent/ jurisprudence, they are the precedence/ jurisprudence.
The law doesn't need to make sense. It is the law.
Similarly, the Supreme Court doesn't need to follow good precedent/ jurisprudence, they are the precedence/ jurisprudence.
Once that's the rationale, then the law is essentially collapsed back to rule of force. These cloistered bigots are really not prepared for their enemies to view them as truly delegitimized, but...
Once that's the rationale, then the law is essentially collapsed back to rule of force. These cloistered bigots are really not prepared for their enemies to view them as truly delegitimized, but apparently they can't wait for that.
Which, if that's the burden, would be good to clarify. Let's say SCOTUS says exactly that. Coming around the corner we have special counsel Jack Smith. Let's say he is then convicted of...
Which, if that's the burden, would be good to clarify.
Let's say SCOTUS says exactly that. Coming around the corner we have special counsel Jack Smith. Let's say he is then convicted of insurrection. Since it's already been clarified, boom, Trump is not allowed.
Wow. The Supreme Court will absolutely need to take it up now. They've been avoiding it all this time, but I don't see how they can continue to do so.
I can't speak for Colorado, but in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Constitution is not under the purvue of the Federal Supreme Court, unless there is a direct conflict. Because there are different rights enshrined in the PA one that do not apply federally.
Colorado is fully within its rights to determine rules for who gets on ballots.
But in this case, the specific provision at issue is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That makes it a justiciable matter by SCOTUS.
If the Supreme Court decides that it's under their purview, historically, there's not much a state can do about that, right?
IANAL, but given that its well-established that states set their own rules for voting, this would be a stretch that makes Dobbs seem like no big deal.
Is that really true in this case though? This isn't really about state law; this is about the US Constitution. Colorado is free to set their own state laws regarding qualifying for a ballot, but this ruling was based on provisions of the US Constitution. The US Constitution states that insurrectionists cannot serve in any office, not Colorado law or the Colorado constitution. This question directly relates to interpretation of the federal constitution, thus it makes sense that SCOTUS should review it.
Isn't the only matter being interpreted whether or not Donald Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion"? So it's not a matter of interpreting the Amendment?
There was also some nonsense about whether the president is ‘an officer’ of the US, and whether their oath means they have to ‘support’ the constitution (it instead uses ‘ preserve, protect and defend’). Plenty of room for this garbage court to opportunistically textualism their way out of this if they want (which they probably will)
Wow. They really seem to be skirting with a can of worms that puts the President above the law. If all of these cases succeeded then the President would seem to be able to commit any number of felonies without retribution other than impeachment.
Even, for instance, shoot a man in Times Square.
The thing that oligarchs and fascists don't seem to get is that installing a king won't protect their ability to make unlimited money, because a king will just take whatever he wants, no matter how much lip service he pays to property rights. At least until the knives are sunk in his back, but by then it's too late.
I've been thinking about Julius Caesar, and how the whole "dictator for life" thing went down. Caesar, like Trump, was a populist demagogue, but he came by his popularity by spreading the spoils of war and genocide among his armies. Trump did it by leveraging mass media and the Internet to stoke fear, uncertainty and doubt. I honestly don't know which is more effective, but I'm pretty sure there won't be a gaggle of senators willing to risk a death sentence to kack him.
The Roman Republic was built on loot (important for motivating soldiers), so that wasn't new to Caesar. War was profitable then, and agricultural wealth was based on the amount of land controlled.
It's interesting history, but there's little in common with modern government, sources of wealth, or ways of war.
Oh, I wasn't really trying to draw a direct parallel. I know enough of my history to know it never really repeats itself in all particulars.
There are interesting similarities, however. That's true for any halfway democratic nation that falls to fascism, but in particular I think the Romans and Americans share a hubristic and largely unexamined sense of their own exceptionalism. We both spent centuries priding ourselves on having thrown off the yoke of kings, only to let our institutions foster oligarchy, then autocracy. We both built our empires on slavery and genocide, to differing degrees.
The founding and constitutional generations of the US were consciously aping the Roman Republic, after all. Many of them fought to safeguard the US from some of the things that led to Rome's descent into tyranny as well. We're seeing now how well those safeguards have held.
That's a shame, because you really should - Caesar was really corrupt. Astonishingly corrupt, and he kept on delaying the consequences of his corruption for years and decades (IIRC, he couldn't be prosecuted for his crimes during his term as consul and he kept refreshing his term), and this led to his crossing the rubicon once he'd had no other method of avoiding those consequences.
I should rephrase: I wasn't trying to draw direct parallels between Rome and the US. I did bring up Caesar for a reason.
Your'e right, my tired brain pieced this together weird.
Based on my understanding, the ruling is stayed until Jan 4. The printing deadline for CO ballots is Jan 5. If the federal Supreme Court opts to do nothing, it sounds like the ruling goes into effect again, and Trump cannot appear on the CO primary ballot.
I say this just to make the point that if nothing happens from the SC, the ruling goes forward. So on paper, I guess the SC /could/ simply ignore this.
Anyone heard if the SC says they intend to lean in before the printing deadline?
The current ruling is on hold, not in effect, until the US Supreme Court rules on the matter. If they're still deliberating on the 5th, this means there is no ruling currently in effect and therefore he will probably get on the ballot. Source
My prediction: Supreme Court does not decide before the deadline, he gets on the ballot, and they decide the case is mooted.
Specifically the ruling is on hold until Jan 4 if the Trump campaign has not appealed by then.
If they appeal, he'll be on the ballot.
If they appeal and SCOTUS rules in his favor, he'll be on the ballot.
If they don't appeal, he won't be on the ballot.
If they appeal and SCOTUS rules in Colorado's favor (fat chance), he won't be on the ballot.
It seems like there's another possibility: what if they appeal and the US Supreme Court decides not to take the case?
If the Supreme Court doesn't overturn it, the Colorado ruling stands within the state.
Technically correct, but held within the first option if they appeal and SCOTUS elects to not take the case after Jan 4 or in the last option if they appeal and SCOTUS elects to not take the case before Jan 4.
It's not like there's nothing they can do if his name is printed on the ballots.
Idk all the specifics but I do know that many states have deadlines for printing their ballots (hence the Jan 5th deadline in the first place) and that it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible to alter the ballots after that. There have been instances where dead people are on ballots since they die after the deadline.
It would be incredibly unclear what would happen if the Supreme Court rules after the 5th that he cannot be on the ballot. No idea what happens then.
Worst case scenario they can just say that votes for him do not count. There are many options.
We won't hear before tomorrow. It's after hours
There's about 0 way ANY SC, let alone the current one, would let this fly. This is an extremely serious thing to do (just legally remove someone from a ballot), and isn't going to be allowed without a hell of a lot of concrete basis, and unless Trump is convicted in a court of law, FOR insurrection, it's not going to be enough.
But can he actually be 'convicted of insurrection'? It's my understanding that the legal crime is not called 'insurrection'
I'm sorta summarizing because I'm also not a lawyer but have read quite a bit about this. There are certainly ways this could apply to trump, but none of those things have occurred yet, and I'm not sure if they will, or if the charges currently against him even qualify.
I hate Trump more than anything.
Not sure we should do this. It'll just be a tool to use against Dems and progressives.
Future headline from Fox: Alabama removes Biden from ballot - claims Biden immigration policy "worst insurrection in American history."
this exact same argument crops up every single time.
Trump shouldn't be impeached, because then impeachment will be used as merely a political tool and Republicans will impeach Democratic presidents over trivial bullshit.
(the implicit argument being that if Democrats take some sort of high road and refrain from impeaching Trump, then Republicans will also take a high road and refrain from impeaching Democratic presidents over trivial bullshit...I would encourage anyone who believes this to read about US politics in the late 1990s)
we shouldn't have Biden pack the Supreme Court, because then Republican presidents will also pack the Supreme Court when they're in charge.
(again, the implicit argument being that if Democrats unilaterally disarm and hold themselves to some imaginary standard, that Republicans will be inspired to hold themselves to a similar standard and not pack the Supreme Court unfairly...this again ignores actual recent history)
and there are just countless examples of this. Democrats want universal healthcare, Republicans oppose it. if the Democrats try to shove through what they want, the Republicans might put up a brick wall of obstructionism. OK, so instead the Democrats should offer a compromise by basing their healthcare plan on a state-level one that was implemented by a Republican governor. surely that would forestall Republican obstructionism, right?
they have no need to do this, though. the last Democrat to win Alabama was Jimmy Carter.
and Republicans are already doing actual voter suppression. they're smart enough to do it in more insidious ways that don't generate the type of headlines you're imagining. from earlier this year, for example: Alabama Defies the Voting Rights Act: State lawmakers refuse to comply with a Supreme Court gerrymandering decision.
there is no need to invent fictional "what if Democrats do X, and then Republicans do Y in response?" scenarios. variations on the "what if Republicans do Y?" scenarios are already happening. it's pretty clear that Republican behavior is not dependent on whether Democrats take some imaginary "high road" or not.
This is not the argument being made by anyone serious about this. There's 0 way the republicans will take the high road, but eroding various checks and balances (like packing the supreme court) opens up SO many opportunities for bad actors.
It's not just about right now, it's about 20 years from now.
Clearly that particular check hasn't worked seeing as the Supreme Court is today functionally a second, Republican-controlled legislative branch and a vastly more effective one at achieving right-wing policy aims than Congress is! It's already filled with bad actors and being openly used by bad actors!
It actually is about right now! Harmful policies that are eroding democracy in the US and hurting people are being put in place and enforced right now! And they have no plans of stopping - why would they? Twenty years from now is not going to be any better if stringent and effective action is not taken to stop the Republican Party. Seriously, what is the alternative?
You are vastly underestimating how much worse the court could be, and it's frankly not as bad as people like to make it out.
Them passing laws more effectively than congress is (left or right wing) an issue with congress, not exactly the court or its ability to check various powers.
Them achieving right wing policy aims, which concerning, has been mostly under situations that were already on shaky ground (roe has always been famous as being decided on really vulnerable logic and for DECADES it was recommended it get passed into Law from congress if they wanted it to stick around).
The corruption stuff like with scalia or now thomas is absolutely a problem, but arguably something that the whole checks and balances of powers is SUPPOSED to handle, and falls within parameters.
On the other hand, they have NOT, for example, just said that Trump is innocent of all things, or backed many of his plays, especially in regards to Jan 6th. Something Trump 100% would've done (and probably will do if he wins again) had he been able to pack the court with cult members rather than being forced to just pick extremely right wing judges who still said "got mine" when trump came to them hoping for the courts backing.
Yeah..that's why i said "not just". It is the actions taken 20 years ago that have allowed for things to get to this point.
I think the part of the left that wants to abandon these institutional barriers doesn't see any value in them when Trump or someone else could also just tear them down at any time.
The problem they don't seem to realize is that weaponizing them first doesn't actually prevent the other side from using them against you in the future unless you're planning on your own form of undemocratic takeover. It's an objectively worse state to be in, because it all but guarantees they will be used against you in a future where people need to pay even less lip service to democracy.
To be fair it's not just a "left" thing, as more classical right members have the same short sighted blinders on, let alone the lunatics supporting trump who just see it as "anything I disagree with should go".
How about a democratic takeover, then? The only reason the Rs have a chance of winning presidential elections is their illegal gerrymandering and voter suppression. If the dems had the power to actually quash that, the Rs would consistently lose in a landslide.
They would do that regardless. When fascists have no ammo, they make it up. At least this way some good got done.
That's why we have a court process. You don't want partisan officials just ruling by fiat that someone is an insurrectionist and thus ineligible for the ballot. But it is something that should be decidable in court. There should be an orderly process for someone's candidacy to be challenged in court. A hearing is held, and the accused person can make their case with full due process. If they think the court ruled in error, then they can appeal the ruling, potentially all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This is the process we used for our most serious of crimes and conviction. If regular trials, court hearings, and an appeals process are good enough for a felony murder trial, then they're good enough for deciding whether someone is eligible to serve as president.
The important question you need to answer is, if this isn't the process to enforce the 14th amendment, what is? This is literally the US constitution we're talking about. The Constitution says that insurrectionists cannot serve in any federal office. We need to have some way of enforcing this. What could be a more fair and impartial way of enforcing this than a court hearing with all the due process that we give to any other legal process?
I agree that we need to worry about this being wielded in a biased and bad-faith manner. And that is why we don't want random state secretaries of state just declaring people insurrectionists. That's why we need an orderly process for courts to rule whether individuals are barred or not. And that is exactly what the Colorado Supreme Court has done in this case.
While I'm sure they'll make these claims, the lawsuit was brought by Republicans. They also don't want Trump to compete with their preferred candidates.
I'm not sure a jury trial would be the best from an accuracy standpoint. It is probably much better for the appearance of impartial justice, but I could not trust a jury to accurately understand what nuances may exist between "that's an insurrection" and "incitement of a riot." I could see it going inaccurate either way: either they collectively say "fuck that guy" and label it an insurrection or they ask "was it really that bad?" and end up settling on inciteful, but not an insurrection.
lol Democrats not doing it won't stop Republicans from doing it.
You bet me to it by 6 minutes :)
I'm really disappointed to see so much hand-wringing over this ruling in this thread.
If we're so concerned with with the possibility that Republicans might use a reasonable and quite frankly overly cautious application of very straight forward laws as an excuse to politicize the judicial process then why aren't we concerned about Democrats doing the same thing? The answer is because we're all acutely aware of the fact that the Republican party is a bad faith actor intent on bending and breaking the law to cement their power permanently. Which makes it insane that we're giving the time of day to consider how we might avoid giving them the ability to act in bad faith, as if it's not something they'll do regardless of how far backwards we bend to accommodate their transgressions. It honestly makes me think that most of the people putting forward these arguments are themselves bad faith actors trying to muddy the waters.
Let's just take a moment to consider if Biden doesn't want to leave office. He has the capitol police and national guard tied up elsewhere and hires a domestic mercenary group to attack congress. The last 3 years show that the only negative outcome for him would be, assuming that the attack failed, that he's not allowed to have his name on the ballot in Colorado, which would presumably require 3 years of legal battles to get to that point.
I'm going to again remind everyone that we don't need to imagine this for the case of Trump since he not only incited an insurrection on live television, he has promised that he will be an authoritarian and has sworn to take revenge on his political enemies if he regains power.
Plenty of dictators throughout history have relied on courts (which they first purge, and then stack with loyalists) to provide themselves with a veneer of legitimacy. Which is bad for the people that would get purged, but potentially not so bad if you're a sycophant.
Just look at Russia. The courts there are working overtime, given all the new terrorism and anti Russia laws they've passed to criminalise criticism of the war.
I genuinely wonder: If Trump gets elected again, how many days will it be before he begins publicly musing on changing the 22nd amendment (super fast search tells me that's where they're set, please correct me if I'm wrong) to allow Russian-style "term limits".
The bar for amending the constitution is very high. You need a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and then the amendment has to be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. And I believe a new amendment is the only way to alter a previous amendment; that's how it was done for Prohibition (the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st).
Frankly, I wouldn’t count on legal process to stop them if they decided to try this. The Capitol riots were illegal too, and that didn’t stop anything.
I mean, it failed? Many people were put in prison, because it was illegal.
But they were only put in prison because it failed. The illegality of their action didn't stop them, it just meant that there was punishment after the fact. That sort of situation just means it's more important that the bad actors be truly ready to win before they try again.
That's how law enforcement usually works. Laws don't prevent people from breaking them.
Though, from a physical point of view, they wouldn't have gotten as far if the Capitol Police were better prepared, and it was a good thing they were able to protect members of Congress.
From a legal point of view, it seems like it was doomed from the start? It's unclear how they could possibly have changed election results by holding members of Congress hostage or worse.
The barriers to passing a Constitutional Amendment are rather different, anyway. I suppose they could claim anything they want or just ignore the Constitution entirely.
I would like to see the SCOTUS expedite a decision about this too. It would be good to know if it is a source of hope or not.
The Strongest Argument for throwing Trump off the ballot is the weakness of the counterarguments
@SirNut
Can anyone post some unbiased links or something that detail what his role actually was in the insurrection?
I'll be honest that I haven't followed the situation too closely (going through residency > staying 100% current with politics) but what I had seen since then honestly didn't seem like he was literally saying "Storm the capitol."
I've seen other statements that just made him look stupid and like he was out of his element but would appreciate if others could share some of that info demonstrating clear guilt. Trump is not a smart person and super obnoxious, which has always made every story against him just as bad because people get lost in their feelings without necessarily holding onto the facts
There is a lot of content. More than I can easily remember or summarize off the top of my head. I've been following articles and reached some conclusions but I can't be convincing right now.
The testimony in the upcoming Georgia trial and the DC January 6 trial will make a lot of information public. At the moment, the details I can easily point to are in the tapes of the January 6 hearings, but Republicans will say that those were organized by Democrats.
In Georgia, several of Trump's associates have pleaded guilty and agreed to testify.
Thanks, I understand this is a very charged topic so I appreciate your input
The congressional hearings on Jan. 6 are pretty damning.
https://www.npr.org/series/1098490189/jan-6-subcommittee-hearings
A lot happened since then, but this early reaction is a good place to start.
LegalEagle doesn't hide his bias, but he is fair.
Ultra conservative judges to find Biden committed insurrection in 3...2...1...
(Seriously. If the Supreme Court allows any judge to remove a presidential candidate over a finding of fact that the candidate committed insurrection, it does not bode well for democracy in the USA. )
Then how do you enforce the insurrection clause? Do you require that they specifically be convicted before they are removed from the ballot?
Honestly that makes sense to me. Seems like that reasoning is also why at least one of the judges dissented.
But that's not how they enforced it after the Civil War. The former Confederates were disqualified without trials
Sure, but that was a very different situation and context and I'm not sure it makes sense to simply transplant that process into today's context. I personally think Trump committed insurrection and that he should be disqualified, but I am not sure I agree with that action being taken without due process with regards to that claim. I am genuinely unsure. What is the standard then for removing someone from the ballot? Does it have to be a finding of fact in a court hearing that they committed insurrection? What if a congressional committee concludes they committed insurrection? What if a state court or state legislature determines the same? To me, being convicted after a trial is the best and least likely to be abused standard we will get.
He was impeached (the second time) for insurrection. Is an impeachment trial not enough due process?
If we are to consider that as his due process, then by rights he was acquitted in the Senate.
Not exactly. An impeachment is not the same as an indictment, which is why he is now facing federal charges for the same charge.
I agree, I thought that is more or less what I was saying. I don't think the impeachment should be taken as him getting his due process because it is so different than a trial by jury. My point was just that him being impeached does not mean he got his due process, and if we did want to take it that way, then we would have to conclude he got his due process and was acquitted.
The conservative judges are pushing a (highly selective) "originalist" interpretation of the constitution.
They basically ask - how would someone interpret the constitution back when it was written.
I agree with all your points, except for the first.
Yeah, I disagree with the conservative judges on a lot, including this. I don’t think originalism makes a lot of sense and I don’t see why we should apply it here.
The law doesn't need to make sense. It is the law.
Similarly, the Supreme Court doesn't need to follow good precedent/ jurisprudence, they are the precedence/ jurisprudence.
Once that's the rationale, then the law is essentially collapsed back to rule of force. These cloistered bigots are really not prepared for their enemies to view them as truly delegitimized, but apparently they can't wait for that.
Which, if that's the burden, would be good to clarify.
Let's say SCOTUS says exactly that. Coming around the corner we have special counsel Jack Smith. Let's say he is then convicted of insurrection. Since it's already been clarified, boom, Trump is not allowed.
Unsure of if this should be in the weekly thread or not, not too sure how significant this is!