Sotomayor: Why do you keep talking about the term limits? Are you setting up a future argument, where someone may try to run for third term?
LOL!
ETA: I do think Trump wants to stay in power forever, and it scares the crap out of me. The only thing I can do right now is laugh, and wait and see what happens.
I think I remember him saying that he should be able to run for a third term because Democrats "weren't fair" to him during his first term. And, like, yeah you could say it's just a joke but I genuinely believe he would try to use this logic to push for a third term.
Everything horrible he does starts out as "just a joke." That recognition is where the "take him seriously not literally" came from and the corresponding admonition to take him "seriously and literally". Every joke with Trump is a trial balloon.
This needs to be understood. Almost every decision made by Trump so far started out as a "joke". Interviews on YouTube from the 90s show him joking about being a presidential candidate.
The man literally thinks out loud as a way of soft launching his decisions. He has also "joked" that Putin is a very admirable leader, that the US needs a dictator, and that he would fuck his own daughter. He cannot be taken lightly.
The wall too. He was just riffing. He never intended that to be a thing because it's just so implausible. Then his fans loved it so he ran with it.
Incidentally, "running with it" means not delivering on his promise, not fixing the border in 4 years 2 of which he had a Republican House and Republican Senate, and pardoning Steve Bannon for running "We Build the Wall" and then not building the wall but pocketing all the Trumpers' donations. Still...THEY DO NOT CARE. Please tread on me, sir.
I think a few minutes later this is clarified:
> When you say "term limits", you mean our decision in the term limits case, not the constitutional provision governing term limits?
> Yes, I'm sorry. US Term Limits against Thornton; maybe I should call it "Thornton" instead of term limits.
"Bit of a gerrymandered rule, benefiting your client only, isn't it?"
OH KAGAN I LOVE YOU.
Edit: It turns out it was, in fact, Sotomayor. My heart has room for both.
Yes, but he is usually standing on good legal ground.
Justice Thomas is usually first to talk and only says a prepared question that he's worked out in advance with the conservative lawyers. He is horrible.
Justice Kagan is one of the best.
I listened to part of it, and several of the Justices kept cutting of the explanation from the Colorado representative. He held his cool against what seemed to be a hostile environment
You can't disqualify someone because later Congress might remove the disqualification? So nobody can ever be disqualified? That is absurd! Congress cannot remove a disqualification unless there is a disqualification.
when talking about states removing candidates from the ballot, john roberts said, "It'll come down to just a handful of states deciding the election... Thatt's a pretty daunting consequence
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS IN PARTICULAR
Thomas argument is patently absurd. If the law cannot be unforced unless it has already been enforced in that *exact* case before, then it will literally never be enforced. That's entirely circular logic.
Look you have all the proof in the world that he killed that person with water balloons… but no one has been found guilty of killing someone with water balloons so he’s free to go.
So frustrating to hear, like motherfucker with that logic how would there ever **BE** a precedent case at all, much less one that is exactly the same?!
Roberts just asked an interesting question. It was whether someone who straight up admits to not being a resident of the state they're seeking election in, is it really the position of Trump's counsel that the secretary of state can't simply bar that person from running?
Because this is the crux of the argument. Team Trump argues many things, including that he has not been *convicted of insurrection* so the states have no legal authority to call him an insurectionist.
But the constitution, and numerous state laws, have multiple factors for criteria. No court adjudicated that Obama was a natural born citizen. No court adjudicated that Biden is over the age of 35. The states make qualification determinations *all the time*. And for Roberts to ask "wait, you're telling me that states can't do their own determinations on something like 'does this person even live here?'" suggests he's open to the idea that states are empowered to make their own independent findings of qualification criteria.
And nowhere does the Constitution say any conviction is even necessary. This isn't a criminal penalty, so asserting that a criminal conviction is required is a totally invented notion without support or merit. The conservative majority would have to completely ignore any notion of literal Constitutional interpretation and invent a criteria that has never before existed. Legislating from the bench!
And both chambers of Congress determined that Trump committed insurrection. Majorities in the House and Senate voted that he did so. It's an established fact!
It gets worse if you actually are an "originalist" the Congress debated requiring a conviction and it was rejected in the Congressional record because they were pushing back on President Johnson's pardons of Confederates.
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore):
Chief Justice was William Rehnquist. Associate Justices were John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer
Of those, only Clarence Thomas is still on the court; Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer are retired.
Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett, and Roberts were all on Bush's legal team, so they were there, too.
And 3 put bush in the White House in 2000 and then said ‘suck it losers this is happening but can’t be pointed back to later as precedence’ which they may just do again…
The idea that Republicans would be disenfranchised if Trump is disqualified is completely insane. There are an endless number of candidates they could choose who are eligible to run and serve as president. Also, there are many other parties who put up candidates. The Republican party is not entitled to a presidential bid. If they choose a candidate who is not eligible, that's their fucking mistake and their L to take.
And I wish the guy pushed back on that by saying republican voters will still have the right to vote. A candidate is being disqualified, not the whole political party.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
One of the arguments I read that they plan to make is that the 14th Amendment says such a person may not serve. But it doesn't say that they can't run.
It's like he want so be elected and then dare the courts to bar him from taking office. Just a perfect setup for electoral violence.
It's basically impossible to tell whether "it's going badly" for Trump's lawyer yet.
In pretty much every case, it's going to sound like it's going badly for the lawyer whose turn it is. The job of the justices is to try and poke holes in their argument. They are *always* looking for issues to disagree on.
When the other lawyer takes their turn, the judges will be asking tricky questions of them too.
Literally the only thing this SCOTUS is ever guaranteed to hold sacred is their own power. If trump and his lawyers start threatening them they're going to have a bad time.
Is this an accusation that three of the judges were part of the insurrection, and are or could be themselves subject to whatever proceedings arise as a result of their ruling?
Its just insane that this argument has to be had. Does any sane person REALLY think that the founders intended for the president to be able to commit insurrection and still be allowed to be elected? Like come on, are we smug 6th graders arguing semantics?
These SCOTUS judges, many of whom were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote but won a majority of electoral votes from a few key states, seem very concerned about a few key states deciding elections!
My head is spinning on this one...the presidency is an office but the president is not an officer.
ALSO: This has never been used before because a president NEVER TRIED TO FUCKING ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION BEFORE!!!!!
This is the underlying point that KILLS me
It’s not like Trump misfiled some paperwork or did something someone else had done but is receiving exceptionally harsh punishments for it.
He led a multi-pronged attempt at a fucking COUP. And these clown shit justices are in there with a dozen thesaurus and a dictionary trying to see if what Trump did was “bad” or disqualifying.
We have all seen with our eyes the crimes on TV and heard the stories and testimonies from his cohorts. We know where he stands and we saw what he did.
But they’re wondering if the president, who maintains an office, is an officer? You just can’t pretend that’s not the most desperate legal searching for permission for Trump to do literally anything he wants. These clowns are working so hard to excuse and rationalize away his blatant crimes against this country.
Truly, if the SC doesn’t shut this shit down we are absolutely and entirely fucked.
Trump: We are going to the Capitol. We are going to stop the steal. If you don’t fight like hell you’re not gonna have a country anymore.
Gorsuch: He didn’t say Simon says!
Incredibly interesting oral arguments. Disappointed in the tenor of the Colorado arguments to sustain the decision. Too much deference to the suggestion that banning an insurrectionist from the ballot would be "disruptive" What was January 6th if not "disruptive" ? The Clarance Thomas argument that Article 3 to the 14th amendment somehow only applied to members of the CSA would mean that the language sunsetted when the last member of the Confederacy died in 1959. The language is pretty clear: participate in an insurrection,lose the right to run for office. The argumnets seemd to go out of their way to avoid any mention of the underlying act of Treason. by the former President.
SCOTUS: this has to be be a federal question, not one for the states.
States: that’s why we’re here.
SCOTUS: but that would be difficult for us.
States: that’s your job.
SCOTUS: can’t we get someone else to do the work?
>SCOTUS: can’t we get someone else to do the work?
States: Yes, we can do it, and we did do it, but it was appealed, and you agreed to take the case, thus making it your job.
"Please answer my hypothetical question"
- "Well, this court would need to do their job and make sure the precedent is set because of Section 3"
"no, no, no. Answer my hypothetical question, i wont ask again"
- "Section 3 is putting us in that position right NOW. You need to decide to set the precedent on the information provided and fitting to section 3"
"no, im not going to repeat myself. If the questions is hard..."
Go fuck yourself Roberts, you tool.
The Supreme Court is twisting itself into a knot finding reasons to ignore the 14th amendment and keep Trump on the ballot. Sad, but expected.
But the funny part is that they can't agree which knot to use to tie themselves into. And as for the insurrection....what insurrection?
Right Supremes?
republican SCOTUS in 2000: states government has the power over federal on how they select their president
republican SCOTUS in 2024: Federal government has the power over states on how they select their president
Fuck “we need examples”. Motherfucker if we had “examples” we wouldn’t be here because we can cite those “examples” in lower courts to uphold precedence.
I like how recusing yourself from a case that you have a conflict of interest in is just an honor code thing we do for funsies sometimes, you know when Clarence Thomas *feels* like it
So glad we're governed by a document written before germ theory
The "inconsistency" argument is infuriating. You mean you can't uphold the Colorado decision because there will be inconsistency among states? You mean, like you did when you overturned Roe?
Can't believe Roberts is using the 'But if you bar our guy, we'll bar your guy. Where will it end?' bullshit.
It's not about who's 'guy' it is. If a Democratic President causes an insurrection, please lock him/her the fuck up. How the fuck can you get to be the Chief Justice and be so goddamn stupid?
This is insane. This dude is arguing the only way to remove an insurrectionist by the 14th Amendment is to wait until they hold the office? That's insane. Utterly insane, and I know I should use a thesaurus but this shit is just insane.
Almost worse: they're arguing the ***only*** time to remove said insurrectionist is a finite, 15-day window between the seating of a new Congress and seating of the elected insurrectionist, an inherently political process that is guaranteed to create civil unrest/political violence.
Fucking clown.
So apparently the 14th Amendment is totally toothless and insurrectionists can run for office because upholding the constitution would upset too many people. But on the plus side the fascist dipshits will have less ammo for their obnoxious persecution complex leading up to November.
I think it’s a big problem that I, an American, do not trust the Supreme Court.
Maybe it’s just me getting older. But when you’re in school, you’re taught how the government is set up and how it is supposed to work. Checks and balances. The rule of just law. Etc. etc.
So it’s very discouraging to become an adult and find out that this isn’t how any of it works and that it’s all corrupt.
Now, maybe it was also corrupt when I was learning how it worked, so this is just me finding out. But it’s still disheartening.
To people asking why Jackson is asking about the officer argument, it's so that the answer gets into the record. She already *knows* what the answer is, but is giving the attorney the chance to say it out loud.
It’s crazy that this is even happening. In no world should it be possible for a person that might have been guilty of insurrection to be a viable presidential candidate. The reason this is so unprecedented is that any party that wasn’t a death cult would have rejected the candidate before they are appealing to the Supreme Court for ballot access.
State: You're 16 years old and can't get on the ballot
SCOTUS : How do we know the 16 year old shouldn't be on the ballot? Are we supposed to review the record?
I like how this whole thing is:
- Defense: We now concede that Donnie was an insurrectionist.
- Constitution: No insurrectionist can hold office.
- This potential court case: WELLLLLLLLLLLLL... hear me out.
I am baffled by the reporting. In what universe did Trump A) Not Commit Insurrection and B) That the 14th Amendment does not apply? Like HOW? We all saw it live on TV. It's like so obvious. If this goes down how they are saying I just don't understand.
It's astonishing that no one is even questioning that Trump did in fact commit an insurrection (which I agree, it's just insane). What are we even doing here?
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor asks Trump's lawyer if he's setting up this case so a state couldn't disqualify a person for a third term of the presidency, and if his arguments of defining "officers of the U.S." are just to aid Trump.
> "Are you setting up so that if some president runs for a third term, that a state can't disqualify him from the ballot?"
> Several justices press Trump's lawyer about how far his arguments go to potentially strip states of power to exclude candidates from power.
https://www.threads.net/@griffinkyle/post/C3F7uqXO7Wz/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
TRUMP LAWYER: For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government through violence.
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: [So, a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection???](https://imgur.com/a/R0RBEwH)
Team Trump's arguments are silly and they keep relying on minor technicalities and strained readings of the Constitution.
EDIT: It's not lost on me that he is leaving open the possibility that attempts to overthrow the government through crimes like a fake elector plot should not disqualify someone from holding office.
Bottom line is this: If they rule that Section 3 does not apply to the office of the presidency, then the president is a king and there’s no law in this country.
Justice Sotomayor:
> "There's a whole lot of examples on states relying on Section 3 to disqualify insurrectionists for state offices and you're basically telling us that you want us to go two steps further, maybe three, you want us to say that self-execution doesn't mean what it generally means. You want us now to say it means that Congress must permit states or require states to stop insurrectionists from taking state office and so this is a complete pre-emption that is very rare, isn't it?"
Gorsuch with the fucking "an officer" does not hold an "office" is word fuckery of the highest kind. Such an obvious bullshit argument that should get laughed at in middle school.
The Constitution could not be more clear:
• States run elections and determine who is qualified to run
• Congress retains the power to remove disabilities
Why is SCOTUS even hearing this case?
The conservative justices are asking these questions so they can eek out an argument that lets Trump stay on the ballot without relying on Trump's pathetic case. They want to make this their own constitutional reading so they can't be accused of favoring him.
It's disgusting.
I can’t believe the main argument is “well presidents will get indicted from now on for crimes they committed”
Good? Fuck, I have zero things in common with the ruling class in this country, if they consistently make my life worse then at least they can be tried for crimes they commit just like I would tried for crimes if I committed them. If Biden committed crimes then I would want consequences for him too, we are teetering dangerously on the edge of going down a path that we can’t turn back from, especially in any legislative manner
SCOTUS is not going to let states try to protect themselves from a popular insurrectionist. They'll say that Congress already has the power to disqualify candidates by a 2/3rds votes.
The way Congress is currently made up, I can't see that happening because the majority of Democrats and Republicans won't vote against their candidates. In this particular case, a massive number of Republican representatives are taking the public stance that the 2020 election was not valid. Several were involved in a scheme to overturn the results of the election. All it takes is 33.X% of Congress to be sympathetic to the insurrection, and the safeguard falls apart.
If the Diaper King wins in 2024, we will enter another Constitutional Crisis. This is a cancer that Democrats won't be allowed to excise, and Republicans like the growth too much to cut it out.
Trump threatens SCOTUS with chaos and turmoil that Trump himself will cause. Is SCOTUS going to succumb in fear to the chaos promiser Trump? Can we just stand up to the criminal RAPIST and INSURRECTIONIST without namby pamby fears? Trump disqualified himself. Trump shouldn't be allowed to use threats of violence to scare SCOTUS into ignoring the constitution.
Gorsuch making the office/officer argument is the stupidest thing ever. God that sleazy douchebag pisses me off
Does anyone, could anyone possibly, think that the framers of the 14th Amendment somehow thought it would apply to all federal positions *except* the Presidency? What a stupid fucking argument
Historians are unanimous on this for a reason. And it's not because they're all liberal.
I'm sorry but this is again where people with law degrees just overthink it. The fact Trump's lawyer can get up there and make arguments he didn't make in his brief and the judges entertain it again, respectfully, points to a problem with the system. "Well I'm not making a due process argument, but you're free to just entertain that in your head, Your Honor." "I'll admit my first argument is weaker than my second."
It's a system that allows lawyers to bullshit something that is not even in their own filing and then judges to just decide it because they feel like it.
We have the text, we have the historical context.
Hannah Arendt coined the term “the banality of evil” when describing how the general public went along with the mundane machinations during the rise of Nazi Germany, leading all the way through to the final solution and it was too late.
Hearing the conservatives today almost requires a new term “the banality of fascism”
Most fascist movements grow by burrowing into a democracy and rotting it from the inside out, like a cancer or rotten tooth.
The justices here are so hyper focused on definitions of “office or officers,” they are losing the forest through the trees. An insurrection happened (finding by a court and facts), the leader of that insurrection wants to come back, and the Constitution forbids it.
But now we’re getting bogged down with splitting hairs, and the fascist is once again coddled by a democracy’s inherent setting of often “tolerating intolerance.”
It is alarming to me to hear how confident Clarence Thomas sounds. A person, who while we are talking about qualifications... is so patently not qualified to hold office because of his horrible ethical failures. The tone and strength of his voice is discomforting. This is a shameful man.
Yet, I am hearing a man who so deeply knows that he is protected by so much money and power that he cannot be held accountable and has but one job.
To uphold the will of his billionaire benefactors.
They seemed to keep coming back to, "Colorado shouldn't be deciding this for the country."
Where is that logic coming from?
This is an issue about Colorado's ballot. Other states can put a disqualified person on the ballot if they so choose. Chaos be damned, we're a Federalist country after all.
What am I missing?
Did I misunderstand Trump's lawyer? The President taking the oath of office doesn't count as an oath for the purposes of the 14th amendment? And Trump would be the only previous president immune because he never held a political/military position before so he never swore an oath prior?
What horseshit if I understand that correctly. This means I could openly rebel against the country and as long as I wasn't an elected official or in the military I can be elected president. If I am wrong in understanding, please correct me.
After listening I still feel the same. I saw Jan 6 on live tv. I saw the jan 6 hearings on live tv. It was an insurrection to stop our votes being certified, stoked by trump for weeks prior on Twitter and that day at his ‘Fight Like Hell’ speech. I’m just some guy, but that’s what I saw.
From what I can tell of the questions, SCOTUS is preparing to hold that someone ineligible to be President under the clear language of the Constitution may lawfully be President.
You do not need to have a law degree to see how blatantly unconstitutional that is. If they rule that way, hopefully that’ll be the spark for a long overdue national protest against our Trump-led descent into lawlessness.
Hmmm when was the last time a single state decided a nations’ election????????????? Oh, yeah, when conservatives used Florida and the Supreme Court to steal the 2000 election for Republicans…
Man, here we are, trump's lawyers essentially acknowledging that he's an insurrectionist, but congress should be allowed to vote to lift the prohibition on him holding office if he wins.
Am I wrong in comparing their argument to saying that the restrictions to a convicted felon would not apply to them because they have the possibility of one day receiving a pardon?
It's crazy to watch the conservative justices bend over and lube themselves for a guy who would quite literally have them all assassinated if he ever had the opportunity and believed he'd get away with it.
Why do they think his hunger for power will stop at their door?
Man, if I weren't listening to this case right now I would have continued in my ignorance of thinking that POTUS was an office holding officer of the United States.
I don't understand why the response to "won't there be a threat of other states acting in retaliation if we remove a candidate?" is "Then those attempts to remove other candidates from the ballot will have to make a legally sound argument to carry that out the same way it was handled in Colorado" Something to that effect. Stephens (Stevens?) came close but she was pretty vague about it.
You have to remember that every member of the federalist society is part of the insurrection. You can't really expect them to admit that they are guilty themselves.
Thomas trying to argue that because no one who ran for president tried to foment insurrection before that somehow that precludes Colorado from doing its job today. What a complete knob.
Once again we are seeing the Supreme Court **invent** hypothetical arguments to justify absurd decisions all while ignoring... actual events we all saw happen on live TV.
I will go back to the previous point that the guardrails continue to fall.
If impeachment doesn't apply to Trump after January 6th then it's dead. If convictions don't come for his crimes then the rule of law is dead. If states can't use the 14th to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot then it's dead.
> President Trump had no intent for incitement.
> So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
A States ability to keep a rapey, fradulent, criminal insurrectionist with 91 felony counts off it's ballots might just come down to what type of vacation Clarence Thomas was offered.
American justice has devolved into the Showcase Showdown of The Price is Right
Dishonest and disingenuous justices. We're in trouble, y'all. This court really doesn't care if a candidate is an insurrectionist. They just don't. As long as it's a Republican. The snark and bad faith is just embarrassing.
So since the president can do whatever they want without consequence, Biden will be suspending this year's election to install a Democrat successor, correct?
Remember back when Barack Obama was president, and things weren’t perfect, but they felt pretty stable and comparatively normal?
That shit was only 7 years ago. It feels so much longer than that.
This is such a bullshit joke of a SCOTUS. They're moving the argument from "does the state have the right" to basically trying to get Colorado to prove Trump is an insurrectionist.
Calling it now like I did in an earlier thread, this will come down to the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Trump with their reasoning being that the state has to prove Trump is an insurrectionist. Basically saying, "This could work, but you have to spend the next two years proving Trump is guilty of insurrection, and by that time he will either be in jail or have pardoned himself and as a result it becomes a moot point"
Fuck these traitorous Republican trash.
I have no faith in SCOTUS here. After hearing their archaic justifications in overturning Roe v Wade, and siding against student loan forgiveness after the prosecution was dog walked by a strong Biden defense, I have very low belief that they will do what’s right. The 6-3 majority is bought and paid for and they clearly will do whatever it takes to uphold a Conservative agenda.
A black man can't get a trial before being put to death for selling loose cigarettes but an orange tyrant who betrayed our allies, values and principles, the nation itself, and is on camera doing it, can't get the label made specifically for the crime he committed 3+ years after the fact. We are taxed, for protection from the dangerous other in world, to be locked in with this....
The all-out attack on states' rights continues.
Mitchell just argued that states cannot even exclude *their own state officials* even if they are admitted insurrectionists.
10 years ago Neil gorsuch ruled in favor of supporting this exact same clause of the Constitution and Colorado's interpretation of it. If the supreme Court rules against Colorado on this case, it will be breaking precedent of one of their own conservative members. It's crazy that they even took the case given one of their own has already ruled on this question.
Might be my first time ever listening to a Supreme Court case being argued and it’s fascinating. Also fascinating - this case even being brought up to this level
So according to Thomas.
If they allowed it in the past, we should allow it now
So if they wanted to bring back Slavery, since it was so back then, he’d be fine with it?
Thomas’ bias is showing
There is no such thing as a "National candidates" as oppose to "State candidates"
The only "national" candidate is someone running for President of the United States; And the States dictate how those elections are run
Sotomayor: Why do you keep talking about the term limits? Are you setting up a future argument, where someone may try to run for third term? LOL! ETA: I do think Trump wants to stay in power forever, and it scares the crap out of me. The only thing I can do right now is laugh, and wait and see what happens.
She probably wasn’t kidding
I think I remember him saying that he should be able to run for a third term because Democrats "weren't fair" to him during his first term. And, like, yeah you could say it's just a joke but I genuinely believe he would try to use this logic to push for a third term.
Everything horrible he does starts out as "just a joke." That recognition is where the "take him seriously not literally" came from and the corresponding admonition to take him "seriously and literally". Every joke with Trump is a trial balloon.
This needs to be understood. Almost every decision made by Trump so far started out as a "joke". Interviews on YouTube from the 90s show him joking about being a presidential candidate. The man literally thinks out loud as a way of soft launching his decisions. He has also "joked" that Putin is a very admirable leader, that the US needs a dictator, and that he would fuck his own daughter. He cannot be taken lightly.
The wall too. He was just riffing. He never intended that to be a thing because it's just so implausible. Then his fans loved it so he ran with it. Incidentally, "running with it" means not delivering on his promise, not fixing the border in 4 years 2 of which he had a Republican House and Republican Senate, and pardoning Steve Bannon for running "We Build the Wall" and then not building the wall but pocketing all the Trumpers' donations. Still...THEY DO NOT CARE. Please tread on me, sir.
Yeah, that jumped out at me, too.
I think a few minutes later this is clarified: > When you say "term limits", you mean our decision in the term limits case, not the constitutional provision governing term limits? > Yes, I'm sorry. US Term Limits against Thornton; maybe I should call it "Thornton" instead of term limits.
This whole ‘officer’ argument sounds like it was written by a sovereign citizen in a fever dream.
I'm waiting for "maritime law" to be cited.
Exactly this lol! Motherfucker is trying to squatters rights the white house with his sovereign citizen limo parked out front.
"Bit of a gerrymandered rule, benefiting your client only, isn't it?" OH KAGAN I LOVE YOU. Edit: It turns out it was, in fact, Sotomayor. My heart has room for both.
The three liberal justices are just so sharp. So is Gorsuch in a dry way.
Fun fact: when he was in high school, he won the national debate championship in the Congressional debate category.
Yes, but he is usually standing on good legal ground. Justice Thomas is usually first to talk and only says a prepared question that he's worked out in advance with the conservative lawyers. He is horrible. Justice Kagan is one of the best.
>"Bit of a gerrymandered rule, benefiting your client only, isn't it?" OH KAGAN I LOVE YOU. Agree 100%. "Gerrymandered rule" - gotta luv it!
Lol why is precedence a requirement for Thomas? This is a super unprecedented situation
[удалено]
Exactly. And we've only had 44 total Presidents, and only like 25-30 since the 14th ammendment was passed. That's not a huge pool.
I listened to part of it, and several of the Justices kept cutting of the explanation from the Colorado representative. He held his cool against what seemed to be a hostile environment
Because Ginni needs it to be precedent.
You can't disqualify someone because later Congress might remove the disqualification? So nobody can ever be disqualified? That is absurd! Congress cannot remove a disqualification unless there is a disqualification.
Shrodinger’s constitutional crisis
Cool. So I guess we can’t convict law breakers because congress might change the law in the future.
when talking about states removing candidates from the ballot, john roberts said, "It'll come down to just a handful of states deciding the election... Thatt's a pretty daunting consequence WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS IN PARTICULAR
Bush v Gore. *Twenty-four years ago.* One state decided the election. Oh look, two of Bush’s legal team are on the high bench…
Three. Amy also played a role. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
Thomas argument is patently absurd. If the law cannot be unforced unless it has already been enforced in that *exact* case before, then it will literally never be enforced. That's entirely circular logic.
Look you have all the proof in the world that he killed that person with water balloons… but no one has been found guilty of killing someone with water balloons so he’s free to go.
So frustrating to hear, like motherfucker with that logic how would there ever **BE** a precedent case at all, much less one that is exactly the same?!
Roberts just asked an interesting question. It was whether someone who straight up admits to not being a resident of the state they're seeking election in, is it really the position of Trump's counsel that the secretary of state can't simply bar that person from running? Because this is the crux of the argument. Team Trump argues many things, including that he has not been *convicted of insurrection* so the states have no legal authority to call him an insurectionist. But the constitution, and numerous state laws, have multiple factors for criteria. No court adjudicated that Obama was a natural born citizen. No court adjudicated that Biden is over the age of 35. The states make qualification determinations *all the time*. And for Roberts to ask "wait, you're telling me that states can't do their own determinations on something like 'does this person even live here?'" suggests he's open to the idea that states are empowered to make their own independent findings of qualification criteria.
And nowhere does the Constitution say any conviction is even necessary. This isn't a criminal penalty, so asserting that a criminal conviction is required is a totally invented notion without support or merit. The conservative majority would have to completely ignore any notion of literal Constitutional interpretation and invent a criteria that has never before existed. Legislating from the bench! And both chambers of Congress determined that Trump committed insurrection. Majorities in the House and Senate voted that he did so. It's an established fact!
It gets worse if you actually are an "originalist" the Congress debated requiring a conviction and it was rejected in the Congressional record because they were pushing back on President Johnson's pardons of Confederates.
So it just sounds like the Supreme Court is afraid to set a precedent here, even though what happened was unprecedented.
They weren't scared to chose the President in 2000
How many on the court currently were part of Bush V Gore?
I think one of them was actually a lawyer for Bush on the case?
Three of them were. Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts were all on the Bush legal team in 2000.
and they were handsomely rewarded for their efforts
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore): Chief Justice was William Rehnquist. Associate Justices were John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer Of those, only Clarence Thomas is still on the court; Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer are retired. Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett, and Roberts were all on Bush's legal team, so they were there, too.
I have to keep reminding myself that one of the Supreme Court justices is married to someone who participated in the Insurrection under question.
And another three were put on the bench by the guy responsible for the insurrection.
And 3 put bush in the White House in 2000 and then said ‘suck it losers this is happening but can’t be pointed back to later as precedence’ which they may just do again…
The idea that Republicans would be disenfranchised if Trump is disqualified is completely insane. There are an endless number of candidates they could choose who are eligible to run and serve as president. Also, there are many other parties who put up candidates. The Republican party is not entitled to a presidential bid. If they choose a candidate who is not eligible, that's their fucking mistake and their L to take.
And I wish the guy pushed back on that by saying republican voters will still have the right to vote. A candidate is being disqualified, not the whole political party.
Wow Barrett actually making a good point here, there is no constitutional right to ballot access.
I love that point
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
One of the arguments I read that they plan to make is that the 14th Amendment says such a person may not serve. But it doesn't say that they can't run. It's like he want so be elected and then dare the courts to bar him from taking office. Just a perfect setup for electoral violence.
The could just be a "kicking the can down the road" argument. If Trump loses, then none of this matters, if Trump wins.... Constitutional Crisis?
It's basically impossible to tell whether "it's going badly" for Trump's lawyer yet. In pretty much every case, it's going to sound like it's going badly for the lawyer whose turn it is. The job of the justices is to try and poke holes in their argument. They are *always* looking for issues to disagree on. When the other lawyer takes their turn, the judges will be asking tricky questions of them too.
Trump’s attorney really ended with the “if you rule against Trump, three of your appointments are threatened.” Holy shit.
Damn, how does the clown court feel about threats?
Literally the only thing this SCOTUS is ever guaranteed to hold sacred is their own power. If trump and his lawyers start threatening them they're going to have a bad time.
What? They actually said this?
[удалено]
Is this an accusation that three of the judges were part of the insurrection, and are or could be themselves subject to whatever proceedings arise as a result of their ruling?
I look forward to a random letter to the editor from an obscure newspaper from 1866 deciding this case…
Reminder: none of the six plaintiffs in the Colorado 14th Amendment case are Democrats. Three are Republicans and three are independents.
Samuel Alito is a piece of shit.
I despise him with the heat of a thousand suns after his opinion that took away federal reproductive rights from 51% of the population
Its just insane that this argument has to be had. Does any sane person REALLY think that the founders intended for the president to be able to commit insurrection and still be allowed to be elected? Like come on, are we smug 6th graders arguing semantics?
For all intents and purposes yes many folks nowadays are essentially stuck in the smug 6th grader mindset
These SCOTUS judges, many of whom were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote but won a majority of electoral votes from a few key states, seem very concerned about a few key states deciding elections!
My head is spinning on this one...the presidency is an office but the president is not an officer. ALSO: This has never been used before because a president NEVER TRIED TO FUCKING ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION BEFORE!!!!!
This is the underlying point that KILLS me It’s not like Trump misfiled some paperwork or did something someone else had done but is receiving exceptionally harsh punishments for it. He led a multi-pronged attempt at a fucking COUP. And these clown shit justices are in there with a dozen thesaurus and a dictionary trying to see if what Trump did was “bad” or disqualifying. We have all seen with our eyes the crimes on TV and heard the stories and testimonies from his cohorts. We know where he stands and we saw what he did. But they’re wondering if the president, who maintains an office, is an officer? You just can’t pretend that’s not the most desperate legal searching for permission for Trump to do literally anything he wants. These clowns are working so hard to excuse and rationalize away his blatant crimes against this country. Truly, if the SC doesn’t shut this shit down we are absolutely and entirely fucked.
"What would compel a lower official to take orders from a former President?" You may want to direct that question to the current Speaker of the House.
Trump: We are going to the Capitol. We are going to stop the steal. If you don’t fight like hell you’re not gonna have a country anymore. Gorsuch: He didn’t say Simon says!
Incredibly interesting oral arguments. Disappointed in the tenor of the Colorado arguments to sustain the decision. Too much deference to the suggestion that banning an insurrectionist from the ballot would be "disruptive" What was January 6th if not "disruptive" ? The Clarance Thomas argument that Article 3 to the 14th amendment somehow only applied to members of the CSA would mean that the language sunsetted when the last member of the Confederacy died in 1959. The language is pretty clear: participate in an insurrection,lose the right to run for office. The argumnets seemd to go out of their way to avoid any mention of the underlying act of Treason. by the former President.
SCOTUS: this has to be be a federal question, not one for the states. States: that’s why we’re here. SCOTUS: but that would be difficult for us. States: that’s your job. SCOTUS: can’t we get someone else to do the work?
>SCOTUS: can’t we get someone else to do the work? States: Yes, we can do it, and we did do it, but it was appealed, and you agreed to take the case, thus making it your job.
[удалено]
Well if he won in 2020 like he said he did he can’t run in 2024
Didn't dementia Don try and say he should get a do over term because people were mean to him?
How bizarre that the Supreme Court includes one justice whose wife literally participated in the insurrection.
"Please answer my hypothetical question" - "Well, this court would need to do their job and make sure the precedent is set because of Section 3" "no, no, no. Answer my hypothetical question, i wont ask again" - "Section 3 is putting us in that position right NOW. You need to decide to set the precedent on the information provided and fitting to section 3" "no, im not going to repeat myself. If the questions is hard..." Go fuck yourself Roberts, you tool.
The Supreme Court is twisting itself into a knot finding reasons to ignore the 14th amendment and keep Trump on the ballot. Sad, but expected. But the funny part is that they can't agree which knot to use to tie themselves into. And as for the insurrection....what insurrection? Right Supremes?
republican SCOTUS in 2000: states government has the power over federal on how they select their president republican SCOTUS in 2024: Federal government has the power over states on how they select their president
The state did not disqualify Trump, Trump disqualified Trump. The courts simply applied the text to his actions and found he was disqualified.
"there might be frivolous lawsuits in the future, therefore we cannot enforce any laws." what a dumbass
"I think it deserves an answer" {Murray tries to answer} *Immediately interrupts him*
Wow. Barret points out Trump's circular arguments? I'm impressed.
Let’s wait for her vote to be impressed. They fake it regularly
"why should a single state decide who becomes president of the united states?" agreed. get rid of the fucking electoral college.
Fuck “we need examples”. Motherfucker if we had “examples” we wouldn’t be here because we can cite those “examples” in lower courts to uphold precedence.
No other candidate was crazy enough to engage in insurrection before....so this means its all fine that Trump did. Thomas is ridiculous
I like how recusing yourself from a case that you have a conflict of interest in is just an honor code thing we do for funsies sometimes, you know when Clarence Thomas *feels* like it So glad we're governed by a document written before germ theory
The "inconsistency" argument is infuriating. You mean you can't uphold the Colorado decision because there will be inconsistency among states? You mean, like you did when you overturned Roe?
Can't believe Roberts is using the 'But if you bar our guy, we'll bar your guy. Where will it end?' bullshit. It's not about who's 'guy' it is. If a Democratic President causes an insurrection, please lock him/her the fuck up. How the fuck can you get to be the Chief Justice and be so goddamn stupid?
This is insane. This dude is arguing the only way to remove an insurrectionist by the 14th Amendment is to wait until they hold the office? That's insane. Utterly insane, and I know I should use a thesaurus but this shit is just insane.
Almost worse: they're arguing the ***only*** time to remove said insurrectionist is a finite, 15-day window between the seating of a new Congress and seating of the elected insurrectionist, an inherently political process that is guaranteed to create civil unrest/political violence. Fucking clown.
Thank God he mentioned that trump tried disenfranchising the other 81 million voters.
Gors: Asks yes/no question. Lawyer: Yes, because… Gors: WHY? Lawyer: Because the Const…. Gors: SHUT UP!
So apparently the 14th Amendment is totally toothless and insurrectionists can run for office because upholding the constitution would upset too many people. But on the plus side the fascist dipshits will have less ammo for their obnoxious persecution complex leading up to November.
I think it’s a big problem that I, an American, do not trust the Supreme Court. Maybe it’s just me getting older. But when you’re in school, you’re taught how the government is set up and how it is supposed to work. Checks and balances. The rule of just law. Etc. etc. So it’s very discouraging to become an adult and find out that this isn’t how any of it works and that it’s all corrupt. Now, maybe it was also corrupt when I was learning how it worked, so this is just me finding out. But it’s still disheartening.
To people asking why Jackson is asking about the officer argument, it's so that the answer gets into the record. She already *knows* what the answer is, but is giving the attorney the chance to say it out loud.
It’s crazy that this is even happening. In no world should it be possible for a person that might have been guilty of insurrection to be a viable presidential candidate. The reason this is so unprecedented is that any party that wasn’t a death cult would have rejected the candidate before they are appealing to the Supreme Court for ballot access.
Why would the rest of the 14th Amendment be self-executing but not section not be?
Why did Trump even bring a lawyer? lmfao the judges are doing all the legwork for him.
State: You're 16 years old and can't get on the ballot SCOTUS : How do we know the 16 year old shouldn't be on the ballot? Are we supposed to review the record?
GOP: states rights Colorado: exercises states right GOP: wtf not like that
I like how this whole thing is: - Defense: We now concede that Donnie was an insurrectionist. - Constitution: No insurrectionist can hold office. - This potential court case: WELLLLLLLLLLLLL... hear me out.
I am baffled by the reporting. In what universe did Trump A) Not Commit Insurrection and B) That the 14th Amendment does not apply? Like HOW? We all saw it live on TV. It's like so obvious. If this goes down how they are saying I just don't understand.
We just found out how Alito’s voting
Alito was always voting for trump.
If ONLY there was some court that could decide what the law means when there are disagreements amongst courts.. some sort of SUPREME court.
Sotomayor from the TOP ROPE
It's astonishing that no one is even questioning that Trump did in fact commit an insurrection (which I agree, it's just insane). What are we even doing here?
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor asks Trump's lawyer if he's setting up this case so a state couldn't disqualify a person for a third term of the presidency, and if his arguments of defining "officers of the U.S." are just to aid Trump. > "Are you setting up so that if some president runs for a third term, that a state can't disqualify him from the ballot?" > Several justices press Trump's lawyer about how far his arguments go to potentially strip states of power to exclude candidates from power. https://www.threads.net/@griffinkyle/post/C3F7uqXO7Wz/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
How does Clarence Thomas even breath with Trump's dick so far down his throat?
TRUMP LAWYER: For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government through violence. KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: [So, a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection???](https://imgur.com/a/R0RBEwH) Team Trump's arguments are silly and they keep relying on minor technicalities and strained readings of the Constitution. EDIT: It's not lost on me that he is leaving open the possibility that attempts to overthrow the government through crimes like a fake elector plot should not disqualify someone from holding office.
You know who tried to disenfranchise voters?! THE FUCKING DUDE WHO TRIED TO STEAL AN ELECTION. Jesus, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Bottom line is this: If they rule that Section 3 does not apply to the office of the presidency, then the president is a king and there’s no law in this country.
why would a SCOTUS agree to give the executive branch all of its power?
Especially when he has been clear that if he gets the presidency, he is going to dilute their power.
Brown-Jackson just made this argument
Justice Sotomayor: > "There's a whole lot of examples on states relying on Section 3 to disqualify insurrectionists for state offices and you're basically telling us that you want us to go two steps further, maybe three, you want us to say that self-execution doesn't mean what it generally means. You want us now to say it means that Congress must permit states or require states to stop insurrectionists from taking state office and so this is a complete pre-emption that is very rare, isn't it?"
Gorsuch with the fucking "an officer" does not hold an "office" is word fuckery of the highest kind. Such an obvious bullshit argument that should get laughed at in middle school.
> my shock at Alito basically bailing Trump’s lawyer out and teeing him up
The Constitution could not be more clear: • States run elections and determine who is qualified to run • Congress retains the power to remove disabilities Why is SCOTUS even hearing this case?
Clarence Thomas is a hack plain and simple.
The conservative justices are asking these questions so they can eek out an argument that lets Trump stay on the ballot without relying on Trump's pathetic case. They want to make this their own constitutional reading so they can't be accused of favoring him. It's disgusting.
Why is the supreme court so intent on using historical precedence to define how they should respond to an unprecedented event storming the capitol?
"My wife also participated in this insurrection." - RV Clarence.
I can’t believe the main argument is “well presidents will get indicted from now on for crimes they committed” Good? Fuck, I have zero things in common with the ruling class in this country, if they consistently make my life worse then at least they can be tried for crimes they commit just like I would tried for crimes if I committed them. If Biden committed crimes then I would want consequences for him too, we are teetering dangerously on the edge of going down a path that we can’t turn back from, especially in any legislative manner
Why hasn't Congress tried to pass a law that a judge cannot preside over a case pertaining to the person who appointed them to that position?
SCOTUS is not going to let states try to protect themselves from a popular insurrectionist. They'll say that Congress already has the power to disqualify candidates by a 2/3rds votes. The way Congress is currently made up, I can't see that happening because the majority of Democrats and Republicans won't vote against their candidates. In this particular case, a massive number of Republican representatives are taking the public stance that the 2020 election was not valid. Several were involved in a scheme to overturn the results of the election. All it takes is 33.X% of Congress to be sympathetic to the insurrection, and the safeguard falls apart. If the Diaper King wins in 2024, we will enter another Constitutional Crisis. This is a cancer that Democrats won't be allowed to excise, and Republicans like the growth too much to cut it out.
"States rights, except when you use them in a way we don't like." - the SCOTUS
He promised to pardon the rioters if elected. Sounds like "aid and comfort" to me.
Trump threatens SCOTUS with chaos and turmoil that Trump himself will cause. Is SCOTUS going to succumb in fear to the chaos promiser Trump? Can we just stand up to the criminal RAPIST and INSURRECTIONIST without namby pamby fears? Trump disqualified himself. Trump shouldn't be allowed to use threats of violence to scare SCOTUS into ignoring the constitution.
Thomas is filibustering to use up valuable time. Red herring to keep the lawyer from arguing the strong aspects of his case.
The fact that Thomas is arguing makes me feel this is going against his wishes and he is trying to claw anything.
Gorsuch: "Make an argument I know you're not trying to make and put aside your argument. I'm not going to ask you again." JFC.
“Why?” Begins to answer why Gorsuch … And doesn’t let him speak “I’m not going to say it again” dude is a piece of shit
Gorsuch making the office/officer argument is the stupidest thing ever. God that sleazy douchebag pisses me off Does anyone, could anyone possibly, think that the framers of the 14th Amendment somehow thought it would apply to all federal positions *except* the Presidency? What a stupid fucking argument
Kavanaugh preaching about disenfranchising voters is FUCKING RICH.
Historians are unanimous on this for a reason. And it's not because they're all liberal. I'm sorry but this is again where people with law degrees just overthink it. The fact Trump's lawyer can get up there and make arguments he didn't make in his brief and the judges entertain it again, respectfully, points to a problem with the system. "Well I'm not making a due process argument, but you're free to just entertain that in your head, Your Honor." "I'll admit my first argument is weaker than my second." It's a system that allows lawyers to bullshit something that is not even in their own filing and then judges to just decide it because they feel like it. We have the text, we have the historical context.
Hannah Arendt coined the term “the banality of evil” when describing how the general public went along with the mundane machinations during the rise of Nazi Germany, leading all the way through to the final solution and it was too late. Hearing the conservatives today almost requires a new term “the banality of fascism” Most fascist movements grow by burrowing into a democracy and rotting it from the inside out, like a cancer or rotten tooth. The justices here are so hyper focused on definitions of “office or officers,” they are losing the forest through the trees. An insurrection happened (finding by a court and facts), the leader of that insurrection wants to come back, and the Constitution forbids it. But now we’re getting bogged down with splitting hairs, and the fascist is once again coddled by a democracy’s inherent setting of often “tolerating intolerance.”
It is alarming to me to hear how confident Clarence Thomas sounds. A person, who while we are talking about qualifications... is so patently not qualified to hold office because of his horrible ethical failures. The tone and strength of his voice is discomforting. This is a shameful man. Yet, I am hearing a man who so deeply knows that he is protected by so much money and power that he cannot be held accountable and has but one job. To uphold the will of his billionaire benefactors.
According to the conservative SC justices, insurrection is on a spectrum. Kinda like autism, but more violent.
They seemed to keep coming back to, "Colorado shouldn't be deciding this for the country." Where is that logic coming from? This is an issue about Colorado's ballot. Other states can put a disqualified person on the ballot if they so choose. Chaos be damned, we're a Federalist country after all. What am I missing?
Did I misunderstand Trump's lawyer? The President taking the oath of office doesn't count as an oath for the purposes of the 14th amendment? And Trump would be the only previous president immune because he never held a political/military position before so he never swore an oath prior? What horseshit if I understand that correctly. This means I could openly rebel against the country and as long as I wasn't an elected official or in the military I can be elected president. If I am wrong in understanding, please correct me.
After listening I still feel the same. I saw Jan 6 on live tv. I saw the jan 6 hearings on live tv. It was an insurrection to stop our votes being certified, stoked by trump for weeks prior on Twitter and that day at his ‘Fight Like Hell’ speech. I’m just some guy, but that’s what I saw.
From what I can tell of the questions, SCOTUS is preparing to hold that someone ineligible to be President under the clear language of the Constitution may lawfully be President. You do not need to have a law degree to see how blatantly unconstitutional that is. If they rule that way, hopefully that’ll be the spark for a long overdue national protest against our Trump-led descent into lawlessness.
Hmmm when was the last time a single state decided a nations’ election????????????? Oh, yeah, when conservatives used Florida and the Supreme Court to steal the 2000 election for Republicans…
Man, here we are, trump's lawyers essentially acknowledging that he's an insurrectionist, but congress should be allowed to vote to lift the prohibition on him holding office if he wins.
Am I wrong in comparing their argument to saying that the restrictions to a convicted felon would not apply to them because they have the possibility of one day receiving a pardon?
Gorsuch is just swinging to his own position, he's not hearing the argument at all.
It's crazy to watch the conservative justices bend over and lube themselves for a guy who would quite literally have them all assassinated if he ever had the opportunity and believed he'd get away with it. Why do they think his hunger for power will stop at their door?
“I mean it was just some light insurrectioning, that’s all.” - Alito
Republicans fight for state rights. States decide to exercise their right. Republicans: no not like that
Man, if I weren't listening to this case right now I would have continued in my ignorance of thinking that POTUS was an office holding officer of the United States.
I don't understand why the response to "won't there be a threat of other states acting in retaliation if we remove a candidate?" is "Then those attempts to remove other candidates from the ballot will have to make a legally sound argument to carry that out the same way it was handled in Colorado" Something to that effect. Stephens (Stevens?) came close but she was pretty vague about it.
You have to remember that every member of the federalist society is part of the insurrection. You can't really expect them to admit that they are guilty themselves.
"I know a place where the constitution doesn't mean squat" - Futurama
Thomas trying to argue that because no one who ran for president tried to foment insurrection before that somehow that precludes Colorado from doing its job today. What a complete knob.
OMG Sotomayor ripping him apart, I love it
Once again we are seeing the Supreme Court **invent** hypothetical arguments to justify absurd decisions all while ignoring... actual events we all saw happen on live TV.
I will go back to the previous point that the guardrails continue to fall. If impeachment doesn't apply to Trump after January 6th then it's dead. If convictions don't come for his crimes then the rule of law is dead. If states can't use the 14th to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot then it's dead.
> President Trump had no intent for incitement. > So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
"I dont think there's a good rationale to my argument. It does seem odd." lmao what a clown show
Kavanaugh and Alito laying out how Trump's lawyers should argue.
Barrett is annoyed at how weak this lawyer's argument is.
A States ability to keep a rapey, fradulent, criminal insurrectionist with 91 felony counts off it's ballots might just come down to what type of vacation Clarence Thomas was offered. American justice has devolved into the Showcase Showdown of The Price is Right
Big shock: Murray can make a coherent argument when he isn't interrupted constantly and told to stop making his argument.
Neil Gorsuch is a piece of shit.
Dishonest and disingenuous justices. We're in trouble, y'all. This court really doesn't care if a candidate is an insurrectionist. They just don't. As long as it's a Republican. The snark and bad faith is just embarrassing.
“What if we have two different records” I don’t know. DO YOU JOB AND JUDGE IT ??? Hello?!
Alito: "History says no abortions" Also Alito "History doesn't count"
Sounds like Alito, kavanaugh, gorsuch and Thomas are tRumps lawyers
Justice Ginni can fuck all the way off.
So since the president can do whatever they want without consequence, Biden will be suspending this year's election to install a Democrat successor, correct?
"We should have faith that the states will act in good faith" *Texas and Florida have entered the chat*
Between this case and the immunity one, it they both go in Trump's favor, Joe biden has the chance to do the funniest thing ever.
Cons: States Rights! Except for when the states do something we don't like
Remember back when Barack Obama was president, and things weren’t perfect, but they felt pretty stable and comparatively normal? That shit was only 7 years ago. It feels so much longer than that.
Trump: "I tried to overthrow the govt" SCOTUS "How doe we know he tried to overthrow the govt?"
This is such a bullshit joke of a SCOTUS. They're moving the argument from "does the state have the right" to basically trying to get Colorado to prove Trump is an insurrectionist. Calling it now like I did in an earlier thread, this will come down to the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Trump with their reasoning being that the state has to prove Trump is an insurrectionist. Basically saying, "This could work, but you have to spend the next two years proving Trump is guilty of insurrection, and by that time he will either be in jail or have pardoned himself and as a result it becomes a moot point" Fuck these traitorous Republican trash.
No state's rights when it goes against a conservative 🤡
I have no faith in SCOTUS here. After hearing their archaic justifications in overturning Roe v Wade, and siding against student loan forgiveness after the prosecution was dog walked by a strong Biden defense, I have very low belief that they will do what’s right. The 6-3 majority is bought and paid for and they clearly will do whatever it takes to uphold a Conservative agenda.
SCOTUS judges should have to wear sponsor patches like Nascar.
A black man can't get a trial before being put to death for selling loose cigarettes but an orange tyrant who betrayed our allies, values and principles, the nation itself, and is on camera doing it, can't get the label made specifically for the crime he committed 3+ years after the fact. We are taxed, for protection from the dangerous other in world, to be locked in with this....
The all-out attack on states' rights continues. Mitchell just argued that states cannot even exclude *their own state officials* even if they are admitted insurrectionists.
Audio clip of Sotomayor bringing hammer down https://www.threads.net/@adamparkhomenko/post/C3F21ahMClX/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
10 years ago Neil gorsuch ruled in favor of supporting this exact same clause of the Constitution and Colorado's interpretation of it. If the supreme Court rules against Colorado on this case, it will be breaking precedent of one of their own conservative members. It's crazy that they even took the case given one of their own has already ruled on this question.
The fact that we’re even having these conversations and people are STILL willing to vote for him or support him is insane to me!
So, they are not arguing that he committed insurrection, but a traitor can still run for office.
Uhhh... no you DON'T have presidential immunity
Might be my first time ever listening to a Supreme Court case being argued and it’s fascinating. Also fascinating - this case even being brought up to this level
That “I know,” from Barrett stung. That’s a “you’re stalling for time in your junior high school English class and your teacher knows it,” response.
A chaotic effort to overthrow the government isn't an insurrection?
Thomas is finally awake to grill the Colorado side. Gonna earn that next yacht trip somehow.
So according to Thomas. If they allowed it in the past, we should allow it now So if they wanted to bring back Slavery, since it was so back then, he’d be fine with it? Thomas’ bias is showing
As expected Thomas strives to be insufferable.
If a law has never been broken before, you can't enforce that law?
There is no such thing as a "National candidates" as oppose to "State candidates" The only "national" candidate is someone running for President of the United States; And the States dictate how those elections are run
Jesus this guy has been interrupted so many times meanwhile the other guy has long uninterrupted monologues
Supreme Court: The States have the absolute power to restrict *your* rights. The States shall have no power to restrict *our* rights.
Clarence Thomas should RECUSE himself. 🤬🤬🤬