Reader Smoked Paprika called our attention to this live-feed YouTube “video”; it lets you listen to the Supreme Court’s hearing of Trump’s appeal of the Colorado decision keeping him off the ballot. This is a big deal.
Live feed of the Supreme Court’s hearing of Trump’s appeal
February 8, 2024 • 10:48 am
Listening.
No thanks, I’m trying to eat lunch here! I’ll deal with the majority’s disgusting weasel-logic when my stomach is more settled.
I listened. I now think hope is lost. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh were all extremely hostile to Colorado’s positions. Roberts and Barrett didn’t give much away about their opinions, so I suppose there is some slim chance of them joining with Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan–but even Kagan seemed dubious about Colorado’s case. The only justice who was openly hostile to Trump’s case was Sotomayor.
I see no way Roberts can cobble together a unanimous court on even a very narrow ruling either way, though he would probably like to do so.
Scholars were clear on this. Judges like Luttig were clear on this. Historians were unanimous on this. An officer of the court who engages in insurrection shall not get another chance unless cleared by 2/3 of each house. Almost all the amicus curae were of this opinion.
SCOTUS however didnt get the memo. They are almost certainly going to make sure that a known insurrectionist gets a second try at the seat of power.
14A S3 is on its last breath and the plug is about to be pulled. I called this months ago that they would weasel a way out if they could. Forcing the arguments away from an insurrection occurring was the first telltale feeling I had, and it went down from there.
So, politicians failed on this, and the courts have now failed. Its on you the people to do, once again, what SCOTUS will not.
Having listened to the argument (which was excellent on both sides), my prediction is that they will rule 8:1 (Sotomayor dissenting) to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court and keep Trump on the ballot. Justice Kagan will write the majority opinion, which will rest largely on two grounds: (1) textualism: section 3 makes an insurrectionists ineligible to “hold” office, but because that disability can be removed by Congress, a state’s attempt to bar an insurrectionist from running for (rather than holding) the office of president is actually changing the constitutional qualifications for federal office, which clear precedent (including the Term Limits case) says states cannot do; and (2) originalism: it is highly unlikely that the generation that drafted and ratified section 3 meant to create the chaos that would ensue if each individual state could decide whether to bar from the ballot someone running for the only nationally elected office. Much as I would like to see Trump barred from office, this is not an easy case, these arguments are very plausible and maybe even stronger than the reverse arguments, and unbiased Justices could easily go either way — which is why Roberts will assign Kagan to write the opinion, to deflect the criticism that the fix was in. It isn’t about whether Trump engaged in insurrection or whether he can hold office, it’s about who gets to decide that and when.
But wouldn’t that just kick the can down the road, to the point where (Ceiling Cat forbid!) Trump wins the election and then the Supreme Court has to decide whether he can actually hold the office? How would that be less chaotic?
At that point they could declare it a “political question,” something that should be decided by Congress, not by the federal judiciary. So they wouldn’t have to decide it at all. They can’t do that now, because that would leave the Colorado court’s holding in place and keep him off the ballot in that state. The current case started in state court because it was a question of whether he should be on the state-created ballot. If someone were to sue after he wins, it would end up in federal court (either brought there by the plaintiff or “removed” from state court to federal court by Trump) and a Supreme Court decision that it raised a “political question” would vacate the lower federal court holding.
I watched this lengthy interview with retired judge Michael Luttig and he doesn’t think it was correct for SCOTUS to kick the can down the road and not even properly discuss the subject of insurrection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68h77bVm1E
What is your take on what he said in that interview, and on his views as reported in this article before SCOTUS made their judgment? (the latter is the short form, as the interview is long)
thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4455753-judge-supreme-court-trump-insurrection/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%20finds%20itself,%2Dramps%20to%20that%20decision.%E2%80%9D
Trumps lawyer clearly said it wasnt an insurrection.
Trump went out right after it was done and said it WAS an insurrection. Just that it was Pelosi who caused it?
He just said in a way his lawyer lied lol. Can that be used concretely against him?
I added the YT clip under in the Website line. Hope it shows up.
Given Pelosi boasted of trying to wrest control of the US nuclear forces off the standing President of the United States, Trump’s statement that she led an insurrection can be easily positioned as not contradicting his own lawyer.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/pelosi-trump-nuclear-codes-attack-milley
This reminds me of the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. Conservative justices putting their thumb on the Republican’s scale. And just think, if Gore started screaming the election was stolen from him in 2000, he’d be correct! Except he’s a principled human being and knew he wasn’t bigger than the country he served. It’s important to note that then justice Sandra Day O’Conner later regretted her vote…I think she was the swing vote. We probably still would have suffered on 9/11, but Gore would have never have gotten us into the travesty of Iraq.
It must take a lot of cognitive dissonance for these conservative justices to call themselves “contextualists.”
It’s both ironic and disingenuous for the Republican justices to claim on one hand that they are Constitutional Originalists/Conservatives who normally would defend State’s Rights while on the other hand display their fealty to the Orange Menace.
Kicking him off the ballot could be used in the future to exclude people you want to vote for. Let voters decide who should be President.
Also, eliminating him from the race would upset his many followers. They could reasonably charge 2024 was an unfair contest.
“Could be used in the future to exclude people…” , but only if you can get a court, and an appelate court, and probably the Supreme Court, to agree that these people engaged in an insurrection. That’s a fairly small price ro pay for the option to remove proven traitors nd wannabe dictators from the picture.
And if someone’s followers are so fanatic and violent that enforcing the Constitution makes them go berserk, all the more reason to stop this while there’s still an opportunity.