***SCOTUS hearing Colorado case,

[elleng]

MSNBC. NOW.

I LOVE the way they discuss (and argue.)

*Thomas again asks first question, of counsel for Colorado. He's obviously engaged by this matter.

[orleans]

1. cbs live link on youtube

[StarryNite]

15. Thank you!

[Sympthsical]

2. Thomas who never talks, first out of the gate

Inneresting.

[elleng]

4. Right!

[C_U_L8R]

5. With a leading question

Nice try, Clarence.

[Walleye]

7. I guess he's getting nervous. People are onto him

[elleng]

3. Thomas asks first question!

Is Section 3 of 14th Amendment 'self-executing?'

[edhopper]

10. What does that mean?

[getagrip_already]

16. It means does there need to be a conviction or act of congress

Declaring him an insurrectionistionist, or is it self executing without requiring that.

For example, someone being 30 years old is self executing. No other action by any other official body needs to be made.

The 14th section 3 as written is also self executing. But Thomas is flailing.

[edhopper]

17. Thanks

Yes, considering it was used against so many in the Confederacy, original intent is obvious.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Yes, it is.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. I am watching on MSNBC

[ChazII]

8. I am watching it on MSNBC, too. n/t

[riversedge]

9. i THINK that justice kagan is eating Mitchell alive

[C_U_L8R]

11. I can hear the flop sweat on the Trump attorney

They are over-reaching and the justices (minus Thomas) aren't buying it.

[Sympthsical]

12. Barrett's always an interesting listen

Because she can often be highly skeptical, even when you figure she's on the conservative side of an argument.

I remember listening to Haaland v Brackeen, and she kept poking at the attorneys. With a kind of eye-rolling, "Are you seriously arguing this?"

It's interesting so far.

Sotomayor seems to have become the most prominent of the liberals. She's definitely the most challenging so far.

[TSExile]

13. Why is this guy babbling about term limits?

Sounds like Justice Sotomayor is not having it!!

[Sympthsical]

18. LOL, Justice Jackson

Attorney: "For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence."

Justice Jackson: "So the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government isn't an insurrection?"

[lindysalsagal]

19. Jason Murray, against tfg, is up now. Sounds strong.

"Office "under" or office "of" is not a good enough excuse to allow tfg to run. Good start.

[lindysalsagal]

22. THomas asks him if there is any history of this happening. Duh. Dumb question.

No potus has assaulted the capital before. Thomas says there should be "a few examples of states disqualifying candidates immediately after civil war."

He insists there must be examples of states stopping national candidates. It appears that's his exception: 1st time.

[elleng]

23. Murray is counsel for Colorado.

[joshcryer]

20. Jason Murry, calling for states rights.

[joshcryer]

21. Thomas "states can disqualify" but how:

Murray "states can"

Thomas "but national candidates"

[lindysalsagal]

24. Roberts trying to claim no standing for states to stop national candidates. He's already decided.

[onenote]

25. Most justices have "already decided" before the oral argument.

It is the rare case in which oral argument turns a justice around. Not saying it never happens, but that most if not all justices come into oral argument already have reached an initial conclusion about the outcome of the case based on the briefs.

[lindysalsagal]

41. If states can't stop candidates, who can? How else can this amendment be enacted?

Did they ask the scotus how else this can be done? If it can't be done, they're re-writing the constitution.

[Chakaconcarne]

26. Yeah, not looking too good. Hope I'm wrong.

[lindysalsagal]

28. Agreed.

[cloudbase]

31. Murray is having a rough go of it.

[Sympthsical]

37. Gorsuch is wrecking him

Ooft. A little painful.

Even the liberals are picking at problems, although Justice Jackson is trying to throw him a lifeline now. But even she sounds skeptical.

Although I liked his answer about redundancy. It isn't a strong answer, but it was an answer when he didn't have one for Gorsuch.

[underpants]

35. I've never thought he would be kicked off that or any ballot

To be honest

[elleng]

38. Interesting, isn't it, we and the SC 'only now' recognizing 'difficulty' of federalism,

at least re: elections for federal office (like for President?)

[underpants]

49. I do have to say - wasn't the 14th Amendment an act of Congress?

I’ve seen several references to a 1869 lower court case that said the 14th requires an act of congress. Wasn’t that an act of congress?
Did Congress take any direct action towards specific Confederates? Were any Confederates convicted?

[NoRethugFriends]

27. I think this will be five four

Probably pro Trump but not sure

[GreenWave]

29. Can somebody bravely say "Former President Trump"?

[JohnSJ]

30. How about citizen trump

[Scrivener7]

32. Gorsuch has a voice you'd expect to hear out of a serial killer.

[lindalou65]

33. Colorado Ballot SC hearing

I find it hard to get a sense of how the Justices might rule. They do ask many compelling questions. Do we know when the decision is expected?

[gab13by13]

34. Murray not looking good,

[Scrivener7]

36. I am betting they won't uphold Colorado. Hope I'm wrong.

[Sympthsical]

39. Alito's getting to the heart of the problem

Finally, someone is asking it.

"What happens when you have 50 different states with 50 different processes and decisions?"

Which is the core problem the Court needs to address.

[elleng]

40. Right, effect of federalism!

Interesting this issue is addressed now, 'a few years' after adoption of constitution!

[Takket]

45. That's exactly why SCOTUS exists. To resolve those differences of opinion.

[Sympthsical]

42. Kagan is being highly skeptical

I dunno. It feels to me like even the liberal justices aren't super on board with Colorado. You can't base how they feel based on the questions they ask - they often prompt attorneys to make their best arguments by poking at the weak points.

But when they interrupt or seem impatient or oppositional, you can kind of pick where they see problems that need overcoming.

[Takket]

43. Yeah this is getting shot down. Murray is getting hammered by everyone.

But what I find disturbing about the hypotheticals the justices are keep putting out there about why Colorado should be able to make this decision for everyone: if that is the standard, then article three is unenforceable because how could all 50 states ever all agree that someone committed insurrection?

[elleng]

44. Maybe they're not super on board with federalism?!

or just now recognizing difficulties!

[Sympthsical]

46. A SC decision seeking uniformity is federalism, though

When there is a massive amount of disagreement about what a federal constitutional amendment means, the Supreme Court's core job is to let everyone know.

[elleng]

48. Right, SCOTUS is stuck with it!

[SKKY]

47. Yea, when she asked why Colorado can chose the candidate for all other states...

...that's the ballgame right there. The rest are just the details.

[Sympthsical]

50. When Justice Jackson is coming for you . . .

This is a massacre for Colorado.

[cloudbase]

51. Murray is trying to tread water,

and the justices are throwing him anvils.

[Takket]

52. How can Jackson be asking why President is not included?

How can any person conclude that section 3 is meant to say “well hell no we don’t want any insurrectionists senators or reps, but if they want to be president that’s cool.”

NO

they did not want any insurrectionists holding federal office!!!

[Scrivener7]

55. I thought his answer was good: They had to enumerate the non-office holders, but the President was

clearly included in the "and officeholders" language.

But she didn't seem convinced.

[dweller]

56. Murray answered

A senator or rep is not an officer, they hold a seat. An elector is not an officer, they just vote.
A president is an officer and so is included in ‘ no officer shall’ part


✌🏻

[elleng]

59. Right.

[joshcryer]

53. Shannon Stvenson up

[elleng]

54. Colorado Solicitor General.

[elleng]

57. Sorry I gotta go, for Med appt!

See y'all later!

[lindysalsagal]

58. Shannon Stevenson, Colorado solicitor general, doing a good job.

Not sounding defensive. Good for her. They're back to chewing on how states determine ineligibility. She's standing strong on state's rights.

What's getting lost in the weeds is that being a potus candidate isn't a citizen's right by birth, and that right can be determined by legislation. And it has. Standing doesn't matter when a 10 year old wants to run, or a russian.

[Takket]

60. She is doing a really good job.

She Basically just said “yeah other states are going to have different opinions but that is why we are HERE asking YOU as the SCOTUS to decide!!!

[joshcryer]

61. Mitchell so full of shit.