I've heard enough. SC is going to overturn Colorado

[Sympthsical]

And it won't be close.

Justice Jackson is wrecking Colorado's attorney right now.

[senseandsensibility]

1. Yup

Even Judge Jackson seems skeptical.

[ripcord]

5. I think you can include Kagan in that statement

[BeyondGeography]

36. +1

[NoRethugFriends]

10. She is not dependable, based on previous decisions

[onenote]

18. So we're throwing Jackson under the bus now?

[MistakenLamb]

26. give me a break

CO had a bad argument

[Renew Deal]

27. What previous decisions?

[comradebillyboy]

2. Was there ever any doubt?

[Sympthsical]

3. I'm honestly a little surprised

At how hostile the liberal justices are towards Colorado's case.

I've always thought the Court would overturn it, but the mood of the entire Court about this is something that caught me off guard.

[onenote]

20. People complain that the repub justices base their decisions on political bias

but then complain when the Democratic justices don't do the same thing.

[Sympthsical]

24. It honestly felt like the Court was pretty united on this

Even if the particulars varied, they each seemed kind of in awe of the argument that 50 states can have 50 different standards for a federal office, even with Article Two powers enumerated.

Even with the liberal justices, there was a heavy whiff of, "We cannot believe you're arguing this. The idea is preposterous on its face."

[vapor2]

4. And Amy seems to be beyond apprehensive

[Patton French]

6. It certainly seems that way.

They’re worried about this giving states the ability to remove candidates at will.

[Ocelot II]

7. I always assumed they would - but not necessarily for baldly political reasons,

as some have suggested. The case has a number of messy issues, and upholding CO would result in a patchwork of inconsistent results in the various states if it applies only to CO, or, if applied nationally, overriding the election laws of the states despite the Constitution's delegation of election processes to the states. If all election laws were federal it would be a much easier decision, but they aren't.

[MOMFUDSKI]

8. Hoping the libs are tossing a red herring to

throw the others off? Eternal Optimist here.

[LonePirate]

9. The only upside will be red states cannot remove Biden by equating their border invasion nonsense with an insurrection.

[Lonestarblue]

11. So in effect this decision would neuter Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

So far, this court has neutered the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state. Prior courts had already neutered the important part of the 2nd Amendment on a well-regulated militia passed because the young country had no standing military.

This court turned the concept of harm in order to sue for damages on its ear, both with the fake Christian website that didn’t even exist but if it ever did it might possibly need to right to discriminate against gay couples, not to mention letting the Texas abortion ban stand even after they overturned Roe—a law that gives anyone the right to sue for $10,000 if they prove someone, even a perfect stranger to them, helped a woman obtain an abortion.

And, of course, they turned women into second class citizens with no right to privacy or to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions. Overturning parts of the Constitution by fiat seems to be a thing—no need to go through the messy process of repealing an amendment that is supposed to lie with Congress and voters.

[tinrobot]

17. Probably for the presidency, at least.

If the reasoning is that there might be a patchwork of state decisions affecting our one 'national' election, then it could mostly nullify it for the presidential race. Though, to me, that seems like a giant loophole.

Since all other elected offices are held within a single state, there would be no 'patchwork'. That could allow a state to disqualify senators and reps by it's own rules.

[cilla4progress]

31. On their OWN ballot????

All states have ballot access regulations..that vary from state to state!

Scholars agree. See NYT article / Prof. Amar, interviewed on Lawrence O'Donnell last night!

And J. Luttig in today's The Hill!

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4455753-judge-supreme-court-trump-insurrection/

[tinrobot]

37. Oh, I agree. Just pointing out how they might decide the case.

[Takket]

30. That's my concern as well

Article 3 becomes unenforceable if you make the ruling that no one state can rule an insurrection occurred, unless there is a conviction, in which case article 3, at best, is superfluous. But clearly the shapers of article 3 felt leaving this up to criminal statutes to solve was insufficient or they would not have bothered to bake it directly into the constitution.

[SlimJimmy]

35. It's unenforceable because section 5 addresses the role of Congress as it

relates to section 3, which is not self-executing. This is what the Justices were getting at. It takes an act of Congress to enforce the provisions of section 3.

Article 3 becomes unenforceable if you make the ruling that no one state can rule an insurrection occurred, unless there is a conviction, in which case article 3, at best, is superfluous. But clearly the shapers of article 3 felt leaving this up to criminal statutes to solve was insufficient or they would not have bothered to bake it directly into the constitution.

[SlimJimmy]

33. I respecfully beg to differ on some points you've made.

"the important part of the 2nd Amendment on a well-regulated militia passed because the young country had no standing military."

How many times must we go over this? How many times will many here at DU get this so wrong? "The Well regulated militia" included every person capable of bearing arms. Since there was no standing army, the well regulated militia was every able bodied person in the nation who provided their own weapons. Period. End of story. This is how the framers interpreted it. This is how the framers intended it.

And as an aside, there is no "Separation of Church and State" in the 1st amendment. It simply states that the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The separation of church and state verbiage is contained in a letter, not the US Constitution.
I'm not a Constitutional originalist, but words do have meaning, and we should pay attention to them.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801 ... "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

[EX500rider]

38. " because the young country had no standing military."

United States Army
Founded: June 14, 1775

United States Navy
Founded: October 13, 1775

US Marine Corps
Founded: November 10, 1775

[CincyDem]

12. This could actually go 9-0 after listening to the morning

They made roadkill out of the Colorado attorney and nobody stepped in to stop it.

IANAL and I listen to these arguments whenever possible. Usually, when one justice goes after a lawyer and he/she is struggling, another justice with an opposing opinion steps in to try and help. Phrases like..."I think you're trying to say" or "If I could reframe your argument for a second"...that sort of stuff.

I think it was Gorsuch who went after this guy with a blow torch and a welding mask and it was crickets from the entire bench.

I think roberts is going to want a 9-0 and I didn't hear any real energy from the left side of the bench to fight with him over it.

Just my 2 cents.

[Sympthsical]

16. Concur

The moment Gorsuch went wild and Jackson immediately followed up with additional skepticism, I knew it was done.

[Celerity]

13. Neal Katyal is eviscerating the CO attorneys for not bringing up the danger of letting an insurrectionist run for POTUS

[Sympthsical]

14. It wouldn't have mattered

The Justices' questions were procedural and jurisdictional in nature. At base it was a "Who decides?" line of inquiry, with Kagan and Jackson piling on.

IANAL, but if I had to just throw a wild guess out there. It'll be 9-0 that there must be a Congressional mechanism to enforce Section 3 for federal office. States can't do it all by themselves.

[Celerity]

15. I too think it will be 9-0 to reverse the CO decision.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

23. We might be better off in the long run.

[tinrobot]

19. There is a Congressional mechanism that was employed

It's called the second impeachment. They could have barred him from office then and there.

Eff you McConnell for that "He's guilty, but let the courts decide" speech.

[Sympthsical]

28. And that's going to one of the bases of the Court's decision

There are mechanisms in place. Although in that case, it concerns someone previously in office. What happens when an insurrectionist runs when they've never held office before?

There is a Congressional statute, but as one of the Justices noted, that was passed before the adoption of the 14th. So they're going to want to clarify what exactly the procedures are here for federal office. And I think they need to. Section 3 is more vague than it should be. It leaves a lot open to interpretation, and that opens the door to chaos in the system. They don't want that, so I guess we'll find out. I honestly think their answer is either going to be, "There's a Congressional statute already" or "Congress needs to pass a new enforcement mechanism."

Which is a whole other fun door we'd have to walk through!

[onenote]

22. Katyal wanted to argue the case. He would have been eviscerated too.

He's embarrassed that he predicted that Colorado would win.

I think folks put far too much stock in what these "experts" say and predict.

[Demsrule86]

21. I have mixed feeling about this...I don't want every year GOP types to keep good

Democrats off the ballot or try to endlessly. I think we can beat him.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

25. It does seem like a Colorado win could come back to bite us in the ass later.

[brush]

29. Agreed. They all seem worried about what will happen when they rule for trump...

instead of what happened on J6, an insurrection, which is what they should be ruling on what constitutes an insurrection for the nation so all the states know what disqualifies someone from their ballots.

[CTyankee]

32. Sad, but I did think it would turn out this way. Not with this Supreme Court.

I didn't get my hopes up, but of course hope springs eternal.

Now, back to the business of winning on Election Day!

[Traildogbob]

34. Does it matter?

Can we just adopt the Abbott rule?
Just some sarcasm here. I think ruling him not able to be on the ballot will just fire up MAGA’s to start Shootin and if Biden wins it will never be accepted and we spend eternity where we are at now.
But rest assured, if a 9-O pro trump ruling will have the Howling Monkeys dancing in the streets, believing they have already won for a dictator to take our country. The beer party GQP threw at OUR house after the billionaire TAX except passage will look like a preschool party with sippy cups with the MAGA assholes in Congress and Senate.
Not gonna be a pretty sight for democracy. As Putin has orchestrated for decades and now he is seeing victory and on the cusp of ending US.