States Rights Seems To Be Only Mentioned & Used When It Benefits The Repugs......

[global1]

Like in the abortion issue. Each State can pass their own interpretation.

In this ballot case - I agree that Colorado was making the decision for Colorado.

The way I see it - Colorado had the courage to take on this issue and decided for their State. "States Right" huh!!!

With Tr**p off the ballot in Colorado - he would have no chance to gain any electoral votes for that State. He still could amass the number of electoral votes in the other States to win the presidency. So Colorado was 'not deciding the election for the nation'. Only for Colorado.

Now if other States had followed through and made the same decision as Colorado to not allow Tr**p on the ballot - they too would be making the decision only for their respective State.

Now if - and only if - enough States joined in and did not allow Tr**p on the ballot - it is only then when it could reach the point where it would be impossible for Tr**p to win enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

But - yes each State would be making a decision for their respective State - States Rights again here in play - however, in my opinion - when it reaches the point in the process where a candidate can't amass the required number of electoral votes to win - as a group - they are now speaking for the majority of the American People that such a candidate shouldn't be elected president.

Now - if SCOTUS votes against Colorado - in fact - they are inhibiting other States to - if the State wanted to - invoke their States Right to eliminate a candidate from the ballot on their State. Kinda like cutting them off at the pass.

Bottom line - SCOTUS is inhibiting the possibility of enough States to speak for the American People.

I hope you could follow my logic here. This is how I'm interpreting this whole matter.

[GreenWave]

1. 3 scotus just us only already had interfered in w v. Gore as they were the bad guy's law team.

Another's wife is an insurrectionist fanatic. Another a trump guy appointee.

What these clowns did was blindside CO making it political and CO vs. 'merica. SCOTUS failed to disprove CO's trial that sack of shit did commit an insurrection.

[Sympthsical]

2. The question is of determining federal eligibility

There are a few qualifications for presidency. Natural born citizen, age, etc.

Imagine if a Birther nut was Secretary of State of Colorado, and in 2012 they up and decided President Obama couldn't be on the ballot for re-election. It goes to court, and the Colorado Supreme Court decides, "Based on what is shown to us, we've decided President Obama does not qualify under natural born."

One hopes no court is ever that crazy, but allow the hypothetical for a moment.

Is it allowable, under federalism, for a state to decide a qualification issue for federal national office? Would you have found it valid for states to hold that power against President Obama? That the state has the power to unilaterally decide a constitutional eligibility requirement for a national federal office?

And that's what Justice Kagan was getting at in her questioning. Having 50 different states decide what the federal constitution requires is dangerous ground. If that is allowed to stand, the result can be a lot of chaotic madness. We'd be faced with the next twenty years of various states finding various reasons to disqualify presidential candidates.

For national office, there should be a uniform federal standard there or else the crazier secretaries of state could go off half-cocked. And I think Justice Roberts had a really good point. The entire point of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state's rights. So why, with an amendment telling the states what they cannot do, would the writers suddenly empower states to hold veto powers over federal qualification?

It doesn't make sense on its face. It never did.

It is a bad idea to state's rights this issue, and I think the liberal justices were also hostile to the very thought.

One of the hazards of partisan politics is that what we want to work for us in the moment may end up being very damaging precedent in the future. And I think, in this case, people want the disqualification real bad, but they aren't seeing (or aren't caring) about the shitstorm it would unleash in the wake of it.

This morning, the Justices were letting everyone know they have their eyes planted firmly on that potential shitstorm.

[global1]

4. So Is Determining The Federal Elgibility Of A Candidate For The Presidency That.....

such candidate can't foment an insurrection or be an insurrectionist?

What if the candidate in question wasn't a former president? Let's say it was one of those people that were prosecuted, found guilty and sent to jail because of their involvement in the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol. Can they be denied a place on a particular States ballot?

Is that what it's going to take - that TSF needs to be prosecuted and found guilty of insurrection? Or is there some other loophole that TSF can exploit?

[Sympthsical]

6. Well, that's what they're about to rule on

Who decides?

IANAL, but I think based on today, whatever ruling they hand down is going to require federal decision-making. Whether that be the insurrection statute, a 2/3 vote by Congress, or federal district court involvement. I am not qualified or informed enough to speculate on what the Court's exact remedy is going to be.

But I think that will more or less be the shape of it.

[Johonny]

7. I believe states did throw Cenk off the ballot

This election because he isn't a natural born citizen. Maybe I'm wrong and that was a federal court. Anyone?

[Sympthsical]

8. They did, because there was no dispute

He acknowledges he's not a natural born citizen. So there's no fact-finding, trials, or interpretation involved. The Constitution is explicit on this detail.

Insurrection is a trickier business. It gets into that "Who decides?" category. Who is has the authority to decide that Trump committed insurrection and is ineligible for office? Congress, the courts, state, federal?

Interestingly, there was a question from a justice - not sure if it was Kavenaugh or Alito - that seemed to make a point that running for office and holding an office are two different things. That the Constitution makes no proscription against running for office. It just says who can't occupy it.

Which is kind of an arcane detail, but I suppose the argument could be made. It feels a bit in the weeds to me, but one never knows what rationale the Court might seize upon.

[unblock]

3. "States' rights" have always been used cynically

One of the biggest factors leading to secession was that the south wanted the federal government to force non-slave states to return those who managed to escape back to their "owners" in the south.

I.e., states' rights for the south to have slavery, but no states' rights for the north to be a safe haven from slavery.

[Igel]

9. You also have to look at the use of the phrase.

Legalization of weed is a "state's rights issue." But (D) don't use the phrase. They should.

As for abortion, SCOTUS said it's a matter for democracy--chuck it to the several legislatures.

[Zeitghost]

5. No matter what side of the "State's Rights" doctrine you take

The CO 14th amendment case was never going to come down to State's Rights.

The State's Rights doctrine is based on the 10th amendment, which states those powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government are to be left up to the States or the people.

Presidential eligibility is specifically outlined in the Constitution, making it a federal issue. Abortion rights are not mentioned specifically and instead relied on an implied right of privacy, which left room for the court to leave it up to the States.