In arguments Thursday, the justices will, for the first time, wrestle with a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from reclaiming power.
The case is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively delivered the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. It comes to a court that has been buffeted by criticism over ethics, which led the justices to adopt their first code of conduct in November, and at a time when public approval of the court is diminished, at near-record lows in surveys.
The dispute stems from the push by Republican and independent voters in Colorado to kick Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Referencing Bush v. Gore is like they’re just asking for the wrong decision.
This corrupt court is going to make the wrong decision regardless.
“It takes a lot of money to have the constitution interpreted correctly.”
Clarence Thomas’ luxury vacations aren’t going to pay for themselves!
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
-Upton Sinclair
Would not worry, they will make the wrong decision anyway.
Just going to have to accept that the Roberts Court is going to act like this until it is fixed. Don’t assume good faith when you see red flags.
The only way to fix it right now is to increase members, get a majority, then set rolling term limits.
Or just appoint one new justice every two years, and have no fixed number of justices.
Lol that’s a big court.
The average Supreme Court justice serves 16 years. If you add one every two years, you’d typically have about eight justices. (In recent decades the average tenure has stretched to 28 years; if that trend held you’d have about 14 justices.)
That doesn’t seem like the modern term length.
Fairly clear in the chart here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
Average seems closer to 30.
From your link:
Historically, the average length of service on the Court has been less than 15 years. However, since 1970 the average length of service has increased to about 26 years.
deleted by creator
This illegitimate “supreme” court is notoriously extreme-right and has a history of deciding in whatever way they think will benefit their political party. The opinions published by the conservative injustices do not need to be based in reality, and frequently are not.
Conservatives are not able to engage in any deliberation in good faith as honesty and equity are not conservative traits.
If this court believed they had the power to install a conservative into office, they would do it. I am confident they will not rule in a way that prevents Trump from being on any ballot.
*Supremacist Court
Damn. That’s good. Thank you.
This Court is conservative, not partisan. They owe Trump and the GOP nothing.
And how certain are you that they always rule conservatively? I’ve only been collecting these for a week or two, there are far more:
There’s another ruling I can’t find ATM for all the noise when searching “Supreme Court Trump ruling”, but they told him to get bent at least once already.
So how about dialing in the hyperbole? I know it scores points around here, but it’s demonstrably false.
They’re partisan.
It’s weird that you phrased it that way, “owe nothing.” One has been receiving hundreds of thousands in lavish gifts. Another’s massive debts disappeared overnight. Really gets the noggin’ joggin’.
They don’t owe the GQP as a whole, sure. The individuals they do owe direct them to rule in a particular direction, that much is clear.
Roe v. Wade was bought.
Roe v. Wade.
Agreed! They DEFINITELY don’t owe ANYTHING to the people who are giving them MILLIONS of dollars worth of gifts and connections!
They failed the last one and they’ve only gotten worse since, so…
They did. They unconstitutionally directed FL to use the existing counts instead of recounting districts in a uniform manner. Roger Stone and the rioters got what they wanted.
Adults in 2000 should have done a massive protest, a general strike, something. Now here we are.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, was written to prohibit anyone who participated on the losing side of the Civil War from holding office. None of those prohibited were convicted of insurrection. This is very much like the age requirement for the President. It’s a qualification - must not have committed insurrection or given comfort to those who did. You might argue that Trump himself did not directly participate, but he’s certainly given plenty of comfort to those who did, with promises of a Presidential pardon.
As a qualification, it requires no judicial intervention unless challenged. Trump is free to challenge the grounds on which he is disqualified from the ballot, but being convicted for insurrection is not a requirement. These were things discussed during the ratification of the 14th, as was whether the amendment applied to the President (it does). I guess we’ll see just how principled the “originalist” conservative judges are.
I’m not expecting much from them, but when I played devil’s advocate with myself to find loopholes or excuses they might say he must remain, I can’t find one. I suppose the only loophole is if they say it wasn’t an insurrection, but everything else seems tighter than a drum.
-
it is up to Congress to rule that he did engage and since the second impeachment failed they did so already
-
The president isn’t an officer of the US
-
Being on the ballet is a state level issue and the states have no mechanism for removal as the constitution is written
-
It wasn’t insurrection it was a riot
-
He really isn’t on the ballet, the electors are
See it is easy if the truth doesn’t matter.
All of those things are wrong. They’ve been directly addressed and none of those arguments are winnable except maybe a definition of insurrection, but storming the Capitol violently qualifies by any laymen’s understanding of the word.
Well, considering they’ve made rulings based on entirely fabricated evidence, I’m not very confident.
Cool so I am sure the Supreme Court cares that someone said that they were wrong and will do the right thing. Which is why a fetus has more rights than a woman does.
-
They could just say “fuck you” and rule 7-3 in Trump’s favor. They don’t need to actually make arguments.
The argumentation they do is mostly just propaganda to keep people from rioting about bad decisions.
Yeah. This. It’s about what I expect.
There are a few choices they have in my eyes.
- A) he’s not an insurrectionist.
- B) “it’s too close to an election”
- C) the Constitution doesn’t matter
- D) ???
- E) Profit.
I doubt they’ll do the right thing.
- D) a quote from Revelations
The one major issue I see with this whole endeavor is who gets to make that determination that there was an attempt at insurrection. Yeah, I get it, we all saw it happen in real time. We know he’s guilty.
But this court may say “if some is suspected of being disqualified due to Amendment 14, someone should challenge and have a court decide”. And you know what will happen next. Some idiot Texas judge will declare that Biden and Harris are both leading an insurrection at the border. And Poof! Mike Johnson in now President.
He’s off the ballot in CO because someone challenged and a court decided, and now the case has risen to the Supreme Court because an appeal was made. This is as judicial a process as possible.
Now if the Supreme Court accepts a lower court’s ruling that Biden is ineligible, then it’s a constitutional crisis and people will need to decide who they believe is faithfully executing their duties.
The nice thing about the 14th Amendment is that nobody has to decide what insurrection is, because there is another option that was clearly breached on Jan 6th.
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
A court didn’t decide when the amendment was created and applied. It applied to people without trial. However I agree with the chaos such a ruling could create and it would probably be worse than having Trump on the ballot.
How dare you give me that much hope
Abandon that hope. Better to have a realistic expectation of a court that he practically got to pick.
I hate holding out hope, too. If it helps I’m sure I’m wrong. They will find some excuse, and it will be horrible precedent.
On the plus side, then Biden could organize a mob to storm the court. And no coy subterfuge this time. Man up and get shit done right.
/s of course
Here is one: the constitution says nothing about being on the ballot. Only about serving.
Having someone on the ballot who is ineligible to serve has already been tried (before Gorsuch before he was on the SCOTUS) and it turns out if you can’t serve you
can’t be onmay be excluded from the ballot. This from following legal blogs so apologies if I don’t have that quite right.Really? What about Nicaraguan-born Roger Calero who was the SWP nominee in 2004 (his VP candidate was a citizen by birth, but was only 28). Several states had the SWP run an eligible candidate instead, but at least 5 of them listed Calero/Hawkins.
Back in 2012, Gorsuch was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In that capacity, he wrote the panel opinion in Hassan v. Colorado. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, sued Colorado, arguing it was required to put him on the presidential ballot even though he was not a natural-born citizen and was therefore not constitutionally qualified to run for president. The Tenth Circuit ruled against him, with Gorsuch writing that states have “a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” and that because of that, they can “exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” It’s that quote that makes its way into the Colorado Supreme Court opinion.
I googled the situation and that’s what comes up. I’m not qualified to explain it any better.
Edit: it appears my version was slightly wrong. It’s not that he can’t be on the ballot, it’s that there is no requirement that he be on the ballot if the state wants to exclude him based on ineligibility.
Yeah the Bush v. Gore decision is such a flaming bag of shit, let’s compare this one to it, sure. Not tone-deaf at all.
Perhaps the corporate news outlet is unaware of the subtext. Sure, that’s it.
I’ve never been more confident
They will do the wrong thing
Everyone else has the serious threads of conversation handled, I’m just here to ask if it was entirely necessary to say “quarter-center ago” about something that to a lot of people wasn’t THAT long ago. I was in highschool. Going to go oil my creaky joints now.
It’s pretty easy to predict, he hasn’t been convicted of any of the crimes that would bar him from running.
And yet some courts (CO supreme court,for example) have decided that he committed them. The constitution says nothing at all about conviction. It doesn’t even say he needs to have been charged. It’s obvious that the clause has no meaning at all if the states can’t decide for themselves, using whatever process they wish, who qualifies as an insurrectionist.
yeah and that ruling was immediately put on hold and now it’s at the supreme court, because of course that’s their jurisdiction for deciding on federal crimes. And then they’re gonna defer to the ongoing federal case that is specifically deciding whether or not he committed the crimes.
Because frankly, otherwise we no longer have a democracy as state courts decide who gets to run for office with rulings that have no need to be substantiated, it’s not a court case with convictions or sentencing.
The guys who this amendment was actually made for weren’t convicted either. Not every rule about wrongdoing in politics involves a criminal conviction.
anyone can be on the ballot - but individual votes are rather meaningless. the electoral college is what matters.
Those are words
