9 Likes
Now Trump’s guy is trying to sell the “President isn’t an officer of the United States” theory and it’s just as cringeworthy as one would expect.
6 Likes
Yeah… Sotomeyer is on it.
10 Likes
One of the reasons I love these things being webcast is that I can access them from outside the US.
Not this one specifically, I found out it was happening after it finished 
1 Like
So I think people can replay the hearing from the link above… some analysis:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ballot/index.html
It seems like SCOTUS were skeptical of Colorado’s justification… 
4 Likes
Not sure if Colorado or another state, but their folks said their hands were tied by state law - only people eligable for office were allowed on the primary ballot, and he clearly aint under 14A.
If the Ds were playing tit-for-tat instead of acting like the adults in the room, they could respond by putting a toddler on the primary ballot in one of the remaining states.
1 Like
Was that Maine maybe? But I think it was only Colorado arguing today…
No one on the bench seemed to disagree about that provision, but there was clearly skepticism about keeping him off based on section 3 of the 14A… 
Mainly, it seems, because they’re concerned about a tit-for-tat situation, where then a handful of states decided the entire election…
5 Likes
But then wouldn’t that be true for the whole Bill of Rights? No one made a law to back up the 4th Amendment. It is enforced at every level of government and adjudicated by the courts. Which is where the question lies now, in the judicial branch, where it belongs.
But any state executive or legislative action would be reviewed by the courts, like the very question in front of them, and judged on the merits. It seems like a strawman for them to say, “we can’t allow this application of the Colorado law , regardless that the ineligibility has merits, because then some other state might do the same with a meritless ineligibility determination” Nonsense - there is already a process for determining the merits of the ineligibility - we’re swimming in it!
5 Likes
A few heartburn things in that hearing:
- f-ckface von clownstick’s lawyers still clinging to “immunity”
- everyone (except CO lawyer) tap dancing around whether Jan 6 was actually an insurrection (“it wasn’t organized” so not…f-ck you, all those flags and zip ties and chartered busses Ginny paid for made it look pretty f-cking organized)
- Thomas even daring to open his f-cking mouth
The only way out is f-cking conviction that he led a f-cking insurrection, then all the dominoes will (should?) fall.
9 Likes
One of your words is broken. Here, have some spares for when you next need it (which I imagine will be soon):
Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fuckity fuck
4 Likes
It wasn’t the actual attack on the capital that was the extent or even the meat of what made it an insurrection. The attack was better (for the insurrectionists) the more chaotic it was. The purpose of that facet of the plan was to cause confusion and delay. What made it an insurrection were the other two facets of the plan: the fraudulent slates of electors in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada; and the co-conspirators in Congress assigned to throw the election cert back to the states. Those facets were organized, and T*** was the spider in the middle of that conspiracy. The only organization that was needed for the attack on the capitol were the core elements of Proud Boys and 3%ers that led the charge. And that part of the attack was organized and coordinated by Bannon and Stone, both associates and employees of T****.
9 Likes
right!?
thank goodness washington state hasnt declared that the border of canada is theirs alone - just think what texas might do! /s
they don’t need to get biden off the ballot when they’re already trying to find a way to let legislatures decide the electoral votes, when they’re closing ballot locations, when they’re kicking people off the rolls, when they’re inciting violence against election workers, and on, and on
7 Likes
Good point. I’d be tempted to ask, “if you’re so concerned with voter disenfranchisement, please explain Holder?”
It also sets up another conflict with this court’s previous rulings that gerrymandering is OK if it’s partisan gerrymandering but not ok if it’s racial gerrymandering. If it’s OK for state GOP legislatures to gerrymander against Dem candidates and functionally disenfranchise Dem voters, then how is it not OK to “disenfrancise” Colorado voters from one possible choice of candidate?
4 Likes
If SCOTUS actually says “14A can only be triggered on a POTUS candidate by impeachment or criminal trial” I will actually scream.
The federal prosecutors have worked flat-out, and his trial hasn’t started yet.
If SCOTUS say he can go onto the ballot until he’s actually found guilty then there’s a non-zero chance of him getting elected before the trial and immediately pardoning himself. And I will literally scream.
6 Likes
I’m starting to listen to it now finally. I’ll finish it tomorrow. But one thing that strikes me is how, at least in the first few minutes, forthright Trump’s attorney is. At one point, Kagan asked him about where they’re argument would be without Griffin’s case (I need to go read that, I’m completely unfamiliar with it), and he admitted they wouldn’t have much of an argument because the rest of the 14th Amendment has always been treated as self executing. The tone and attitude is sooooo different than what you see in Trump’s trial courts. It’s refreshing. So far.
12 Likes
@catsidhe is too modest to brag, but Australia is the worlds leading exporter of that word.
Fuck!
8 Likes
Is that because this is the one where TFG uses the good lawyers?
6 Likes
Yep, although the UK would give them a good fucking run for the title.
5 Likes
It’s probably easier to find an attorney willing to take a case involving Constitutional issues that has a good chance of landing before the Supreme Court. Even if you don’t get paid, arguing a case before the Supreme Court has value on its own. Plus, there are attorneys who specialize in appeals. This is probably mostly what this guy does. Oral arguments before an appeals court is very different than trial litigation, and one thing that’s different is your audience is always people with law degrees and a ton of experience rather than 12 randos off the street. So the Matlock theatrics don’t work and you get a more serious vibe.
14 Likes
More background on this guy and what he’s trying to do…
6 Likes
