Well, for the First Amendment, I’m pretty sure every state has a similar right in their state constitutions. Also, again, the 14th Amendment applied the First Amendment directly to the states. Prior to that, the Bill of Rights didn’t even apply to the states. Also, typically with what you’re talking about, it’s a case of those lower courts adhering to precedent set by the US Supreme Court, which they are obligated to follow. With section 3 of the 14th Amendment, there’s just not any precedent. We even saw that with the oral arguments yesterday with Trump’s lawyer citing non-binding lower court cases and an opinion by a Supreme Court Chief Justice made when he was sitting in a circuit court that he later contradicted. So Colorado wasn’t following precedent here. They were doing their best to interpret a law that just hasn’t been interpreted before at a higher level than their court.
That makes sense. Thank you for patiently explaining that to me.
I guess this is an opportunity for this court to set such a precedent. I hope they rise to the challenge.
That would be nice, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
WTF is this BS?
I don’t know if anyone caught this after the hearings last week on the Colorado ballot…
Elie Mystal is always worth hearing on legal stuff, though.
Here’s a good review of how the 14th Amendment, section3 has been applied in the past. Of note, congress had to create a law to address amnesty for Confederates who were barred from holding office under 14Asec3 and that law specifically withheld amnesty from high-ranking officials.
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3klfymuyxnz2q
NEW: Special counsel Jack Smith files his SCOTUS brief in opposition to Trump’s request for a stay in the presidential-immunity case—six days early s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24…
“A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law.”
I was just about to ask, so thanks for posting the content…
Any idea why a sign in for that?
No idea…used “copy link to post” and pasted it here. First time I tried linking bluesky content.
Update: it seems the Bluesky user who’s post I linked is responsible for requiring the sign in. 
Good on him; at least he’s making it clear that someone involved in this case understands the importance of a timely resolution.
Now we find out whether the SCOTUS justices applaud him for being so proactive or get petty because he’s making everyone else look bad.
6-3 decision, most likely.
They’re supposed to be having the hearing about whether Fani Willis will be removed from the Trump RICO case, but right now, it’s just a live feed of the court house downtown…
So, if you’ve never been to the ATL and want to watch a street in our city for a bit, nows your chance?
[ETA] Started now, but it’s a camera pointing at the ceiling? I think they’re doing other things right now?
Okay… I think they are finally about to start in a few? I guess it’s scheduled for a 9:30 am start time locally? Not sure where Ms. Willis is? But is that Mr. Wade, right next to the camera?
@danimagoo - you might find this of interest…
[ETA] Someone has not shown up (via zoom) and I think these are defense witnesses? Waiting for the second one (who apparently is “scared to death” 
) who is there in person? The witnesses are supposed to be outisde until called and then stay out until excused?
Is there always this much waiting in a court hearing?
Wait… did the second one not show up either??? HOLY SHIT! Or maybe they’re still waiting for the first guy?
Yes. The reality of court is that it’s usually boring af. And people no-showing is surprisingly common.
That hearing is interesting and confusing.
The guy on the stand right now is doing what the Bar told him to do to stay within attorney client privilege.
This poor guy just told the judge he’s a practicing attorney that just wants to keep his license.
Trump has a way of screwing over people not even involved in his crap.
Yeah, seems like it!
They finally got someone on the stand with Wade’s former law partner, spent the last 30 minutes arguing about attorney-client privilege, and now they have one of the original people they want to question, whose lawyer they have on zoom asking to squash the subpoena (she’s a former roomie or Willis? No, she subletted?)…
Are the defense lawyers all idiots?
Now the state is saying that they brought up a different reason for then they said earlier (Monday)? Judge denied motion to quash…
All these are apparently hostile witnesses, BTW.
Have to head out, so will miss the rest of the fun… 
Trump’s attorney is questioning Wade now. She’s trying to make it sound like he got all of the money from checks Fulton Country wrote to his law firm, and he’s correcting the shit out of her and making her look stupid. Rule #1 of questioning witnesses: don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to. She seems confused about the difference between Wade the person and his law firm.
Now she’s introducing evidence improperly…that seems to be a trend with Trump’s lawyers.
You get what you don’t pay for?
I don’t understand how any of this is relevant to anything.
Ok, right now, he seems like he’s hiding something. I wonder what all this Tennessee stuff is.
