I am not a lawyer, but the attorney for the Colorado voters, Jason Murray, is doing a really good job IMO. He’s probably going to lose 9-0, but he’s making great arguments.
The “but the other side will weaponize this precedent” argument is just plain stupid when talking about 2024 Republicans. They’re going to do literally anything they want regardless.
1 Like
But couldn’t Supreme Court right now essentially say no you can’t? They can set whatever precedent they want right
Katyal says the Colorado voters lawyers did a terrible job, and this will be 8-1 or 9-0 in favor of Trump.
Your mistake is expecting them to honor their own precedents when it’s inconvenient.
1 Like
Doesn’t seem that inconvenient for Supreme Court to prevent Texas from booting Biden for no reason or whatever. Like preventing democrats from being on ballots in red states doesn’t seem to be any apparent goal of Supreme Court but definitively is a goal of some state politicians
No person shall […] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, […] who, having previously taken an oath […] as an officer of the United States […] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
It’s right there once you delete all of the references to other people who are possibly disqualified and all this argle bargle is about how it’s invoked.
Truly no bigger waste of time and energy than listening to Supreme Court proceedings. Even I can avoid it and I watched every single Trump COVID press conference
1 Like
To me, the best argument in favor of Trump would have been, “But he hasn’t been convicted of insurrection! He hasn’t even been charged!”
That’s a fair point! I think the people running the Democratic Party and the Biden Campaign want him on the ballot and want to run against him and threw their weight around quietly to prevent him from being charged with the stuff that could actually disqualify him.
Never the less, that’s the best argument. Instead it’s going to be something like, “Yeah but does someone holding an “office” make them an “officer”?” or “But they listed electors and not the president himself!”
Just stupid shit. And the fact that it’s coming from KBJ in some of these cases again points me back towards… Dem elites want to run against Trump.
OK, but what about Wisconsin? Pretty blue for presidential elections, but gerrymandered to fuck and unbreakably red for state government. Wouldn’t be surprised if they’re looking for ways to disqualify Dems for president, and we could see SCOTUS let them.
So wouldn’t scotus telling Colorado it’s ok to boot Trump today give a clearer path to Wisconsin doing it?
Obviously scotus could reverse course to allow Wisconsin but seems like the initial precedent being that opposing candidates shouldn’t get booted off ballot in states controlled by opposite party seems the preferable default to avoid what you describe.
John Oliver just said he’d pay Clarence Thomas $1 million per year for life if he retires from the Supreme Court.
Can’t put a price on having the power to make the lives of the little people more miserable, tho.
And also, is a milly a year really enough to be more than the bribes?
The revenge he gets to take now that he’s in the majority is priceless. Plus he’s gotta protect his insurrectionist wife.
lol, Texas went to one of their “get a deranged judge guaranteed” districts and made up an insane (and very incorrect, as Stern notes) argument because they don’t want to give accommodations to pregnant workers and the judge was like “sure, why not”
They still don’t get it.
https://x.com/aweissmann_/status/1762980434877583562?s=46&t=XGja5BtSraUljl_WWUrIUg
dude is a lawyer, his entire self-worth is wrapped up in the illusion that his profession is serious and legitimate, admitting it’s all calvinball would probably cause his brain to implode
1 Like