11mo ago

Colorado Ballot: Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Kick Trump Off State Ballots

www.nytimes.com Colorado Ballot: Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Kick Trump Off State Ballots

The court heard arguments about whether the former president’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election disqualify him from again holding office. Justices across the ideological spectrum questioned several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court.

New York Times gift articles @sopuli.xyz

Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Kick Trump Off State Ballots

www.nytimes.com /live/2024/02/08/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot

12 1

You're viewing a single thread.

87 comments

I mean, think of the chaotic implications of letting states determine who is eligible to be on their ballots by following a federal standard laid out in the constitution.
Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
- And if leading a riot into the capital to overturn an election counts as insurrection, then anyone could be taken off the ballet!
  
  I mean, you could exclude like half the Republican caucus. Imagine what a bunch of fresh blood would do to the place!
  
  Fixed it…
  “I mean, you could exsanguinate like half the Republican caucus. Imagine what a bunch of fresh blood would do to the place!”
- The problem is that Republicans will obviously abuse this. They've wrecked our justice system across all levels.
  
  This is always such a spurious argument; Republicans will do what they're going to do regardless of precedent. There was no precedent for their attempt to throw out the results of last election but they did it anyway.
  
  Republicans straight up dont give a flying fuck about rules, laws or precedent. They will always do whatever the fuck they want to do. Damn the consequences.
  
  Oh no they do. Their strategy is to push a precedent that fits their agenda little by little. Once they've got that president set they can carry out their designs more easily, and spend efforts setting other convenient precedents.
  Like, they are going to continue breaking the rules. But that doesn't mean the rules aren't still slowing them down.
  
  Ok I mean we can't have no laws because some leader is corrupt.
  
  ⬆️ This is the correct answer.
  If they allow individual states to make their own "objective" legal determinations regarding what is or is not an insurrection then you will never have a democratic candidate on the ballot in any Republican majority controlled state ever again. They will take that as carte blanche authority to say that every single Democrat is a traitor to the Constitution, and is unfit to hold office.
  Edit: I am following up because I realize what a contentious and controversial position this is, and I agree. However, the important thing to note is that this is the exact logic that was repeatedly broached by the Supreme Court itself. We can argue ad nauseum about the legitimacy of that body, but the bottom line is this: they are not going to allow Donald Trump to be unilaterally removed from the ballot. They are afraid of the ramifications of that decision, that much is clear. So, regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the matter you need to make peace with the fact that the Supreme Court is going to all but destroy the protections of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. That is just the reality, and that means it is more important than ever that we make sure Donald Trump does not make it back to the White House. If he does, that is going to be the beginning of the end of the United States for the foreseeable future.
  The worst case scenario that nobody wants to talk about is Donald Trump being able to pack additional justices onto the Supreme Court that are in their late 40's who will be on the bench for another 40 years, and guarantee the further erosion of civil rights in a way that will permanently destroy any chance for reform for the rest of your fucking life. This is not a game, this is not a drill, the Supreme Court has made it clear they are not going to do the right thing. The only remaining choice is collective action through voting or mass civil disobedience. Get ready....
  
  No.
  Making legal rulings based on obviously fallacious reasonings because of what Republicans might do or how they'll abuse that ruling is morally wrong and absolutely unjust. What SCOTUS should do (assuming they want to find Colorado correct, which... Roberts' Court 🤷) is issue the ruling saying Trump shouldn't be on the ballot, then when GOP fascist states try to remove Biden, take those inevitable cases and judge them on their merits, upholding or overturning them as the facts allow.
  They're judges. This is their job.
  
  You’re literally advocating for letting Trump do unconstitutional things
  No, I'm not. I'm reinforcing the likely outcome that is coming from the Supreme Court based on their own words, and threads of inquiry during oral arguments. I don't agree with it, but I am preparing for it. They are 100% not going to unilaterally allow Donald Trump to be removed from state ballots. If you think they are, you are lying to yourself.
  Making legal rulings based on obviously fallacious reasonings because of what Republicans might do or how they’ll abuse that ruling is morally wrong and absolutely unjust.
  I agree, but I'm not the one you need to convince. The Supreme Court doesn't share your impassioned desire for justice and ethics. They are absolutely going to hedge their bets in preparation for retaliatory legal action by Republican majority states who are already acting with impunity right now if you hadn't noticed.
  They’re judges. This is their job.
  They are also human beings, and they are prone to irrational actions based on implicit personal biases. This is a body that, in my opinion, no longer serves its designed function and now exists solely as an abstract exercise in mentally masturbatory naval gazing that collectively sees itself as completely disconnected from the ramifications of its actions. It is literally the godhead of a profoundly sick society that is trapped in a self-imposed negative feedback loop that is unlikely to be changed without mass civil unrest.
  
  So, Colorado determines who their residents are allowed to vote for, because THEY determine that Trump did something unconstitutional? I don't get that...I mean, isn't that what communist countries do? They pick and choose who the people can vote for?
  
  First my dude, none of us "pick" who to vote for. The parties decide who to put in front of us. But you're still free to write-in Trump if you want. Also the GOP could decide to run a candidate who is Constitutionally eligible, but they don't have the spine/guts/balls/chutzpah/decency/insert whatever adjective you want here to do that.
  Second, no, a court decided based on the facts that Trump is ineligible. Feel free to read their opinion and cite what part of the analysis you think they got wrong.
  And third, my dude, think about what year you were born. Then look up every single law passed before that, going all the way back to the Constitution. And then realize that you are expected to follow each and every one of those laws, despite having no say in their passing. That is far closer to the Conservative's boogeyman definition of "cOMmUNIsm" than the Colorado court case.
  
  I mean, it never really should've gotten to the Colorado court in the first place.
  And like, we already can't vote someone under 35, or a foreign national into the Whitehouse. Honestly I think "no insurrectionists" is the most reasonable restriction of the three.
  
  It's called having eligibility criteria, and it's a fact of life everywhere. You wouldn't want a five year old driving a car or drinking alcohol, and the law addresses this. Insurrectionists are disqualified in the Constitution, plain and simple. At least Trump doesn't have to worry about being disqualified for being a rapist or bad businessman as the Constitution is silent on both of those items.
  
  Even if I agreed with your reasoning it doesn't change what the law says. Like half the Supreme Court claim to be big into plain reading of the law.
  
  They would need proof.
  
  Fine, then the civil war that's been brewing finally kicks off and we can deal with fascists in the appropriate manner. That's not a compelling reason to implicitly allow fascists to participate in elections after attempting a coup, which would be the message sent if this is denied.
  
  I was thinking this too. But let's suppose the Democratic run states decide to play dirty (I know, I know). Now nobody gets past the post in a presidential election... Now what?
  
  Learn some 8th grade civics.
  If a candidate for President fails to receive 270 [electoral college] votes, the House itself will choose the President from among the three individuals who received the most electoral votes. In this process, each state receives one vote, and it's up to the House members from that state to decide how to cast it. The election has gone to the House twice, in 1801 and 1825.
  And if the House cannot do it, the Speaker becomes President until the House elects someone.
  
  Learn some 8th grade civics
  🙄
- Are you serious? So, every state in the country should just throw out whoever they wan.t...allowing their residents to ONLY vote for the people that the state government wants them too? Sounds very....communist.
  
  Just so you know, that's not what communist means.

87 comments