wildcat09

It's very hard to treat you as a good faith interlocutor when you say shit like this.

Don't forget the most damning fact (at least the most damning absent direct evidence of him scheming through Roger Stone with the Proud Boys, which I do think likely happened): that Trump tried to use the delay caused by the violence to stop the certification. He called Mike Lee (meaning to call Tuberville) during the attack and pressured Tuberville to delay the certification. He didn't just fail to do his duty, he actively betrayed his duty by trying to use the violent attack to his personal advantage.

Wickard and Roe were correct and the only problem with the Obamacare decision (I'm assuming he's referring to the first one) is it unnecessarily analyzed and reached a conclusion on the interstate commerce argument and invalidated the Medicaid expansion with what can't even charitably be called legal reasoning.

Stupid, dishonest, uninformed, and/or politically motivated actors can dispute it or pretend to dispute it (and before you ask which one you are, you're politically motivated). I wouldn't consider any of their attempts reasonable. The language of Section 3 does not give Congress the power to disqualify those who've taken an oath of office and then committed insurrection or given aid and comfort to those who have. It by its express language disqualifies anyone who has done so and gives Congress the ability, with a supermajority, to remove that disqualification. No other provision of any of the Civil War amendments has been held to require legislation to give them effect. Congress wasn't required to pass any legislation for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to have legal effect. The framers of those amendments were suspicious of the judicial system that had produced Dredd Scott, so included enforcement clauses in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments expressly authorizing Congress to pass legislation to supplement and enforce the terms of those Amendments, but such legislation wasn't required for those Amendments to have any effect in the first place. This is a new requirement this Court invented because it was politically convenient for them to do so. The real legal question should have been did Colorado correctly determine that Trump had committed insurrection? If that invited mischief from other states, it would be the Court's duty to slap that shit down. That's the job these people wanted.

Sure, but you're making a policy argument here, not a legal argument. Would I like there to be uniform, objective election laws for federal office? Absolutely. I would fucking love it if confederate states weren't allowed to try every measure they can come up with to suppress minority and student votes. I would love it if Bush v. Gore's equal protection in voting ruling was real and not limited to that case as an excuse to allow them to stop a recount. Hell, I would love it if we actually got to vote for President and not for presidential electors. But that's not how our elections work and it's not how American election law works. The plain language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump. Nobody can reasonably dispute that. Everything else is a political excuse so that the justices could avoid reaching the obvious but politically volatile conclusion.

Every state already independently assesses federal eligibility in every election for every candidate for every office, including federal office, often with different conclusions reached by different states. This is where the "concurrence" that sure reads like a dissent gets it wrong too. It's like every justice decided to pretend that they had no clue how elections in America work. ETA: Colorado didn't remove Trump for political reasons. They removed him because Colorado state law requires them to evaluate whether a candidate is disqualified by federal law, and they determined that the 14th Amendment disqualified Trump. That's all they did. If other states wanted to respond to that by removing Biden by pretending he'd done something insurrectionary as well, that's why we have a Supreme Court to determine whether the alleged insurrection was bullshit or not. They just don't want to do their jobs.

Why do you support corporate executives committing fraud to deceive their shareholders?

To be clear, they didn’t have any real say in the decision here and if they’d ruled the way I think was legally correct and somehow gotten their way, Abbott and DeSantis (among others) would’ve seized on their reasoning to attempt to kick Biden off the ballot. They’re playing poker with shit hands. But they’re also not good at poker.

The thing is, even they didn’t really apply the law here. They just surrendered to the conservatives’ opportunistic distortion of the law for what is probably a mix of policy and strategic reasons.

Seriously, didn't Swam used to post a lot at night when he was on a boat swabbing decks because he couldn't find a job stateside?

Whether or not it is the correct legal decision depends on whether you think judges should have personal input into whether election law should make sense or not. The three liberals are clearly concerned about the possibility of GOP states ruling that all Dems are insurrectionists based on nothing and keeping them off the ballot (though one would think that SCOTUS could check that by determining whether or not someone actually committed insurrection) and see a real judicially cognizable interest in supporting some degree of uniformity in elections for federal office, but this decision isn't remotely based in the text or history of the 14th Amendment nor in structural Constitutional concerns (typically the Court looks at federalism, especially in elections, as good, not a horrible thing to be avoided at all costs even to the extent someone who committed treason should stay on the ballot). If you're a legal realist that thinks the courts have a role to play in filling in the blanks when the text of the law isn't entirely clear, I guess it's not insane for you to think that this is the correct legal decision (though I think the text of the law is fairly clear here). But if you've ever spent even a single fucking second touting anything any conservative legal commentators have said about what law should be and you want to pretend that this aligns with what you've previously touted, you should ___________________________________________________ [content that would get me suspended and/or might encourage someone to actually commit self harm has been censored by me]. A SCOTUS ruling that Colorado's electors can't be counted. Based on what? Who fucking knows, but that's what would happen.

They want to give Trump total control over immigration law.

Biden should announce that since Abbott believes the immigrants he is bussing across the country are an invading military force, Abbott is by his own tacit admission committing treason as defined by the Constitution.

Texas already is.

Those two were probably about equally developmentally disabled. It's a real shame what eating paint chips as a kid does to a person.

1. It is literally absurd to read a Constitutional provision that affirmatively gives Congress the power to expunge a disqualification by a 2/3rds vote, but says nothing about any Congressional power to impose the disqualification in the first place, as requiring Congress to act to impose the disqualification. 2. This "states have no power here, only Congress does" in this case is completely at odds structurally with all of this court's other decisions regarding voting/elections and the 14th Amendment.

It’s not sound reasoning. States already had the power under the constitution to administer the federal aspects of their elections. They’ve always been able to, for example, exclude a federal candidate from the ballot because they didn’t meet the minimum age requirement.

I’m thinking that it might actually be Swam.

This idiot should be banned for refusing to use multi quote.

If he’s not trolling and he’s not a 13 year old, he’s certainly one of the dumbest posters we’ve had here in years.

Oh cool, we’ve got a new conservative poster who likes to get drunk alone and troll the CR on Friday/Saturday nights with nonsense like “racism doesn’t exist.” I’m sure the fact that this seems to be a common affliction among posters with certain political beliefs isn’t at all indicative of their poor mental health or that they are huge fucking losers with no friends.

When SCOTUS wanted to nuke the eviction moratorium and student loan forgiveness (among other things), they were more than happy to bypass the appellate courts. If they only took this appeal because they think SCOTUS needs to clearly rebuff Trump's arguments, they should've done the same fucking thing last December when Smith asked them to do so.

This man gets it.

They're going to Mazars this. They'll wait until the very last day to release an opinion that's something along the lines of "the president is not absolutely immune but is immune for X types of acts so before a trial can be held the district court must determine whether the coup qualifies as X," effectively punting the trial until next year.

The fact that there were 4 votes for this is extremely fucking bad.