The Supremes

[Red Five 41070]

How do you lawyers not end every day with a migraine. 

[Brisketexan 105574]

Just now, Red Five said:

How do you lawyers not end every day with a migraine. 

Ummmm.....we don't.  It's why self-medication is so common in our profession.

Edited February 8 by Brisketexan

[tx 3 putt 77927]

11 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

 

It’s a legitimate question. That will be argued by several states if SCOTUS rules Trump ineligible, and it would make it to SCOTUS. 

radical right wing SC telling blue states how to go after Biden

 

[Pato del Muerto 52875]

30 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Republicans have won the popular vote ONCE since 1988, yet have appointed 7 of the 12 Justices since then.  Maddening. 

Suspicious imo

[tx 3 putt 77927]

7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

How do you lawyers not end every day with a migraine. 

[wildcat09 29453]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Unlike Judge Judy and the TV judges, a good judge with the proper judicial demeanor will not be rude or snarky to someone delivering an appellate argument.  You might get skewered a bit in the actual decision and the logic of your argument or your ability to correctly understand case precedent might be indirectly questioned -  but I do not expect disrespect or Snark from SCOTUS in an oral argument. 
Also, don’t read too much into the justices’ demeanor in asking questions. They often ask questions to drill down on a certain point.  What seems to be a friendly judge talking with counsel is often that Justice narrowing a point and getting admissions, so that Justice can later do a kill-shot on that point.  

Alito is often an unprofessional little pissbaby when questioning the SG. Gorsuch is often a dick too. The rest are pretty professional. 
 

ACB’s questions in the more politically charged cases tend to make it seem like she might be a gettable vote, but then she usually just signs on to whatever insane shit the conservative majority writes, so it’s hard to know what she really thinks.

Edited February 8 by wildcat09

[tx 3 putt 77927]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Alito is often an unprofessional little pissbaby when questioning the SG. Gorsuch is often a dick too. The rest are pretty sessional. 
 

ACB’s questions in the more politically charged cases tend to make it seem like she might be a gettable vote, but then she usually just signs on to whatever insane shit the conservative majority writes, so it’s hard to know what she really thinks.

ACB votes whichever way ‘People of Praise’ tells her to vote 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

i don't remember what kagan and sotomayor were asking, but kbj seemed to think it was crazy.  so i'd say somewhere between 7-2 and 9-0 telling CO to pound sand.  

[Js1 85754]

This is so boring, it's going to be a pretty uncontroversial 8-1 or 9-0 decision against Colorado. 

I am far more interested if they take up the immunity issue and how that goes. 

[Dutchrudder 11159]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He'll remain on the ballot in every state that could possibly go red.  That's the funny thing -- in terms of "deciding the election," this is all a phony war.  It may affect the total national popular vote, but it won't affect the only thing that matters -- the EC vote totals -- at all.  Hell, if Trump is off the ballot in 10 blue states, then he'll really get his ass kicked in national popular vote numbers, but he could still be elected POTUS because he wins the necessary swing states in addition to his red state base.

I agree I don't think it will do anything to change the electoral vote outcome. Suppose they do uphold the Colorado decision and he's removed from the primary ballot. Wouldn't the Nikki Haley campaign take this logic and try to apply it in every state possible to steal a bunch of primaries in blue/purple states to create a brokered convention situation for the Republicans? Wouldn't that be impactful and cause a whole bunch of issues for the Rs? 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Obviously they will rule Trump eligible 

But I'm super curious how they explain away some of this shit. 

 

[Red Five 41070]

It's a good lesson to learn. Try a coup and fail? Well just run again four years later. 

['stache 21903]

Since a lot of the handwringing (including from Justice Jackson) was that the clause does not refer to the President or Vice-President, but the electors of those offices, and if CO loses solely on that ground, couldn't this issue come back after the election? If Colorado votes for trump, couldn't the electors appointed then be disqualified? I guess then the issue becomes if the electors themselves have to have committed insurrection. It would seem that submitting an elector vote for an insurrection is "aiding and abetting" an insurrectionist ant that would become the closer question. I think the electors also don't act of their own volition, they are only doing a ministerial act of conveying the result of the state's vote. I ask this solely as a thought experiment. CO is pretty solidly blue, and if the voters of that state (or any state) are majority for trump, it's a bad look to overturn that result using this clause, even if legal. And of course I'll just fall back on it doesn't matter, if the majority of voters in this country elect that insurrectionist piece of shit, we're done anyway as a democracy. 

Edited February 8 by 'stache

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Obviously they will rule Trump eligible 

But I'm super curious how they explain away some of this shit. 

 

He's eligible.

Why?

[Neonmoon 38130]

Just now, Red Five said:

It's a good lesson to learn. Try a coup and fail? Well just run again four years later. 

Gorsuch said it wasn't their job to determine if that's okay (he's also going to rule it's not the state's job either)

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Since a lot of the handwringing (including from Justice Jackson) was that the clause does not refer to the President or Vice-President, but the electors of those offices, and if CO loses solely on that ground, couldn't this issue come back after the election? If Colorado votes for trump, couldn't the electors appointed then be disqualified? I guess then the issue becomes if the electors themselves have to have committed insurrection. It would seem that submitting an elector vote for an insurrection is "aiding and abetting" an insurrectionist ant that would become the closer question. I ask this solely as a thought experiment. CO is pretty solidly blue, and if the voters of that state (or any state) are majority for trump, it's a bad look to overturn that result using this clause, even if legal. And of course I'll just fall back on it doesn't matter, if the majority of voters in this country elect that insurrectionist piece of shit, we're done anyway as a democracy. 

i don't think it reads that way.  the section says

1) no elector can be an insurrectionist.  they aren't.

2) no one can hold an office that gives aid or comfort to "enemies of the us."  that clause doesn't say people that gave aid or comfort to insurrectionists

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13596]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This is so boring, it's going to be a pretty uncontroversial 8-1 or 9-0 decision against Colorado. 

I am far more interested if they take up the immunity issue and how that goes. 

2015 MAGA: HE'S JUST JOKING!!!

2024 Alito/Thomas: Can a president shoot someone on 5th Avenue?

 

[South Austin 52688]

21 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This is so boring, it's going to be a pretty uncontroversial 8-1 or 9-0 decision against Colorado. 

I am far more interested if they take up the immunity issue and how that goes. 

Same.

An election law expert from UCLA law school was just on NPR and said that the concern over future political consequences of a Supreme Court decision affirming Colorado (i.e., the red states will bring claims against Democratic candidates to exclude them from the ballot) is more significant than in the immunity case.

It just doesn't matter, thought, because it's going to fucking be Biden v. Trump in November.

[Born to Run 6583]

Obviously they will rule Trump eligible 
But I'm super curious how they explain away some of this shit. 
 

Pandoras box argument. If the disqualify Rs for insurrection, Red states will disqualify Dems from running for any spurious reason.

The election would then be decided by a handful of states. Same, but different.

[henrygandorf 29199]

every last one of these arguments comes down to one question - "how can republicans take this and abuse the shit out of it?"

this is the world we now live in.

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Pandoras box argument. If the disqualify Rs for insurrection, Red states will disqualify Dems from running for any spurious reason.

The election would then be decided by a handful of states. Same, but different.

I mean…wouldn’t there need to be spurious reasons listed in constitution to use as disqualification criteria?

[Born to Run 6583]

I mean…wouldn’t there need to be spurious reasons listed in constitution to use as disqualification criteria?

Biden is leading an insurrection by allowing a flood of illegal voters with open border policy.

That would be largely unopposed in red states like Texas.

[elfenix 34385]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I mean…wouldn’t there need to be spurious reasons listed in constitution to use as disqualification criteria?

As if having something not listed as a disqualification criteria would stop bad faith actors. I guarantee there’s tweets being fired off right now that releasing funds to Iran is insurrection.

[Neonmoon 38130]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

As if having something not listed as a disqualification criteria would stop bad faith actors. I guarantee there’s tweets being fired off right now that releasing funds to Iran is insurrection.

I get the argument regarding bad actors, but at some point, doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of the rule of law, if we interpret the word gun to mean teddy bear?

 

[Rimbo 26434]

8 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Biden is leading an insurrection by allowing a flood of illegal voters with open border policy.

That would be largely unopposed in red states like Texas.

Except that Biden can now campaign heavily on the Republicans refusing to vote in favor of the very border deal they proposed. "You want a secure border? Vote Biden!"

Trump has already lost the blue collar workers who got him elected in 2016. The GOP has no issues left to run on other than "Vote Trump because Trump." That's literally all they have left, because enough of the current GOP got to power solely because they were riding Trump's coattails. The rest were either run off or quit, or chose to ride the tiger. 骑虎难下 - it's easy to ride a tiger; it's the dismount that's difficult.

I'm hoping Trump is on the ballot on November, because he will lose. AGAIN. Moderate Republicans will either stay home or vote Biden; all but Trump's most dedicated will vote, and even they are being told by Trump himself not to bother. The rest of us, especially women, are highly motivated to vote. Oh and a good bit of his base skipped the vaccine and died from COVID.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

10 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Oh and a good bit of his base skipped the vaccine and died from COVID.

[henrygandorf 29199]

12 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm hoping Trump is on the ballot on November, because he will lose. AGAIN. Moderate Republicans will either stay home or vote Biden; all but Trump's most dedicated will vote, and even they are being told by Trump himself not to bother. The rest of us, especially women, are highly motivated to vote. Oh and a good bit of his base skipped the vaccine and died from COVID.

it's important, once again, to look at the polls for what they are.  when you see trump winning a poll 43-41 and then losing another poll 49-43, just look at his number.  it's always around 42-43.  that's not a coincidence.

[DDD Dad 14374]

11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Except that Biden can now campaign heavily on the Republicans refusing to vote in favor of the very border deal they proposed. "You want a secure border? Vote Biden!"

Trump has already lost the blue collar workers who got him elected in 2016. The GOP has no issues left to run on other than "Vote Trump because Trump." That's literally all they have left, because enough of the current GOP got to power solely because they were riding Trump's coattails. The rest were either run off or quit, or chose to ride the tiger. 骑虎难下 - it's easy to ride a tiger; it's the dismount that's difficult.

I'm hoping Trump is on the ballot on November, because he will lose. AGAIN. Moderate Republicans will either stay home or vote Biden; all but Trump's most dedicated will vote, and even they are being told by Trump himself not to bother. The rest of us, especially women, are highly motivated to vote. Oh and a good bit of his base skipped the vaccine and died from COVID.

This is wishcasting fan fiction.

Roberts must feel desperate to sway at least one of the three non-Republican appointed justices to reverse here.  Otherwise the court's already suspect legitimacy will suffer further and possibly irreparable erosion.

There are some rumors/speculation floating about that there may be some horse trading going on at the court to garner votes on this case with the immunity case that follows.  To me that makes no sense as the immunity case seems pretty obvious.  I guess we'll see.

[Fudge Nuggets 19276]

16 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

The GOP has no issues left to run on other than "Vote Trump because Trump." That's literally all they have left, because enough of the current GOP got to power solely because they were riding Trump's coattails.

They will revert back to the classics... Guns, God, Gays.

[Fudge Nuggets 19276]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

This is wishcasting fan fiction.

Roberts must feel desperate to sway at least one of the three non-Republican appointed justices to reverse here.  Otherwise the court's already suspect legitimacy will suffer further and possibly irreparable erosion.

There are some rumors/speculation floating about that there may be some horse trading going on at the court to garner votes on this case with the immunity case that follows.  To me that makes no sense as the immunity case seems pretty obvious.  I guess we'll see.

I have seen nothing in the last few years that tells me Roberts gives one flying fuck about the court's "legitimacy".

[DDD Dad 14374]

Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

I have seen nothing in the last few years that tells me Roberts gives one flying fuck about the court's "legitimacy".

Perceived legitimacy.  Without it the court is neutered.  He absolutely cares about that.  

[bolverk 29819]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Perceived legitimacy.  Without it the court is neutered.  He absolutely cares about that.  

Obviously, I'm a layman here, but what does the court's "perceived legitimacy" mean in practical terms? Do you see folks just ignoring their rulings?

[DixonHur 11600]

39 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

every last one of these arguments comes down to one question - "how can republicans take this and abuse the shit out of it?"

this is the world we now live in.

This is true, but also after listening to the oral arguments today I'm inclined to agree with SCOTUS' point that the 14th is a federal issue, not a state issue.

IMO, Trump should not be allowed to be President, but I don't think states should have the authority to determine that.

As others have said, this feels like a 9-0 or 8-1 opinion, but I think they are likely to nix his immunity defense in the coming weeks.

['stache 21903]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

They will revert back to the classics... Guns, God, Gays.

Yup. And lol at the idea that not supporting the border deal will be held against him or other republicans. They voted it down precisely because they know their voters give zero shits. They like crying about border chaos regardless of legitimacy or any rationality about who is actually proposing solutions.

[DDD Dad 14374]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Obviously, I'm a layman here, but what does the court's "perceived legitimacy" mean in practical terms? Do you see folks just ignoring their rulings?

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/the-supreme-courts-legitimacy-dilemma/

From the article:

The judiciary has no army; it must rely on others to obey its decrees. Government officials and the general public are more likely to comply if they view the Court as “legitimate” — that is, as an institution that does and should have the power to affect legal rights and obligations. It is particularly crucial that those who disagree with a given decision view the Court as legitimate; such disappointed individuals will respect the adverse ruling if they view the institution itself as authoritative. Thus, political scientists have a refrain: “Legitimacy is for losers.”

Edited February 8 by DDD Dad

[texasdago 7589]

15 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

They will revert back to the classics... Guns, God, Gays.

Saw a tool at Lifetime wearing a shirt that said God, Guns, Gainz

[henrygandorf 29199]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This is true, but also after listening to the oral arguments today I'm inclined to agree with SCOTUS' point that the 14th is a federal issue, not a state issue.

IMO, Trump should not be allowed to be President, but I don't think states should have the authority to determine that.

As others have said, this feels like a 9-0 or 8-1 opinion, but I think they are likely to nix his immunity defense in the coming weeks.

agreed and i'm happy about that.  i hated all the colorado stuff from the jump, and not because of trump's qualifications/eligibility/mental acuity/insurrectionist tendencies. 

it's just sad that the precedents have to be judged based on the worst possible interpretations by the worst of the bad actors.  and just so coincidental that these bad actors always happen to be on the right.

it's like we're back in the 1950's and new products are coming out.  there's always someone at the factory saying, "do we really have to put 'do not eat' on the side of the can of paint?"  we will always be judged by the least among us.  unless we're talking about access to guns.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

this opinion is going to be leveraged through campaigning as the system trying to keep trump down, but the fighter that he is keeps on winning.

[SquishMitten 10461]

13 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Good answer by Murray on why President wasn't listed.

 

I had to take a call right after the question was asked so I didn't hear the answer, but I see two very big possibilities. Starting with this....

13 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

seems the natural reading of "Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" is what KBJ is saying.  a state can't put a piece of shit up as its representation in the government.  those are fundamentally different positions than the president that represents everyone that every state only has a partial say in.

.... This is a reasonable interpretation, and I saw that for two reasons:  First, when written, it would be reasonable to assume they believed that a) someone who had committed insurrection couldn’t possibly win an election (e.g., they couldn’t fathom that the confederate states would have enough voting power to get someone like Davis elected as President as opposed to winning a Senator/Rep) and/or b) if someone who had committed insurrection WAS elected as president (which was ultimately made possible by flaws with the electoral college), then shouldn’t they be allowed to take office? Isn’t that the ultimate goal of a democracy? If the “majority” of the country believes a person should be president in spite of a constitutional clause, then isn’t that the will of the people saying they don’t agree with that part of the Constitution anymore? In other words, if they are supported by the “majority” then shouldn’t that be reason enough to allow them to take office? The second point someone falls apart when you compare it to age and birthplace limitations that everyone agrees can’t be superseded, but I can’t entirely disagree with the argument that those restrictions aren’t fundamentally different than the insurrection clause in their purpose, although I personally believe “committed insurrection” is a much more disqualifying reason than someone being 34 years old or born in Canada and lived all but the first few days of their lives in the US. I guess the point I’m making is that if someone like Trump could be re-elected, then isn’t that the entire point of our Democracy? Even if it means the end of it?

Having said all that, I want it to be absolutely clear that I don’t think he should be permitted to hold the office, I don’t believe he should be allowed to live another day outside of a jail cell, and according to the constitution, should probably be executed for treason.
 

  

[DDD Dad 14374]

11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This is true, but also after listening to the oral arguments today I'm inclined to agree with SCOTUS' point that the 14th is a federal issue, not a state issue.

IMO, Trump should not be allowed to be President, but I don't think states should have the authority to determine that.

As others have said, this feels like a 9-0 or 8-1 opinion, but I think they are likely to nix his immunity defense in the coming weeks.

What struck me from what I was able to hear of the argument (had to jump on a call during the SG's portion) was what seemed like another Calvinball argument that could result from a reversal. 

• You can't remove Trump from the Ballot because he can only be removed after he attains office.
• You can't use the 14th amendment to remove him once he's obtained office because the only way to remove him is by impeachment.

[Rimbo 26434]

24 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

This is wishcasting fan fiction.

Nope. Biden is literally campaigning on this right now; all the Union groups that ignored the Democrats are throwing their weight behind Biden because, for the first time since the Clintons, a Democrat actually worked on improving Rust Belt jobs and opportunities and has real wins. (Source: I follow a lot of Biden campaign shit on Threads.)

It ain't wishcasting. It's in the message and in the polls.

[Rimbo 26434]

20 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

IMO, Trump should not be allowed to be President, but I don't think states should have the authority to determine that.

I thought the Constitution gave states the right to determine how electors were assigned. In my mind, this falls under that.

[Rimbo 26434]

21 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yup. And lol at the idea that not supporting the border deal will be held against him or other republicans. They voted it down precisely because they know their voters give zero shits. They like crying about border chaos regardless of legitimacy or any rationality about who is actually proposing solutions.

I dunno about that. The folks who went to the border only to find it wasn't a war zone seemed pretty shaken up about that.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Nope. Biden is literally campaigning on this right now; all the Union groups that ignored the Democrats are throwing their weight behind Biden because, for the first time since the Clintons, a Democrat actually worked on improving Rust Belt jobs and opportunities and has real wins. (Source: I follow a lot of Biden campaign shit on Threads.)

It ain't wishcasting. It's in the message and in the polls.

I hope so.  If he doesn't sweep the blue wall WI, MI, MN, he doesn't get reelected.

[DDD Dad 14374]

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

Nope. Biden is literally campaigning on this right now; all the Union groups that ignored the Democrats are throwing their weight behind Biden because, for the first time since the Clintons, a Democrat actually worked on improving Rust Belt jobs and opportunities and has real wins. (Source: I follow a lot of Biden campaign shit on Threads.)

It ain't wishcasting. It's in the message and in the polls.

I agree that the first paragraph of your post wasn't wishcasting.  It was the other two paragraphs to which I was referring:

Quote

Trump has already lost the blue collar workers who got him elected in 2016. The GOP has no issues left to run on other than "Vote Trump because Trump." That's literally all they have left, because enough of the current GOP got to power solely because they were riding Trump's coattails. The rest were either run off or quit, or chose to ride the tiger. 骑虎难下 - it's easy to ride a tiger; it's the dismount that's difficult.

I'm hoping Trump is on the ballot on November, because he will lose. AGAIN. Moderate Republicans will either stay home or vote Biden; all but Trump's most dedicated will vote, and even they are being told by Trump himself not to bother. The rest of us, especially women, are highly motivated to vote. Oh and a good bit of his base skipped the vaccine and died from COVID.

I don't see any indication that Trump has lost any blue collar workers.  If anything they're more supportive of him than ever.  If you have evidence to the contrary by all means please enlighten me.

I think it's extremely naive to assume that Trump will lose.  With all of the shenanigans and efforts the RNC has undertaken to preserve slim advantages in battleground critical electoral vote states the die is is far from cast on the outcome of this election.

I don't want Trump off the ballot to give the Democratic nominee an advantage on Election Day.  I want him off the ballot because I believe his actions disqualify him from public office.  If that results in another Republican winning, so be it.

['stache 21903]

3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I dunno about that. The folks who went to the border only to find it wasn't a war zone seemed pretty shaken up about that.

Newsmax will set them straight, the RINO's and Leftists and Antifa smuggled them in somewhere else once the caravan started heading their way, because they skeret.

Also, wasn't there like 50 idiots who showed up? Not much of a dent either way.

[Smax 3800]

8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Nope. Biden is literally campaigning on this right now; all the Union groups that ignored the Democrats are throwing their weight behind Biden because, for the first time since the Clintons, a Democrat actually worked on improving Rust Belt jobs and opportunities and has real wins. (Source: I follow a lot of Biden campaign shit on Threads.)

It ain't wishcasting. It's in the message and in the polls.

 

Wonder how this will be with him losing all the muslim/middle eastern voting block 

[Rimbo 26434]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I don't see any indication that Trump has lost any blue collar workers. 

The actual gains they've enjoyed over the past 3 years, versus the hits they took during Trump's presidency, are going to have an effect. "It's the Economy, Stupid."

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

With all of the shenanigans and efforts the RNC has undertaken to preserve slim advantages in battleground critical electoral vote states the die is is far from cast on the outcome of this election.

And thanks to the efforts of Marc Elias and his merry band of legal professionals (https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/), these efforts have been almost completely neutered; in some cases, backfiring spectacularly.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Just now, Smax said:

 

Wonder how this will be with him losing all the muslim/middle eastern voting block 

interesting because of MN

[DDD Dad 14374]

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

The actual gains they've enjoyed over the past 3 years, versus the hits they took during Trump's presidency, are going to have an effect. "It's the Economy, Stupid."

And thanks to the efforts of Marc Elias and his merry band of legal professionals (https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/), these efforts have been almost completely neutered; in some cases, backfiring spectacularly.