Fogbow

Kagan says "your brief doesn't take a position on that issue."

Ooops. "It's in my reply brief."

Bad at arguing. Terrible at brief writing.

Gorsuch wants to know why "office" and "officer" are so different.

Another word salad, grasping at straws in some other laws.

Roberts asks if there is any case of states using 14/3 to bar Federal officeholders.

No. Because of Griffin's case.

Kagan wants to know if there is a reason to distinguish "office" and "officer."

The response is essentially "legislating is messy."

Gorsuch asks "office" "officer" questions too.

Answer: "Officers of the United States are appointed individuals."

Kavanaugh asks how Mitchell is applying Griffin's case which he says holds that states don't have the authority to enforce 14/3.

Mitchell agrees. Implies there must first be a conviction for insurrection.

Kavanaugh asks explicitly.

Yes, except Trump argues he has total immunity.

Mitchell argues: Griffin's case provides that only Congress can establish the mechanism for enforcing 14/3.

Finally!

Having been drenched in discussion about these issues for the past year, this Q&A rather shallow to me.

Possibly because all case talk goes over my head.

"president trump from Coney Barrett. No "former."

Nothing to see here....

No justice seems to be concerned that Trump has committed insurrection and given aid and comfort to insurrectionists. It's all abstract. So far, a particularly poor oral argument on all sides.

Brown Jackson says when 14/3 was drafted Congress concerned about infiltration by insurrectionists at lower levels of Government. If that's the case, why is Mitchell not arguing that the focus is not the Presidency?

[Because he's a shitty lawyer.]

"There is some evidence there was some concern . . . that an insurrectionist might gain control as POTUS."

Wow. Giving up a possible opening.

Brown Jackson asks if he contends Federal action is required to enact a procedure to disqualify an insurrectionist. He agrees.

(8-1 vote now possible.)

Now Mitchell says January 6 wasn't an insurrection but a shameful, illegal riot.

There goes Trump's concern for all those hostages.

The CJ brings his catastrophic argument to a merciful end.

Jason Murray, kid lawyer from Colorado, now makes his opening. Dismantles "officer" and "office" issues. And argues that states have the power to safeguard their ballots by excluding those who are ineligible.

Justice Thomas wants examples.

Yes. Only example Representative Christy who was elected to Congress but whose state's Governor refused to certify him in the 1860s.

Thomas then says after the Compromise of 1877 there were still a few possible examples. Where are they? [Utter speculation.]

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:08 am Thomas then says after the Compromise of 1877 there were still a few possible examples. Where are they? [Utter speculation.]

What's your take on Thomas not recusing?

Thomas: Because Congress never enacted legislation enforcing 14/3, doesn't that mean states don't have the power.

Murray gives a great answer. States and Federal government share that power.

CJ now chimes in on issue of state's power. Isn't it Congress that has power to enforce Federal election process?

Murray says 14/2 gives state's broad power to select electors. Good answer.

CJ thinks 14/3 is different. (I don't think the CJ has the better of these exchanges.)

Murray is heads and shoulders above Mitchell. (HLS v. Chicago Law.)

Alito says there is no historical evidence to support state's enforcing 14/3. (So what. This is a case of first impression.)

Alito changes the subject. What does "insurrection" mean in 14/3 and who decides. Refers to Griffin's case. "Congress has the primaryr role here. Who decides. [Sounds familiar to me.])

Kagan says the means to disqualify under 14/3 calls for Federal determination.

Murray tries to answer, but gets cut off. (There is no good contrary response.) Then proceeds to say Article 2 gives the states the power to select their electors.

Coney Barrett chimes in again, expressing disagreement.

Murray burns Coney Barrett on her point that the factual record may be skimpy or lacking due process by saying that on p. 2 of Trump's brief he wants the court to decide on that record.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:11 am

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:08 am Thomas then says after the Compromise of 1877 there were still a few possible examples. Where are they? [Utter speculation.]

What's your take on Thomas not recusing?

Scumbag who should be impeached and also prosecuted for tax fraud and corruption.

Gorsuch goes back to stupid distinction between "holding" office vs. "running for office."

Murray dismantles argument.

Gorsuch: But the disability can be removed.

Murray: disability exists today and has existed since January 6.

Gorsuch: But the disability can be removed.

Murray: Just because the President can pardon someone doesn't make the conviction contingent.

Wow!

CJ: If Colorado decision is upheld there will be additional action in other states based on different procedures and standards. Chaos!

Murray: Frivolous applications don't . . .

CJ Interrupts: Makes "eyes of the beholder" argument. Do we wait until near the time of counting the ballot to determine which states are valid and which aren't? [In my opinion, there is no good response.]

Murray says January 6 was extraordinary. I think that misses the issue.

Kavanaugh goes back to Griffin's case. CJ Chase was right, but Congress can change that. But they haven't in 155 years.

Murray: It's been dormant because by 1876 all insurrectionists had received amnesty.

Alito isn't buying.