Fogbow

Alito says we've had 3 Presidents who have done unlawful things, not simply Trump. Nixon, Clinton, Trump. (So what?)

If the election comes down to a single state and candidate A gets the majority of the votes and the Legislature doesn't like A and orders electors to vote for B.

Murray dismantles the question's predicate.

Alito goes back to "officer" doctrine. If POTUS commits insurrection while still in office, does that give military commanders the right to refuses his orders? If he's disqualified at the moment of insurrection, isn't he no longer a valid POTUS?

Murray replies there still must be a procedure to disqualify POTUS.

Gorsuch piles on.

Brown Jackson asks about the concern for uniformity and the lack thereof if states can enforce 14/3.

Murray: Congress can provide. In the absence of Federal legislation, questions re disqualification will make their way to this court, with full evidentiary record.

Meh.

9-0.

(Regarding Alito piling it on).

Ouchie.

IMO, Murray's ultimate answer made as much sense as A's question (A's berating aside).

Sadly, I have to leave for an appointment. You're on your own.

But SCOTUS is going to reverse 9-0.

Kavenaugh giving credence to the hyperbolic language of ?a judge? blasting the Colorado five-day trial, saying, basically, "Maybe it's true this is a horrible thing, because why else would they have such a bombastic and horrified langauage?"

#byebyeamerica

Going on two hours and they're still at it, bringing up all the doubts we've all heard about.

Jackson all worried about the absence of "President" in the list of folks Sec 3 mentions.

I have no idea why they're going on so long. It is so clear that the CO ruling is going to be reversed.

Thanks you Stern! Very illuminating, appreciate your expertise!

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:01 pm I have no idea why they're going on so long. It is so clear that the CO ruling is going to be reversed.

They need to figure out what spurious reason they can get away with to say no. It seems to be proving unexpectedly difficult to find a workaround.

Acyn @Acyn wrote: Mitchell: For insurrection, there has to be an organized effort to overthrow the government

Jackson: So a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?

Shannon Stevenson, CO Solicitor General, educating the Justices on how CO elections are run.

She is really good, in that she is well-spoken and knows her field. Much easier than arguing a position, of course; she is primarily explaining how the laws of her state work.

Alito (politely) played his "mayhem will ensue" card again. Stevenson enumerated the institutions in place to handle whatever happens, and suggested that they trust the laws.

Mitchell back up. Nearing the end....

Wow.

And they're done.

Neal Katyal bitter that the challengers (Murray) left out the big picture argument, that 14/3 is a part of the Constitution that TFG is gutting it. No mention of Construction; no mention of original intent, which is "so clear."

He says the whole argument sounded like parsing the grammar of a sentence--a technical argument.

Making it very easy for the court to rule against CO.

And MSNBC stops analysis to cover fuckhead spouting a pack of unAmerican lies a M-a-L. Pfff.

Republican Accountability @AccountableGOP wrote: Trump's lawyer: “It was not an insurrection.”

Trump: “It was an insurrection.”

Acyn @Acyn wrote: Trump: I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.

Suranis wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:10 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:01 pm I have no idea why they're going on so long. It is so clear that the CO ruling is going to be reversed.

They need to figure out what spurious reason they can get away with to say no. It seems to be proving unexpectedly difficult to find a workaround.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS can, and occasionally does, agree on the result but not the reasoning. There might be multiple opinions, none that garner a majority, but nonetheless a majority agreeing to reverse SCoCO.

"Cultural reaction spurs new name, Ka La‘i, for ex-Trump hotel in Waikiki." We weren't happy with his name on the hotel.

bob wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 2:41 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:10 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:01 pm I have no idea why they're going on so long. It is so clear that the CO ruling is going to be reversed.

They need to figure out what spurious reason they can get away with to say no. It seems to be proving unexpectedly difficult to find a workaround.

There might be multiple opinions, none that garner a majority, but nonetheless a majority agreeing to reverse SCoCO.

[Back now from my appointment.]

" . . . but nonetheless a majority agreeing to reverse . . ." A "majority"? Bob, no. How about all 9 justices agreeing to reverse? Maybe a few on different grounds. The "officer" issue may entice one or two of the libs.

I listened to the remaining argument and Mitchell's rebuttal from my car. Mitchell's rebuttal was excellent. He wasn't trying to please Trump, he was responding to the appellees' lawyers' argument. Unburdened by his lunatic client's demands, he turned out to be a decent lawyer. But by taking Trump's instructions, he was also just a klown.

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:28 pm " . . . but nonetheless a majority agreeing to reverse . . ." A "majority"? Bob, no. How about all 9 justices agreeing to reverse?

Unanimous is a majority.

Maybe a few on different grounds. The "officer" issue may entice one or two of the libs.

The CW is that SCOTUS will reverse. So this issue now is just whether at least five justices agree as to why SCoCO needs to be reversed.

I'm guessing there will be attempts to future-proof the ruling, to deter SoSoME (and the Maine courts) from attempting to work around this decision.

I don't understand why, if Colorado says he can't run in that state, that has to mean he can't run in all states. Different states have different rules even though it's a national election. And, yes, I have always thought that a national election should have national rules that all states comply with. Felons can't vote in some states; in most states they can. I don't know that that has ever been an issue.

I understand the state's rights argument, but I think that's largely a bullshit argument and has been since at least the Civil War.

In fact, that was the position of the CO Solicitor General.

The pearl clutching from the Justices was audible.

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:51 pm I don't understand why, if Colorado says he can't run in that state, that has to mean he can't run in all states. Different states have different rules even though it's a national election. And, yes, I have always thought that a national election should have national rules that all states comply with. Felons can't vote in some states; in most states they can. I don't know that that has ever been an issue.

I understand the state's rights argument, but I think that's largely a bullshit argument and has been since at least the Civil War.

Because, and this is complete lunacy, but TECHNICALLY you are not electing a President. You are electing state Electors and THEY vote to elect the President. So its basically 50 elections, not a federal election for a Federal Position.

This of course has implications for the whole "I was not an officer of the Government" thing.

And no other country in the world does this kind of election, not even other Federal Republics. It was meant to ringfence the Presidency so that no populist strong man would be elected, because in the original system it would have been groups of "wise men" who would act as a buffer and vote away a populist despot as they would all be voting independently. In practice is has enabled the election of a populist lazy Oligarch (W) and an incompetent populist wannabe despot. Both of those the People were wise enough to vote AGAINST.