The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot
The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot
In the justices’ biggest election case since Bush v. Gore, the court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House.
Surprise!!
You're viewing a single thread.
Roberts basically layed it all out in saying other States will set up their own reasons to remove a candidate. (ie. Texas, Idaho)
We need a nationwide popular vote.
"We can't possibly rule that the 14th Amendment can be enforced, because then we might have to decide against the right-wing using complete bullshit instead of an actual, literal insurrection." - SCOTUS
I don’t recall hearing that when I listened to the arguments today, but I get your gist.
Most people commenting here didn't hear the questions beyond what clips they heard via the media. The ignorance is astounding. And in a hard core anti-trump voter.
I heard much of the questioning. Alito, Kagan and Thomas sounded genuinely stupid. The major arguments for Trump that I heard were:
1.we might have to decide differing decisions from differing states. ( Alito )
that's the job of the SC, they do it all they time. Colorado's lawyer explained clearly how it's done. Since Trump doesn't dispute any of the evidence, the SC merely needs to set a standard for how to determine if he engaged in an insurrection.
2.Should a single state be allowed to decide the election? (Kagan)
States decide presidential elections by picking electors and all states get to choose some electors. The election may hinge on the result of a single state because it's so close, but no state unilaterally chooses the president.
- There's not much historical precedent for the state's doing this (Thomas)
There's not much, but there is some, mostly because confederates were eventually were "pardoned" by congress, and since not many people have been office holders, lead an insurrection, and tried to run again. Meanwhile, there's precedent for the states barring candidates on other constitutional grounds, being too young for instance.
- The clause talks about holding office, not running for office (Gorsuch)
None of the other qualifications clauses talk about running but about being "eligible" for office, whereas the 14th amendment says (in slight paraphrase) "shall not hold". Plainly such a candidate is ineligible, yet ineligible clauses have been used by states to bar candidates.
These are from memory and I had to stop listening at that point. Maybe the questions got better later.