Current Events > SCOTUS to hear arguments for Trump ballot eligibility. Long line for seating.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't think our system can ever be fixed guys

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/supreme-court-weighs-trumps-bid-stay-colorado-ballot-rcna136557

Chief Justice John Roberts said that the "whole point" of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power after the Civil War and questioned why it would give states the ability to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot.

That's sounds like revisionist history.

This decision should not surprise anyone

Yup, figured. It was supposed to be Congress job to hold him accountable via impeachment. They refused, and so at this point everyones hands are tied. At best the hope is that the existence of the cases against him are too damning for independent voters, but somehow I doubt the same people who thought Hillary Clinton shouldnt be president because she was under investigation wont apply the same standards to someone under multiple criminal indictments.

And just from the standpoint of the law, Congress saying It should be up to the courts to decide Trumps guilt doesnt make it true. The responsibility fell at their feet, and Republicans were too cowardly to do what should have been done. Regretfully, the SC is right, but its going to be for all the wrong reasons.

s0nicfan posted...

You're correct that Section 3 doesn't say anything about charges, it just says that someone who engaged in insurrection can be barred. The problem is, from a legal perspective how do you prove that someone has engaged in insurrection without doing so through the courts? Section 1 of that same amendment also explicitly states that a person cannot be denied due process, so the very same amendment that people would use to remove him also requires that he'd be given due process. The fact that he's also been indicted on charges explicitly related to the election but hasn't yet gone to trial also shows that there are legal mechanisms to formally determine whether he is guilty of those things or not, so it will be that much harder to argue that he should be punished prior to those trials reaching their conclusion, because theoretically it would open the doors to pre-punishing anyone for crimes they've been charged with prior to their guilty verdict.

It doesn't deny due process though, and the trial isn't meant to determine if he is innocent, only guilty.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

It's the right call.

Narrator: It wasn't.

Fucking scumbag traitors

So they ended our democratic system huh?

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I don't think our system can ever be fixed guys

This sort of thing is the whole reason why we have a second amendment, but the second amendment people aren't going to do shit.

Were_Wyrm posted...

This sort of thing is the whole reason why we have a second amendment, but the second amendment people aren't going to do shit.

Yeah, they side with Trump.

Were_Wyrm posted...

This sort of thing is the whole reason why we have a second amendment, but the second amendment people aren't going to do shit.

Newsflash: Liberals can take advantage of the 2nd Amendment too. Just because its been co-opted by living shitstains to be trigger happy murderers doesnt mean it should be avoided when its needed.

Horith posted...

Newsflash: Liberals can take advantage of the 2nd Amendment too. Just because its been co-opted by living shitstains to be trigger happy murderers doesnt mean it should be avoided when its needed.

Ehh being a minority can still make it dangerous

CO and other states should ignore it.

If Texas can get away with ignoring the SC, so should other states.

What SC going to do about it?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Today was just oral arguments. I don't think they've even set a date for the decision outside of requests to have it before the march primaries.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No, but it is quite clear from the questions which way the Court is leaning.

Punting everything to Congress is by far the most attractive option, even for the liberal justices.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No, but many of the questions asked today during oral argument were critical of what Colorado did.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


People are reading the tea leaves in terms of what is implied by the arguments and questions posed by the bench. CE doesn't usually wait for things to actually happen. They predict what will happen and then act as if it's already come to pass.

whitelytning posted...

No, but many of the questions asked today during oral argument were critical of what Colorado did.

B-b-but states rights! Let the states decide! as they overturn Roe v. Wade

States: ok, were deciding to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot

Supreme Court: No, not like that!

BearlyWilling posted...

B-b-but states rights! Let the states decide! as they overturn Roe v. Wade

States: ok, were deciding to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot

Supreme Court: No, not like that!

Except abortion relates to health issues, which is clearly in the province of the states.

On the other hand, who can run for president of the USA is undoubtedly an issue that affects the nation.

Geiki_Ganger posted...

Except abortion relates to health issues, which is clearly in the province of the states.

On the other hand, who can run for president of the USA is undoubtedly an issue that affects the nation.

How are health issues "clearly in the province of the states"?

Ruvan22 posted...

How are health issues "clearly in the province of the states"?

The 10th Amendment.

I haven't listened to the oral arguments yet but I try to for interesting cases. They really are interesting to listen to.
Also good to know that the judges have probably already reached a decision before the oral arguments even happen

emblem-man posted...

Also good to know that the judges have probably already reached a decision before the oral arguments even happen

That's what legal briefs are for. Appeals are not like trials. It is very rare for a judge to be persuaded and change his or her position on something said during oral arguments, because such statements should have already been argued, developed, and fleshed out in the parties' legal briefs.

Cheater87 posted...

Yeah, they side with Trump.

Not all of them. The difference is leftists don't jerk off to our guns. We have them for when they are needed, not as props or replacements for personality.

Look, anyone who thought this was going to go the other way was deluding themselves. The ruling hasn't been issued, but I have zero faith in this court and neither should you. The sooner you wake up and realize the only thing that is going to save you from Trump and the revenge driven fascism he will bring is ourselves. Not the courts, not congress. The ballot box is still an option but make no mistake the GOP will be stepping up their already large scale campaign of voter suppression. This is likely the last time the ballot box will be an option as well. Project 2025 happens and it's done.

Maybe the Georgia RICO trials will take him out, but I don't believe that. Maybe the DC Trial will take him out, but I doubt that as well. The Florida case has zero chance since Judge Cannon is a Chud herself. As for the others, he, and his lawyers, are going to fuck around and use every bit of due process fuckery in bad faith to make sure he never sees a trial until after the election.

I suggest you use this time between now and the election to buy a weapon, learn to use it, train and organize with your community and others for mutual aid and self defense.

I guess the only question left is if the final decision will be 7-2 or 9-0

Geiki_Ganger posted...

Except abortion relates to health issues, which is clearly in the province of the states.

On the other hand, who can run for president of the USA is undoubtedly an issue that affects the nation.

State legislatures have absolute power to decide how to pick presidential electors. Why shouldn't a state have the power to decide that its presidential electors can't be for an insurrectionist?

Geiki_Ganger posted...

Except abortion relates to health issues, which is clearly in the province of the states.

Bodily autonomy would like a word with you.

BearlyWilling posted...

B-b-but states rights! Let the states decide! as they overturn Roe v. Wade

States: ok, were deciding to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot

Supreme Court: No, not like that!

They didn't like it when the people voted for their state to keep abortion. State rights is a lie.

MistyKnight posted...

https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1755640144764244057?t=6nhQ-1OOjve-MuoGuB6OJQ&s=19

Oh we all know why

I hate to say it, but this is the consequences of letting Trump win over Hillary. We will likely suffer even more if Trump gets a second term.

Looks like the corrupt trump SC is gonna side with him

what a disgrace of an institution

Gritty posted...

Looks like the corrupt trump SC is gonna side with him

what a disgrace of an institution

That means our only option left is to destroy him at the polls. If you live in a key state like Michigan or Pennsylvania, please ensure that you and your loved ones vote blue en masse. Humiliate Trump a second time.

Any justice that votes to keep him needs to be arrested for sedition.

Humble_Novice posted...

That means our only option left is to destroy him at the polls. If you live in a key state like Michigan or Pennsylvania, please ensure that you and your loved ones vote blue en masse. Humiliate Trump a second time.

true. Not acknowledging a corrupt institution like the SC would be nice.

dems dont have the spine to ignore the scotus sadly wish they would they are clearly corrupt

Jackson and liberals have tough questions for challengers: Another sign that the court was leaning toward Trumps position: Even some of the liberal justices posed difficult questions to the lawyers representing his challengers.
Notably, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden nominee, said that the 14th Amendment provision did not include the word president, even though it specifically listed other officials who would be covered, such as members of Congress. That is a central argument Trumps attorneys have raised in the case. I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they werent focused on the president, Jackson said.
Justice Elena Kagan questioned the implications of a single state banning a candidate in a presidential election. Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation? Kagan asked.
Justices didnt focus on Trumps January 6 actions: The nine justices spent little time on the former presidents actions surrounding the January 6 attack on the US Capitol that sparked the ballot challenge in Colorado and elsewhere. There were more questions, in fact, about the Civil War and how the insurrectionist ban in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was enacted in order to grapple with confederates who fought against the Union.

So none of the justices seem to view the attack as an insurrection or a peaceful transition of power a guarantee post election

1/6 itself wasn't really germane to the discussion and they have the immunity case before them as well. No incentive for any justice to prejudge or show their hand.

EPR-radar posted...

State legislatures have absolute power to decide how to pick presidential electors. Why shouldn't a state have the power to decide that its presidential electors can't be for an insurrectionist?

The problem is that this is exactly the argument some stated have been advancing about allowing their State Congress to ignore the results of an election and send their own slate of electors. Several have been pushing to make laws to that effect in order to deny their EC votes to any Dem candidate that wins their state. Is that really an opportunity you want to provide more legal standing for, particularly swing states that have overwhelming GOP control over their state legislatures?

Horith posted...

The problem is that this is exactly the argument some stated have been advancing about allowing their State Congress to ignore the results of an election and send their own slate of electors. Several have been pushing to make laws to that effect in order to deny their EC votes to any Dem candidate that wins their state. Is that really an opportunity you want to provide more legal standing for, particularly swing states that have overwhelming GOP control over their state legislatures?

The problem with the GOP clown shows and fake electors is that they are violating their own state laws by doing that shit. (i.e., a GOP state doesn't get to have an election and then say: "we didn't like the result, here's the real result".

But there is nothing in the constitution that stops a red state (or a swing state with a GOP state legislature) from saying "no presidential election here, we're just going to pick electors for Trump."

The only reason US citizens vote for president is that the state legislatures all got tired of having a presidential election shit show in their own chambers every 4 years.

Of course this is all massively fucked in the head, but the constitution is what it is.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

It's the right call. He can't be barred from being on the ballot for a crime he hasn't been found guilty of. If the courts hand down a guilty ruling before the election then maybe his eligibility will change.

The Colorado court found him guilty of an insurrection.

This idea that he hasn't been found guilty is asinine, there was an entire case around this, that's what led to him being removed from the ballot.

So what was the result? I'm at work and can't check

Cemith posted...

So what was the result? I'm at work and can't check

Nothing yet, but it's not looking good based off of the arguments and questions from today.

ClayGuida posted...

The Colorado court found him guilty of an insurrection.

This idea that he hasn't been found guilty is asinine, there was an entire case around this, that's what led to him being removed from the ballot.

They didn't is the problem. The Colorado court ruled on a lawsuit. That isn't the same as a trial. In that exact lawsuit the judge also rules that the state didn't actually have the right to take him off the ballot:
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

DENVER A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot because it's unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency.

The lawsuit, brought by a left-leaning group on behalf of a group of Republican and independent Colorado voters, contended that Trump's actions related to the attack ran afoul of a clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents anyone from holding office who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution.

This also becomes a problem for federal courts because other states have ruled the opposite, so it forces the SC to decide one standard to resolve these conflicting appeals.

To further clarify on the lawsuit vs trial, you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial, where you only need to prove "a preponderance of the evidence" which means you believe the party is simply more likely guilty than not:
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/lawsuits-and-the-court-process/evidentiary-standards-and-burdens-of-proof/

The actual criminal trials don't have dates set yet, but you can track them here:
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/

A court found him guilty. A trial isn't relevant. The court found him guilty of sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll too.

So looking CO doesn't have the authority to remove Trump from the ballot and then the DC trial this summer decides what Trump did on 1/6 is classified as an 'insurrection'?

Looking like either a 9-0 or 8-1 decision for trump most likely

makes me fucking sick that we have to abide by whatever our corrupt kings and queens have to say about everything