The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: Elderberry on February 08, 2024, 12:50:55 am
-
SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 2/5/2024
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday in what is shaping up to be the biggest election case since its ruling nearly 25 years ago in Bush v. Gore. At issue is whether former President Donald Trump, who is once again the front runner for the Republican nomination for president, can be excluded from the ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol.
Although the question comes to the court in a case from Colorado, the impact of the court’s ruling could be much more far-reaching. Maine’s secretary of state ruled in December that Trump should be taken off the primary ballot there, and challenges to Trump’s eligibility are currently pending in 11 other states. Trump warns that the efforts to keep him off the ballot “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans” and “promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead.” But the voters challenging Trump’s eligibility counter that “we already saw the ‘bedlam’ Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost.”
History behind the case
The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a relatively obscure provision of the Constitution: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which (as relevant in this case) provides that no one “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, or under any State,” if that person had previously sworn, “as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States” to support the U.S. Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the federal government.
Enacted in the wake of the Civil War, Section 3 was intended to disqualify individuals who had served in the federal (or state) government before the Civil War and had sworn to uphold the Constitution but then supported the Confederacy. The bar on service can only be overcome by a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-insurrection-provision-keeps-trump-off-ballot/ (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-insurrection-provision-keeps-trump-off-ballot/)
-
If Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”, then why hasn't he been charged with insurrection or rebellion?
-
If Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”, then why hasn't he been charged with insurrection or rebellion?
Correct; not charged but already determined by his accusers to be guilty. So SCOTUS is going to decide for each state??
-
If Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”, then why hasn't he been charged with insurrection or rebellion?
I think the Democrats are gonna milk the insurrection issue for as long as they can
-
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warns of 'severe' consequences of banning Trump from ballot
In a line of questioning, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about "severe" consequences of Colorado banning former President Donald Trump from the ballot.
Roberts wondered if doing so would lead to other states booting other candidates off the ballot based on political motivations.
"Counsel, what do you do with the, what seem to me to be the plain consequences of your position?" Roberts asked Jason Murray, the attorney for Colorado voters. "If Colorado's position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side, and some of those will succeed ... I would expect that a goodly number of states will say, whomever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot."
Roberts expressed concern that if red states and blue states start rejecting the other side's candidate, the 2024 presidential contest could come down to "just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election."
"That's a pretty daunting consequence," the chief justice said.
Murray said that potential "frivolous" applications of a constitutional provision should not deter the court from ruling in Colorado's favor, but Roberts did not seem convinced. .......
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/supreme-court-hears-trump-ballot-oral-arguments
-
*The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024 on whether former President Donald Trump can remain on Colorado's ballot.
*The case, Trump v. Anderson, centers on whether Trump engaged in an "insurrection" by inciting a crowd to storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and whether that would make him constitutionally ineligible to run for president under the 14th Amendment.
*The Colorado Supreme Court already ruled that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot, a decision Trump's legal team slammed as "anti-democratic."
-
I hope there is the one dissenting vote that I think might happen, just to further highlight her utter ineptitude.
-
IMHO the premise of free and fair elections hinges on this decision. How could any justice ruling in line with the Constitution see things otherwise?
Again as for the insurrection, Trump hasn't been accused., and obviously not found guilty.
-
A 9-0 decision would be nice, but I think unlikely. We'll see how the liberal justices rule on this.
-
A 9-0 decision would be nice, but I think unlikely. We'll see how the liberal justices rule on this.
Prof Turley seems to think there will be one...Sotomayor
-
Prof Turley seems to think there will be one...Sotomayor
Jackson may be the other.
-
The US Senate screwed the pooch by not convicting Trump during the 2nd Impeachment Trial.
The US DOJ screwed the pooch by waiting way too long to start prosecutions, and by not prosecuting Trump for insurrection and RICO.
Those are probably the only two existing legal remedies for holding Trump accountable for January 6th, and disqualify him from "holding" the Office of President.
-
The US Senate screwed the pooch by not convicting Trump during the 2nd Impeachment Trial.
The US DOJ screwed the pooch by waiting way too long to start prosecutions, and by not prosecuting Trump for insurrection and RICO.
Those are probably the only two existing legal remedies for holding Trump accountable for January 6th, and disqualify him from "holding" the Office of President.
**nononono*
-
A 9-0 decision would be nice, but I think unlikely. We'll see how the liberal justices rule on this.
7-2 Roberts and the Wide LatinX
-
The US Senate screwed the pooch by not convicting Trump during the 2nd Impeachment Trial.
The US DOJ screwed the pooch by waiting way too long to start prosecutions, and by not prosecuting Trump for insurrection and RICO.
Those are probably the only two existing legal remedies for holding Trump accountable for January 6th, and disqualify him from "holding" the Office of President.
I am one of the biggest critics of Trump at this site, but your points are crazy.
Insurrection? Did you miss the part of the speech where he asked them to march peaceably?
Outside of Bat shit crazy lefty loony sites, give me one plausible case where DJT could actually be prosecuted on a RICO charge? Believe me if it was there Pedo Joe's Hit man Garland would have found it, and have it up on charges 10 seconds after they found it
I don't like Trump either, but it is for being a bad POTUS, and bad moral character rather than being a criminal.
-
7-2 Roberts and the Wide LatinX
Roberts?
If that happend, I really what to know what kind of level extortion the dims have over him.
-
Roberts?
If that happend, I really what to know what kind of level extortion the dims have over him.
HE has been a bit of a disappointment. I don't trust the dude.
-
HE has been a bit of a disappointment. I don't trust the dude.
I am 99.9% sure he is compromised, and whispers are around his personal life. I wish I could find the tally of all his votes, and remember that to a "T" when it is a close or crucial vote, he leans left.
-
I am 99.9% sure he is compromised, and whispers are around his personal life. I wish I could find the tally of all his votes, and remember that to a "T" when it is a close or crucial vote, he leans left.
The story on the street is that he did some illegal things in getting his two (adopted) daughters from a country Americans cannot legally adopt children from. I have no idea if that's true, but they definitely have something on him.
-
The story on the street is that he did some illegal things in getting his two (adopted) daughters from a country Americans cannot legally adopt children from. I have no idea if that's true, but they definitely have something on him.
Ok so he IS compromised.
-
Jackson may be the other.
That’s my guess, also
-
Outside of Bat shit crazy lefty loony sites, give me one plausible case where DJT could actually be prosecuted on a RICO charge? Believe me if it was there Pedo Joe's Hit man Garland would have found it, and have it up on charges 10 seconds after they found it
True
It’s been over three years since Jan 6th 2021 and he has yet to even be charged for fomenting an insurrection.
-
The US Senate screwed the pooch by not convicting Trump during the 2nd Impeachment Trial.
The US DOJ screwed the pooch by waiting way too long to start prosecutions, and by not prosecuting Trump for insurrection and RICO.
Those are probably the only two existing legal remedies for holding Trump accountable for January 6th, and disqualify him from "holding" the Office of President.
The CO Supremes openly admitted they found him guilty of insurrection with no trial. Do you agree Trump is guilty of "insurrection" too? It sounds like you do here....
-
I am 99.9% sure he is compromised, and whispers are around his personal life. I wish I could find the tally of all his votes, and remember that to a "T" when it is a close or crucial vote, he leans left.
He is like McStain was: Reliable until the precise moment he is needed the most. Then he's a Maverick.
-
1.) I concede to being crazy.
2.) Trump waited 180 minutes to give a half-hearted plea for insurrectionists to go home - after Capitol Police reinforcements were already bumrushing insurrectionists out the Capitol.
3.) Trump's tweet against Pence, his Vice Presdient, encouraged insurrectionists to shout "Hang Mike Pence" and erect a gallows.
4.) If there was not an insurrection in progress, why did 435 House Members and 100 US Senators run for their lives, including Josh Hawley skipping in his loafers like a school girl?
The DOJ should have launched a RICO case against the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign, and included a charge of Insurrection, on January 7th.
A Senate Impeachment conviction, and/or, a criminal Insurrection conviction are the only instruments for legally disqualifying Trump from state ballots for Federal Offices.
Our elected Federal Office Holders and appointed Federal Officers have failed the US Constitution. It's up to the voting public to sustain Constitutional Federal Republic Government in the United States.
(https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/6a8/f8b/f1ad818aac111257e287dac640cfaa3740-20-donald-trump-louis-xiv.2x.rsocial.w600.jpg)
I am one of the biggest critics of Trump at this site, but your points are crazy.
Insurrection? Did you miss the part of the speech where he asked them to march peaceably?
Outside of Bat shit crazy lefty loony sites, give me one plausible case where DJT could actually be prosecuted on a RICO charge? Believe me if it was there Pedo Joe's Hit man Garland would have found it, and have it up on charges 10 seconds after they found it
I don't like Trump either, but it is for being a bad POTUS, and bad moral character rather than being a criminal.
-
Quick Take On SCOTUS Colorado “Insurrection” Oral Argument: Trump Likely To Stay On Ballot
Legal Insurrection by William A. Jacobson Thursday, February 8, 2024
I’m not sure it’s 9-0, Sotomayor may be a dissent, but it sure is looking like a strong majority if not unanimous result of SCOTUS saying: Not us, not now.
I listened to the SCOTUS oral argument in Anderson v. Trump, the case involving Trump’s disqualification from the Colorado ballot due to his alleged participation in an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021, which the proponents claim automatically disqualifies him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
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, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Making predictions based on oral arguments normally is risky, but I’ll take that risk: The Supreme Court will reverse not on the merits of whether Trump committed insurrection (that is not before them), but on any one of a number of issues raised that the Colorado Supreme Court exceeded it’s authority, including among others,
• Section 3 only bars holding office, not running for office so it’s premature to consider the issue, particularly since Trump could be relieved of any disability by congressional vote after the election but before taking office (I think this is the clear winner);
• Trump (as President) was not an “officer” of the United States and the Office of the President is not enumerated in Section 3;
• Section 3 is not self-executing, congress provides the remedy, and there is a congressional insurrection act under which Trump has not even been charged.
• States don’t get to decide this question, leaving open the possibility of conflicting state rulings.
That’s not a complete catalog, but the high points that jumped out at me.
Even many lefty legal observers see this as a lost cause:
More: https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/02/quick-take-on-scotus-colorado-insurrection-oral-argument-trump-likely-to-stay-on-ballot/ (https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/02/quick-take-on-scotus-colorado-insurrection-oral-argument-trump-likely-to-stay-on-ballot/)
-
The story on the street is that he did some illegal things in getting his two (adopted) daughters from a country Americans cannot legally adopt children from. I have no idea if that's true, but they definitely have something on him.
It's true. The country was Ireland. Roberts violated Irish law when he adopted them.
If anyone is doubtful about whether he is compromised, read the Obamacare decision. For the first 67 pages, Roberts was going to toss it out. But from page 68 on, he turned 180 degrees.