POLL: What will SCOTUS do Re: 14th Amendment?

[Ken g6]

I thought this had to be decided by today to make the 1/5 cutoff for the Colorado primary ballot printing?

Yes, he'll be on the primary ballot here in Colorado. They might decide the question is now moot for primary ballots. But there's still the general election to consider.

 

[dank69]

Yes, he'll be on the primary ballot here in Colorado. They might decide the question is now moot for primary ballots. But there's still the general election to consider.

I thought he was off the ballot and they needed to decide by today (well, yesterday now) to get him on the ballot.

 

[ivwshane]

I thought he was off the ballot and they needed to decide by today (well, yesterday now) to get him on the ballot.

Nope.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's not what is says. Is disqualifies anyone who "engaged in an insurrection".

Also, since when can a justice just declare a section of the Constitution meaningless? If that's the case Biden can pack the court and we can nullify 2A.

Oh no he can’t because it’s written he cannot. Current court gives zero fucks about precedent or consistency.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You are correct that it bars people from serving, not running, but could you imagine what would happen if Trump won the election and the Supreme Court ruled him ineligible after he won? It would be a civil war.

Yep, there's a reason we don't let 30 year olds or non US born citizens on the ballot either. Ineligible to serve = no ballot option. Write-ins get shredded.

 

[eelw]

Yes, he'll be on the primary ballot here in Colorado. They might decide the question is now moot for primary ballots. But there's still the general election to consider.

Wonder how the Colorado Supreme Court judgment is written, is it only talking about primary or looking to block from general? Because sadly this give the orange monkey more time to delay if it’s only the primary and a second petition to block from general and second round of hearings and appeals needs to be done.

 

[HomerJS]

Yep, there's a reason we don't let 30 year olds or non US born citizens on the ballot either. Ineligible to serve = no ballot option. Write-ins get shredded.

For some reason (Calvinball) those two provisions are self executing yet A14S3 isn’t.

Conservative courts: We have an agenda and find a way to reverse engineer a justification. Kinda the opposite how courts are supposed to work.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

For some reason (Calvinball) those two provisions are self executing yet A14S3 isn’t.

Conservative courts: We have an agenda and find a way to reverse engineer a justification. Kinda the opposite how courts are supposed to work.

TBH I think the SC would have to rule on every insurrection case to make it fair. I don't think there's a rational way of making the 14th self executing that doesn't give too much power to anyone (anyone else anyhow).

 

[cytg111]

Nope.

So the SC worked for the Orange today?

 

[Brainonska511]

I thought this had to be decided by today to make the 1/5 cutoff for the Colorado primary ballot printing?

SCOTUS slow walk: "now it's too close to the election, so the status quo should remain"

 

[Thump553]

I thought this had to be decided by today to make the 1/5 cutoff for the Colorado primary ballot printing?

In their decision the CO Supreme Court provided that the decision would be stayed if the Supreme Court took an appeal-so Trump was never actually removed from the primary ballot.

 

[dank69]

In their decision the CO Supreme Court provided that the decision would be stayed if the Supreme Court took an appeal-so Trump was never actually removed from the primary ballot.

Then what even was the point? By the time they rule the primary will be over...

 

[pete6032]

Then what even was the point? By the time they rule the primary will be over...

The ruling will have implications for other states that have not yet had a primary, as well as implications for all states' general election ballots.

 

[dank69]

The ruling will have implications for other states that have not yet had a primary, as well as implications for all states' general election ballots.

When is primary season over? I bet they don't rule before it is done.

 

[pete6032]

When is primary season over? I bet they don't rule before it is done.

The case will begin hearings on Feb 8th. They're going to try and resolve it before Super Tuesday.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Trump Is Eligible for Colorado Ballot

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that the former president could not appear on the state’s Republican primary ballot because he had engaged in insurrection.

www.nytimes.com

 

[HomerJS]

TBH I think the SC would have to rule on every insurrection case to make it fair. I don't think there's a rational way of making the 14th self executing that doesn't give too much power to anyone (anyone else anyhow).

The ultimate decision can be those states Supreme Courts

Or it is time to admit elections need federal standards

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The ultimate decision can be those states Supreme Courts

Or it is time to admit elections need federal standards

That might create weirdness, it's a federal constitutional amendment but a state decision, with no appeal to federal SC? Sounds ripe for lawyering.

 

[MtnMan]

The ruling will have implications for other states that have not yet had a primary, as well as implications for all states' general election ballots.

Yep, there's a reason we don't let 30 year olds or non US born citizens on the ballot either. Ineligible to serve = no ballot option. Write-ins get shredded.

The more I learn on this, the more it is going to be a can or worms, or worse.

Under the constitution, each state dictates its own election laws. Example, the SOS of Maine has the power and duty under Maine law to ban someone ineligible from a ballot. The Michigan SOS does not, and could not, even prevent a 12-year-old from being on a presidential primary ballot.

SCOTUS will be hearing and ruling on the Colorado case only. Because every state has their own election laws (states rights, and how the constitution is written), it's going to be a mess, in the same manner that abortion rights varies from state to state.

If you got 30 minutes, listen to this explanation, from a former federal prosecutor.

 

[HomerJS]

That might create weirdness, it's a federal constitutional amendment but a state decision, with no appeal to federal SC? Sounds ripe for lawyering.

Feds can establish a floor. Here’s a good rule, no one should have to wait more than 30 minutes to vote. Leave it up to the states to figure out how. States that have large urban centers and controlled by Republicans don’t care how long black people have to wait. The longer the better for them. Georgia is perfect example.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Feds can establish a floor. Here’s a good rule, no one should have to wait more than 30 minutes to vote. Leave it up to the states to figure out how. States that have large urban centers and controlled by Republicans don’t care how long black people have to wait. The longer the better for them. Georgia is perfect example.

Okay but is that a 'good rule' or a 'suggestion'? Or is it a federal law that states must abide by when it comes to their rights to establish primary voting norms? See the difference?

 

[HomerJS]

Okay but is that a 'good rule' or a 'suggestion'? Or is it a federal law that states must abide by when it comes to their rights to establish primary voting norms? See the difference?

I’m saying that as a right for voters. Just like states are no longer allowed state sponsored segregation even though Pubs would love going back to those times. This would be part of an updated Voting Rights Act.

Besides being a federal mandate what is the argument against it? We are already about to see based on upcoming SCOTUS ruling they are not above federal government enforcing rights/rules. SCOTUS will overrule Colorado. They also overruled Florida in 2000.

We need an updated VRA.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I’m saying that as a right for voters. Just like states are no longer allowed state sponsored segregation even though Pubs would love going back to those times. This would be part of an updated Voting Rights Act.

Besides being a federal mandate what is the argument against it? We are already about to see based on upcoming SCOTUS ruling they are not above federal government enforcing rights/rules. SCOTUS will overrule Colorado. They also overruled Florida in 2000.

We need an updated VRA.

I don't disagree, but the last time there was a big row over the federal govt dictating what states were allowed to do on topics that were really important to them (due to an existential threat to their way of life), they threw a shit fit over it. Maybe we're overdue though.

 

[Greenman]

The more I learn on this, the more it is going to be a can or worms, or worse.

Under the constitution, each state dictates its own election laws. Example, the SOS of Maine has the power and duty under Maine law to ban someone ineligible from a ballot. The Michigan SOS does not, and could not, even prevent a 12-year-old from being on a presidential primary ballot.

SCOTUS will be hearing and ruling on the Colorado case only. Because every state has their own election laws (states rights, and how the constitution is written), it's going to be a mess, in the same manner that abortion rights varies from state to state.

If you got 30 minutes, listen to this explanation, from a former federal prosecutor.

And the entire clusterfuck was set off by one political stunt that ended up not accomplishing anything.

 

[Pens1566]

And the entire clusterfuck was set off by one political stunt that ended up not accomplishing anything.

Yep, 1-6.

 

[Greenman]

Yep, 1-6.

That was yesterday, I must have missed it.