Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Fundamental belief of white supremacy: white people are presumed innocent, minorities are presumed guilty.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

Not loving this new fraud based economy.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Quote tweet friends, screenshot enemies.

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Hell hath no fury like a farmer bankrupted.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Jesus watching the most hateful people claiming to be his followers

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

… gradually, and then suddenly.

“Loving your country does not mean lying about its history.”

Dear elected officials: Trump is temporary, dishonor is forever.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

Giving up is unforgivable.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Colorado Supreme Court: Trump Is Disqualified from Holding the Office of President

Reader Interactions

141Comments

  3. 3.

    CaseyL

    @Albatrossity:

    So good it had to be said twice!

    (And I also “Yee haw’d” for this news in the “Back from the Vet” thread.)

    Brave of the Colorado Supreme Court to make this decision.  Let’s see how it plays out.

  6. 6.

    Wag

    Very pleased with my home state!  Start the ball rolling. Let’s see how those “strict textualists” contort themselves to try and deny the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment.

  7. 7.

    dmsilev

    A sufficiently cynical and partisan SCOTUS (aka “the SCOTUS we are currently afflicted with”) might see this as an easy way to get rid of Trump and clear the board for a more competent conservative asshole.

  9. 9.

    Scout211

    CNN live update  with the main points of the ruling:

    Here are several of the key findings the court issued in its decision:

    • Colorado state law allows voters to challenge Trump’s eligibility under the federal constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

    • Colorado courts can enforce the ban without any action from Congress.

    • The insurrectionist ban applies to the presidency.

    • The January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol was an insurrection.

    • Trump “engaged in” the insurrection.

    • Trump’s speech “inciting the crowd” on January 6 was “not protected by the First Amendment.”

  10. 10.

    Scout211

    Trump team response:

    The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.

  11. 11.

    Ken

    @Brachiator: Gotta remember to get some popcorn.

    And ketchup. There’s going to be a shortage, given the amount that will be thrown against the walls of Mar-a-Lago.

  12. 12.

    RaflW

    This case rising to SCOTUS would be another good moment to remind voters that Clarence Thomas is as crooked as they come, and his wife was quite baldly all-in on J6 and overturning the election.

    Because no matter how the court rules overall, he’ll be at least one solid vote to excuse, permit and welcome Trump’s insurrection and unsuitability.

    So we may as well educate, agitate and point fingers at his obvious corruption.

  18. 18.

    Jeffro

    @Scout211: Trump’s speech “inciting the crowd” on January 6 was “not protected by the First Amendment.”

    “…but…but…I said ‘be peaceful’ in that speech one time!  that totally gets me off the hook!!”

    FU, trumpov!

  19. 19.

    Martin

    So if USSC upholds this, then states where citizens can’t challenge can still remove him from the ballot based on SOS determination. USSC would effectively establish that Trump can’t run for office or hold office.

    If I had to guess, they’ll try and find some narrow or procedural way to invalidate this without saying they’re wrong, such as the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to primaries because it’s not an election for an office, but an election for a candidacy, and this should be re-run if Trump is the nominee, that kind of thing.

  21. 21.

    hrprogressive

    Ain’t nothin’ gonna change dot gif. Trump, and the criminal institutions that lead to Trump, are too deeply embedded for a state ruling like this to have any material effect on anything resembling accountability.

    I’ll be the first to admit it if I’m wrong, however.

  26. 26.

    Jeffro

    You know why this doesn’t violate his rights in any way?  Because as an insurrectionist…the LEAD insurrectionist…he’s lucky (and we’re not) that our country didn’t square this shit on the morning of January 7th.  THAT might have violated his rights.

    It wouldn’t have been due process, but it surely would have been justice.

    As it stands, being kicked off of a (blue) state’s primary ballot is not even a slap on the wrist.  Wasn’t he bragging about winning California and New York if things weren’t rigged?  Let’s go, orange man.  Surely you don’t care about Colorado when you’re already in landslide territory!!

    Go lawyer it out for years, you deranged and broke piece of crap.  The history books are waiting and Benedict Arnold sends a hearty “I’m not #1 anymore – thanks!” from the grave.

  27. 27.

    Scout211

    Tuberville’s  reign of error is over.

    The Senate on Tuesday confirmed nearly a dozen nominees for top military posts on Tuesday night, marking the end of Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s remaining holds over senior promotions.

    With senators rushing to wrap up before the holiday, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer secured a deal to confirm all 11 nominees for four-star positions by voice vote.

  28. 28.

    Martin

    @Miss Bianca: I couldn’t figure out how the district court could hold that it wasn’t a federal office just because it wasn’t enumerated along with the other offices. That made no fucking sense, so this restores quite a lot of order to the situation, IMO.

  29. 29.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @Scout211:

    That’s very good news! I remember many were afraid Tuberville and Trump wanted those positions open to co-opt the military

  30. 30.

    prostratedragon

    @RandomMonster:  I know it’s just a station on the way, but I’m so sick of this mofo that I let loose a string of Haaaahs and Hahs to the second tune of Bolero. That feels better.

  32. 32.

    Jeffro

    I will say I’m surprised – Fox has this up as its lead story right now.  They NEVER do that in real time.

    (and the story’s not just the Cheung BS, either, although that’s a significant part of a very short piece on Fox News dot com)

  33. 33.

    japa21

    I have very mixed feelings about this ruling. If, by some miracle, it holds up and other states remove him from the ballot, and, if by some miracle, it results in Trump not being the candidate, it could be a case of be careful what you wish for. I feel fairly confidant that Trump would lose to Biden, but a compromise GOP candidate may be able to beat Biden. Anybody, other than possibly DeSantis, looks good compared to Trump.

    When this was first going on, a lot of lawyers here were very skeptical and also felt it would set a bad precedent. I bow to their expertise.

  34. 34.

    Jeffro

    @japa21: if trumpov is not the GOP nominee, holy hell will break loose on that side.  It’s a good thing.  I get the mixed feelings, but they will eat each other alive.

  35. 35.

    WaterGirl

    @CaseyL:  I have no idea what the US Supreme Court will do, but even if this doesn’t go any further, I am very happy to have the record show that a state Supreme Court had declared that the former president of the United States was involved in an insurrection.  That will be in the history books.

    Another first for Trump!  impeached twice, check!  Declared an insurrectionist who is ineligible to run for President again, check check.

    It’s a good day, regardless of where it goes from here.

  36. 36.

    Miss Bianca

    @ALurkSupreme: The only way I could see this being “bad news for Biden” is if somehow or other Nikki Haley ends up as the GOP nominee.

    Lotta low-info voters out there poised to fall for her “reasonable Republican” schtick.

    But hell, for now I’ll take the victory lap for my home state!

  37. 37.

    RaflW

    @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): They may still have wanted that, but for reason we don’t currently know, Tommy Potatotown caved. And that’s a win.

    A stupid win, one that exacted real costs to our military which we should not memory-hole (more should his performance be singles out to him — his GOP colleagues did far to little to correct for his bullshit).

  38. 38.

    Patricia Kayden

    Will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rightwing justices get Trump out of this pickle. No one who instigated a violent insurrection should be eligible to run for ANY office. Period.

  39. 39.

    WaterGirl

    @Scout211:

    …and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision.

    Is the Trump team so stupid that they didn’t read that the CO Supreme Court stayed the decision thru Jan 4?

    Or perhaps they want it to be stayed past that.

    But Jan 4 is the magic date where there has to be a decision – there is no splitting this baby – Trump either gets to be on the CO ballot for primary, or not.

  41. 41.

    Martin

    I agree with Maddows take – there are no magic bullets. Rethinking my previous comment, my expectation is that USSC will rule that CO cannot remove Trump from the ballot, since the only restrictions on running are Article II, and that the enforcement mechanism for the 14th amendment are held by Congress alone in accepting or rejecting his electoral votes. Basically a rerun of 2020 by Democrats objecting to those EVs.

    So Trump can run even if he’s ineligible under the 14th amendment. That seems like the narrowest reading and it kicks the problem out of the legislative branch entirely, dumping the problem on Congress to own.

  42. 42.

    Splitting Image

    @japa21:

    I have very mixed feelings about this ruling. If, by some miracle, it holds up and other states remove him from the ballot, and, if by some miracle, it results in Drumpf not being the candidate, it could be a case of be careful what you wish for. I feel fairly confidant that Drumpf would lose to Biden, but a compromise GOP candidate may be able to beat Biden. Anybody, other than possibly DeSantis, looks good compared to Drumpf.

    The logic in your reasoning here is valid, but I think one of your premises is flawed. The GOP won’t be able to produce a compromise candidate to beat Biden because none of these people can compromise.

    If Trump isn’t the nominee, whoever does win is going to be taking their life in their hands every time they hold a rally. Trump’s supporters are armed and frothing-at-the-mouth angry.

  44. 44.

    Citizen_X

    So has Trump declared war on Colorado yet?

    And yeah, Nikki Haley, blah blah blah, but if this holds and Trump can’t run, the Repubs will eat each other alive. Mangia!

  45. 45.

    WaterGirl

    @Miss Bianca: I actually thought there was a good chance of this.

    Why?  Because the state supreme court is not a try-er of fact, and the lower court ruled that Trump had been involved in the insurrection.

    The open question was whether or not President is “an officer” and it sure seems to me that the president is an officer.  If nothing else, one of the roles is Commander in Chief.  Does that not sound like an officer?

    Whether it goes anywhere or not, this is a good day for the rule of law.

  47. 47.

    RaflW

    @Patricia Kayden: There is a subset of the commentariat who speculate that several of the reactionaries on the Court are realizing that a Trump presidency, Mk. II, would actually very much risk some of their power.

    Congress rarely dares even rattle at touching their power, but Donnie is both full of himself enough, and unbound enough to just tell them to “f+-k themselves” over rulings he would  disagree with as self-regarding grand poohbah. His dictatorial urges do risk positional power of the Supremes, and they may (again, as the have a bit) clip his wings.

  48. 48.

    WaterGirl

    @Scout211:  That’s great news!

    paraphrase:  “You fuckers can either stay here another couple of days and we’ll go through all the steps for each person, one by one, or you can approve them all in a group and go home for the holidays. It’s up to you!”

    I really like the new “I’ve had it with your shit” hardball approach the Schumer and Dick Durbin have been taking.

  49. 49.

    Splitting Image

    @WaterGirl:

    Whether it goes anywhere or not, this is a good day for the rule of law.

    Agreed.

    Every journey begins with a first step, and getting the decision in writing is a step.

  50. 50.

    WaterGirl

    @Martin: I thought the lower court did their part and teed this up for the CO Supreme Court to make the obvious reversal on the “he’s not an officer” decision.

    I thought this part was clearly choreographed.

    It’s much stronger for the CO Supreme Court to make this ruling than it would have been for the lower court to do so.

  51. 51.

    Ken

    @Martin: I wonder if Cenk Uygur will write an amicus brief, asking that while the USSC is tossing out state enforcement of constitutional requirements for office they also remove the one about the President being a natural-born citizen. Congress can decide whether he qualifies, after the election.

    I imagine there’s also some 25-year-olds out there who’d like to run for President now, and are preparing their own briefs.

  52. 52.

    mrmoshpotato

    @WaterGirl:

    I really like the new “I’ve had it with your shit” hardball approach the Schumer and Dick Durbin have been taking. 

    Hear hear!

  55. 55.

    BlueGuitarist

    @Jeffro:

    “It wouldn’t have been due process”

    “They call it due process, and some people are overdue”
    Gil Scott Heron

  57. 57.

    mrmoshpotato

    @Jeffro:

    if trumpov is not the GOP nominee, holy hell will break loose on that side. It’s a good thing. I get the mixed feelings, but they will eat each other alive. 

    How do you feel about your popcorn futures?

  58. 58.

    WaterGirl

    @Scout211: Not to mention that he surely must feel like his head is going to explode.  Unless someone is really lucky, we all feel like that sometimes.

    I know I did 10 years ago when I had to be at the family wedding in Colorado and I couldn’t possibly go because my kitty soulmate was dying, and I had to be simultaneously making plans to go – buying the dress, arranging transportation, etc – while knowing that it was quite possible that I couldn’t go.

    Only Trump has no coping skills at all to allow him to handle it.  He surely has to be at the breaking point.

  59. 59.

    Miss Bianca

    @mrmoshpotato: HA! *THIS* from the guy who routinely talks about Trump sucking the Kremlin’s asshole? Among other savory images. “Oh, Kettle…you are so black. Signed, Pot”

  61. 61.

    p.a.

    IANAL so not touching any legal implications, but the Orange shitstain’s demented reactions to the ongoing public whackings should help to demonstrate to normies that he is unqualified to administer a lemonade stand.

  64. 64.

    Kirk

    So if this holds, I expect a significant write-in campaign that will pull a significant minority.

    The other thing I keep recalling is that we don’t vote for the president. We vote for a slate of electors who then actually cast their presidential votes. “Faithless” electors and surrogate candidates are options we could see in play.

  65. 65.

    Delk

    Vivek is demanding the rest of the republican candidates withdraw from Colorado. He’s demanding.  Demanding!

  67. 67.

    Gravenstone

    @japa21: a compromise GOP candidate may be able to beat Biden

    I take comfort in the immense butthurt of MAGAts driving many of them to simply not vote. They’ll probably rationalize that decision (as much as they’re able to emulate rational thought) as their votes wouldn’t matter anyway so why bother?

  69. 69.

    cmorenc

    As much as Trump deserves this Colorado SCt ruling, not sure this tactically such a good thing, since Colorado is very likely to go blue anyways in the 24 presidential election, and if the electoral count is close and the federal house still has a small majority when electoral votes are counted, may use this as an excuse to throw a monkey wrench into the count by declaring colorado’s electoral vote invalid.

  70. 70.

    Geminid

    @Martin: A friend who’s followed these cases said the lower court was persuaded by the legislative history, that an earlier draft included the offices of President and Vice President but a later draft left those offices out, apparently by intention.

  72. 72.

    Ken

    @Delk: Vivek is demanding the rest of the republican candidates withdraw from Colorado.

    I’m guessing he doesn’t include himself, just the other Presidential candidates?

    If he does mean they should all boycott, I applaud him. I would clap louder if he means no Republicans should run for any office. Hmm… there’s a non-zero chance that Trump will demand that, as a sign of loyalty.

  73. 73.

    jimmiraybob

    @Jeffro: “I will say I’m surprised – Fox has this up as its lead story right now. They NEVER do that in real time.”

    Will have to see how they play this. My bet is that they go the “this just show what a martyr he is route.” The FG is playing it to the hilt tonight.

  75. 75.

    Citizen Alan

    @Ken: One of the few laughs I remember having amid the catastrophe of 2016 was a former friend of mine (and self-identified actual Marxist, despite being a VP for Intellectual Property at a major game studio) who told me that he wasn’t voting for Clinton, Trump or Stein, but rather for Eugene Pureyear of the Party for Liberation and Socialism. Pureyear was actually on the VP ticket for that motley crew. He was also only 29 at the time.

  76. 76.

    RaflW

    @Ken: He’s “pledging” to withdraw over Trump.

    But he’s a totally unreliable nut bag, so, no one can/should trust him.

    Ramaswamy: “I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately – or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver”

  77. 77.

    Jinchi

    @Delk: Vivek is demanding the rest of the republican candidates withdraw from Colorado. He’s demanding. Demanding!

    This isn’t even the first time he’s pulled that stunt. The man clearly isn’t running to be president. Probably just wants some minor office to grift from in a Trump administration.

  80. 80.

    Rusty

    I’ll take the other side on this one, I think it’s a bad decision.   If we want a real democracy then let the voters choose, not the courts.  I also worry that if this is successful,  red state legislatures will start figuring out how to kick Democrats off the ballot for all kinds of made up reasons.  It’s a very bad precedent if it stands.

  81. 81.

    Ceci n est pas mon nym

    @Wag:

    Let’s see how those “strict textualists” contort themselves to try and deny the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment.

    I think we already heard a verson of the pretzel logic. Didn’t TFG’s lawyers say somewhere along the line something to the effect of, “the 14th amendment covers those who take an oath to support the Constitution, and his oath never used the word ‘support'”?

  82. 82.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    OT:

    In local news, my long-time county sheriff has decided to run for reelection as a Republican, instead of a Democrat. Previously, the county GOP had pledged to not run an opponent in the Republican primary if he remained a Dem when he announced he was mulling a party switch. For context, the area was long-time Dem (well, conservadem)

    I see him on occasion at my work. I’ll have to bite my tongue from saying to him, “Power reveals, doesn’t it? That you care more about your cushy job so much you willingly join a political party that wants to nominate a man that has promised to become a dictator and literally repeated shit from Hitler’s Mein Kamf in speeches, not to mention the 1/6 Insurrection and all the rest. You’re just fucking fine with the GOP’s abortion bullshit that is threatening women’s lives and freedom. You’re just fine with the antisemitism and the attacks on LGBTQ+ rights.”

    I’m livid and I’m pissed I ever voted for this fuck

  83. 83.

    Jeffro

    @mrmoshpotato: I’m feeling a little dumb that I let my popcorn and champagne stocks deplete over the past couple of months because reasons.

    BUT NO MORE!

    Mrs. Fro: “Um…hello?  What is all this?”

    Me: “I know…it seems excessive!  But I think a few cases of champagne in the garage fridge are a relatively small investment in America’s future (celebrations)”.  =)

    (or mine, anyway!)

  85. 85.

    Tony G

    Until recently I hadn’t realized that this clause was in the 14th Amendment.  Ha!  It makes perfect sense that the clause is in there, given the fact that the amendment was drafted shortly after a group of pro-slavery assholes had launched a bloody war against the United States.  However, the lack of specificity about how to determine whether a person has engaged in insurrection seems like a time bomb to me.  Maybe next week a court in Alabama will determine that Joe Biden has engaged in insurrection because of “something, something, Hunter Biden’s laptop”.

  87. 87.

    Another Scott

    Made me look… Senate.gov:

    t banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.

    TIFG should beg his buddies in the House and Senate to say he should be approved on the ballot. Such a beloved character should have no problem reaching 2/3, amirite??!

    I too expect the SCOTUS to somehow invalidate this, but the reasoning will only apply to TIFG because shadow docket major questions IOKIYAR argle bargle and the vote for the GQP is sacred, donchaknow.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  89. 89.

    unrelatedwaffle

    I don’t play five dimensional chess so all I can say is yes, this was the right thing to do, because it is the right thing to do. Someone who tried to overthrow the government and openly says he will become a dictator shouldn’t be allowed to run for president.

  90. 90.

    Suzanne

    @Ken:

    And ketchup. There’s going to be a shortage, given the amount that will be thrown against the walls of Mar-a-Lago.

    It’s gonna look like a crime scene.

    Man, I wish I could insert the gif of Michael Jackson eating popcorn.

  92. 92.

    Ksmiami

    @Jeffro: my formerly Republican parents asked why the GOP seems to hate everyone and I responded- they don’t Even like each other; so yeah, if someone else muscles into the candidacy, internecine warfare will follow

  93. 93.

    Jeffro

    Listening to trump talk about “praying to God, and for God” just now on Fox (video snippet of his remarks in Iowa) almost makes me sick.

    Almost…because frankly if you’re dumb enough to believe that this creature has ever spared a thought for any god other than himself in his entire life, well, you deserve to live in bitterness all of your days.

    But it’s just unreal.

  94. 94.

    Martin

    @Ceci n est pas mon nym: I think it’ll be very simply decided that Article II says ‘shall be eligible’, which is why they can be removed from the ballot for not being a natural-born citizen, but the 14th Am says ‘may not hold office’. So they can be on the ballot, the GOP can remove them as their candidate, and Congress can refuse to certify their EVs, but they’re not ineligible to run, they’re just ineligible to hold the office, and the courts should not determine who a party chooses to run and the Constitution does not say they can’t run, they just can’t be seated. And Congress is the final arbiter of that, not USSC.

    I’ll bet money right now that’s the needle USSC chooses to thread.

  95. 95.

    Kay

    “Onshoring” is the great untold story of the Biden economy. I see it in Ohio but apparently it’s true In NH and AZ too:

    President Biden is running for reelection on a record of bringing manufacturing jobs back to America. This month, his administration awarded defense contractor BAE Systems $35 million to expand a semiconductor plant in New Hampshire. It is the first of many investments from the CHIPS and Science Act, which directs tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at making the U.S. a global chips powerhouse. As NPR’s Asma Khalid reports, there is one big obstacle.

    The big obstacle is …they need 100,000 technicians.

    The biggest problem in the Biden economy is not enough workers to fill the better paying jobs :)

    I never want to hear that the working/middle class is ignored again after Biden. It simply isn’t true. We will never get a President who is better for working class people than this President.

  97. 97.

    The Kropenhagen Interpretation

    @unrelatedwaffle: Someone who tried to overthrow the government and openly says he will become a dictator shouldn’t be allowed to run for president.

    These claims need to be fairly adjudicated, though. I don’t want to see Republican Secretaries of State in two years disqualifying Democratic current and former office holders up and down the board on specious claims.

  98. 98.

    Captain C

    @dmsilev: I still think they should give him at least a day of the Clockwork Orange Ludovico setup with the films being Auburn lowlights vs. Alabama (plus really bad ones from other games for a change of pace) during his reign there, but several of the lawyerly types here pointed out that may qualify as cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.

  102. 102.

    Geminid

    @Albatrossity: I could not say. I just know my friend hates Trump as much as anyone here, and he thought the argument was persuasive and the lower court decided correctly. That doesn’t mean he’s right.

  104. 104.

    Miss Bianca

    @Jackie: Well, on the one hand, I’d say, “I hear ya”…on the other, she did manage to get elected as governor of South Carolina – and if there’s a state with more racist/xenophobic/outright crazified reactionary GOP-ism baked into its DNA, I’m not sure which one it would be.

    So, yeah…remote possibility, I grant you, but every silver lining has a cloud, and in the finest BJ tradition, I’m standing under it!//

  105. 105.

    Barry

    @Rusty: “I’ll take the other side on this one, I think it’s a bad decision.   If we want a real democracy then let the voters choose, not the courts.”

    We did.  He lost.  He then tried too overthrow the government.

     

     

    ”  I also worry that if this is successful,  red state legislatures will start figuring out how to kick Democrats off the ballot for all kinds of made up reasons.  It’s a very bad precedent if it stands.”

     

    That is a valid concern.

  107. 107.

    Geminid

    @Kay: Besides the good paying jobs it will create, the CHIPS+ Act also shows that Biden is serious about protecting America’s national security and not just bloviating about it like some Republican.

  108. 108.

    Another Scott

    DemocracyDocket.com (from June 2022):

    On May 27, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) introduced a bill in Congress to create an enforcement mechanism for Section 3. “Congress has the discretion to enforce this expansively, or in a more restrictive way,” Magliocca commented on the new legislation. “There’s not that much in Section 3 itself that limits what they can do, except that you can only bring these actions against people who had previously sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution… Beyond that, everything else is up for grabs.”

    Despite a New York Times op-ed that argued that only the federal government has the power to enforce this provision of the constitution, this is likely not the case. “Most states have a framework for challenging someone’s nomination or candidacy on the basis that the candidate does not meet the qualifications for the office they seek. The framework for doing so is different in every state,” Fein clarified, explaining the way that Section 3 can be enforced via ballot eligibility statutes, which Free Speech For People utilized this year.

    Fein added that, in filing challenges this year, his group “helped demonstrate that while it would be important and helpful for Congress to take action, unless and until it does, people are not powerless to enforce this important provision of the Constitution.”

    The piece mentions cases against MTG and others, so obviously the courts have been reluctant to strike people from the ballot. But I think this is right that the states have power here to enforce their election laws. That said, I expect the SCOTUS to mostly invalidate this in limited some way (especially if TIFG hasn’t been convicted for January 6 stuff by that time).

    Yet another reason why we need updated national voting rights and standards legislation.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  110. 110.

    Anotherlurker

    I am not a champagne person, but I will raise a glass of Jamison in honor of the Colorado decision.

  111. 111.

    wjca

    @Martin: they’ll try and find some narrow or procedural way to invalidate this without saying they’re wrong, such as the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to primaries because it’s not an election for an office, but an election for a candidacy

    That was definitely my first thought on how they’d come up with a super-narrow technical or procedural reason to void the ruling while avoiding the core point.  But the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling appears to address that very point.  Which will make doing so challenging.

    Not that pure and obvious bullsh*t is beyond this Court, when they are so inclined.  It’s a critical part of their establish-the-desired-ideological-result-and-then-blow-smoke approach.

  112. 112.

    Central Planning

    @Martin: ​
      Doesn’t that just push the problem down the road? What happens if someone who can’t hold office wins the election? Who is going to be the arbiter of that?

  114. 114.

    Bupalos

    I’m pretty sure Trump welcomes this move.

    There aren’t any shortcuts in democracy around this big a slice of the electorate having decided a thing like Trump is their voice. Tossing him off ballots in D leaning states is both something he richly deserves, and which only increases risks of Democratic decline.

  115. 115.

    Martin

    @Central Planning: Congress, on Jan 6. They would find that the candidate cannot hold office and refuse to accept the EVs.

    There’s an opportunity for the EVs in there to refuse to cast for Trump on those grounds and bring that to the court as well.

    Let’s not underestimate the magnitude of cowardice in Congress and the courts. Congress does this all the time. It’s what McConnell did with the Trump impeachment.

  116. 116.

    Another Scott

    @wjca:

    But the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling appears to address that very point. Which will make doing so challenging.

    Not at all the same, but I remember TP Jackson writing a long, detailed decision with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one in the MS Antitrust case, and the appeals court basically struck it all down and said, “nope, you’re wrong, redo it and reverse it”.

    The SCOTUS accepted a bunch of made up a bunch of stuff (like standing) in the Creative LLC v. Elenis public accommodation travesty and ran with it.

    As you say, the higher courts don’t let what lower do get in the way if they want to do something else.

    Grr…,
    Scott.

  117. 117.

    Kay

    @Geminid:

    I’m going to have to start donating to NPR again.

    That was a real, olde timey news story – something the President did, an industry, some states, some workers interviewed.. they keep that up and I’ll pay for it!

  119. 119.

    Central Planning

    @Martin: ​I agree that both the courts and congress might choose cowardice.

    But doesn’t that path opens up a whole other can of worms? Couldn’t Cenk Ungur be on the ballot? It’s not up to the courts or states to decide who goes on the ballot even if they aren’t natural-born citizens.

    I think if they are cowards now, they are going to have even MORE courage later and that will make decisions even harder/more painful.

  120. 120.

    RaflW

    This is perfect:

    Allison F @ablington.bsky.social “I don’t understand how Trump hasn’t had a health event related to the stress of his existence”

    David Waldman @kagrox.bsky.social “He did, but they mistakenly rescued him at Walter Reed.”

  121. 121.

    Omnes Omnibus

    The Court can easily rule that the president is not an “officer of the United States”* and/or that the 14th Amendment requires a conviction for insurrection.

    *Here is a fun law review article on the subject.  (PDF)

  122. 122.

    Geminid

    @Kay: These Chip factories blow my mind. I was reading about the four factories Micron wants to build in Clay, New York, 15 miles north of Syracuse. The most complex machines will cost $200 million and can be had from only one Dutch company. These units perform the most critical function but there are many others. Micron will require the equipment suppliers to maintain a local presence in order to help maintain their machines.

    I think Intel wants to build a chip plant near Columbus, Ohio. It sounds like the Southeast is gonna have most of the battery and EV factories, and the sharper Yankees will get the chip plants.

  123. 123.

    Martin

    @Central Planning: No, because Article II says ‘eligible’ and the 14th Amendment says ‘hold’. Eligible is interpreted to mean ‘cannot run’. Hold doesn’t mean that. It just means hey can’t hold the office.

    So you empower SOSs to remove candidates for the former, and you empower Congress to block candidates for the latter.

    There’s a lot of that in the law anyway. That’s what the whole fight against the administrative state is based in. Congress says ‘regulate this outcome’, EPA regulates that behavior, USSC says ‘no, you can’t do that, Congress didn’t specify behavior, just outcome, and the fact that the EPA cannot control the outcome without controlling the behavior is Congresses fault for writing shitty laws’.

    USSC splits these obvious bits of logic all the time. They don’t care that it’s nonsensical, they don’t care that they apply it unevenly. Alito will argue that ‘hold’ and ‘eligible’ are different words and the authors of the 14th amendment should have used eligible if they meant eligible. If they wanted it to have the same weight as Article II, they should have adopted Article IIs terminology.

  125. 125.

    Urza

    @Kay: Need more immigrants to take up the lower paying jobs with the economy this good, but Republicans would never allow it.

  126. 126.

    Urza

    WordPress appears to be duplicating comments on its own, I definitely did not hit send on that twice but got an error for dupe detection.

  127. 127.

    Central Planning

    @Martin: Thanks, what you’ve written makes sense. Trying to apply logic to what the supremes or congress will do is a fools game, or like the guy trying to understand the customer in The Expert

  128. 128.

    Martin

    @Martin: I should qualify this.

    I don’t disagree with the CO ruling. I think it’s a disservice to GOP voters for CO to list a candidate on the ballot that cannot hold the office they are running for. This is part of the general holding that the courts should be as generous as possible to the voter. If a candidate dies after the filing deadline, a new candidate should be allowed to be chosen, because the voters rights to have a choice in a democracy overrules whatever administrative reason the state had for that deadline.

    And if Congress were in effect obligated to not accept Trumps EVs, the voters have no remedy to that, so that scenario should be avoided. But the conservatives justices do what they want and I think they have an easy way through this one.

    But I think USSC will take the cowards route and say that Congress is the regulatory party here, and not the SOS.

  129. 129.

    trnc

    @Martin:

    @Central Planning: No, because Article II says ‘eligible’ and the 14th Amendment says ‘hold’. Eligible is interpreted to mean ‘cannot run’. Hold doesn’t mean that. It just means hey can’t hold the office.

    I won’t make any claims about how SCOTUS would rule or what logic they would apply (if any), but that’s olympic level hair splitting. Allowing someone to run who has been deemed ineligible to hold office is ridiculous on it’s face, and disastrous as a practical matter. Allowing or encouraging voters to cast votes for that candidate, then saying “Sorry, he or she can’t actually hold that office?” C’mon, man.

    If states had to strictly follow only Article 2 to determine who could be on the ballot, they wouldn’t be able to come up with their own restrictions, eg, a minimum number of valid signatures.

    In any case, if SCOTUS does rule that DT has to be on the ballot, I suppose the SOS could place an asterisk by his name with a statement to the effect of “This candidate may be ineligible to hold office, even if he wins.”

  131. 131.

    billcinsd

    @Omnes Omnibus: The 14th Amendment does not contain that language (about conviction — it says engage in) though that is probably not a barrier to some of the current SCOTUS

  132. 132.

    billcinsd

    @Rusty:I also worry that if this is successful,  red state legislatures will start figuring out how to kick Democrats off the ballot for all kinds of made up reasons.  It’s a very bad precedent if it stands.

    Do you think they haven’t been trying to think of these ways for te past 10-40 years?

  133. 133.

    MinuteMan

    Whether the partisan SCOTUS puts party first or country first, this is their chance to rid both of the Mango Mussolini.  Unlike the GQP cowards in the US Senate, the Injustices are more likely to have the fortitude to do the right thing: after all they seem to consider themselves demigods—it might have something to do with all that nectar and ambrosia they swill.

  134. 134.

    Yarrow

    @Miss Bianca:

    Well, on the one hand, I’d say, “I hear ya”…on the other, she did manage to get elected as governor of South Carolina – and if there’s a state with more racist/xenophobic/outright crazified reactionary GOP-ism baked into its DNA, I’m not sure which one it would be.

    I think it would be Mississippi.

    As for SC, not only did they elect Nikki Haley (female, not white) as Governor, both their Senators are over-50, never-married men with no children (unusual for elected representatives), one of them Black. SC is not following the usual crazification script.

  137. 137.

    Chris Johnson

    @RaflW: Regarding reactionaries on the Court not wanting a Trump dictatorship: you gotta remember, in the event that Trump is just a Putin puppet anyhow, it’s never REALLY been about celebrating him as a dictator and giving all the power to the USA.

    It’s always been about undermining the USA and plunging it into civil and/or race war.

    That means, if Trump isn’t furthering that goal, they have no reason to help him regain power. He wasn’t there to HAVE power, he was there to hurt the USA. And did that, pretty effectively. But ‘being persecuted’ now is more effective at splitting the USA than pushing him into power again, so ‘being persecuted’ it is.

    If some of the Supreme Court are really not as much self-interested, and really are working for Russia to tear down the USA from within because they flipped sides and became traitors, it STILL isn’t a given that they’d push Trump into the Presidency again. And if they are self-interested there’s no way they want to turn their power over to a dictator.

  138. 138.

    RaflW

    @MinuteMan: consider themselves demigods—it might have something to do with all that totally innocent outside-provided nectar and ambrosia they swill

    Updated to reflect their “disclosure reports” :/

  139. 139.

    RaflW

    @Chris Johnson: I think the Slithery Six are totally in the tank for Republican outcomes. But I don’t have any reason to think they’re Putinistst, nor that they want a domestic civil war.

    Either of those things risk their self-regarded status as the by-far most important leg of the “three legged stool” our founders imagined.

    They want a nice, orderly domestic right-wing oligarchy. And all the personal trappings that flow from it.

Comments are closed.