Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

It is possible to do the right thing without the promise of a cookie.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

This fight is for everything.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.

The willow is too close to the house.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

Republicans: “Abortion is murder but you can take a bus to get one.” Easy peasy.

You know it’s bad when the Project 2025 people have to create training videos on “How To Be Normal”.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Disappointing to see gov. newsom with his finger to the wind.

We can’t confuse what’s necessary to win elections with the policies that we want to implement when we do.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

You are here: Home / Supreme Court / Supreme Court 14th Amendment Arguments 10 am Eastern (LIVE)

Supreme Court 14th Amendment Arguments 10 am Eastern (LIVE)

by | 349 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court begin at 10 am ET.

Link to the Supreme Court audio on the Supreme Court website.

C-SPAN link

If you’re on the go and want to listen on the radio:

Airing Details

Feb 08, 2024 | 10:00am EST | C-SPAN RADIO
Feb 08, 2024 | 10:00am EST | C-SPAN 1
Feb 08, 2024 | 8:30pm EST | C-SPAN 1
Feb 09, 2024 | 5:00am EST | C-SPAN 1

This should be interesting.  At least we don’t have to see their faces.  Josh Marshall described Boof (h/t Almost Retired) on his podcast last night as “hale and well-met”, a guy that wants to be a buddy and be well-liked, and I thought I might vomit.  I was shocked that Josh would describe him like that.  I suspect that only a man could think of Boof without thinking “angry, entitled, liar and rapist” – not in that order!

*I should say that I generally like Josh Marshall.  This is the second time he had made a comment, on an issue related to women, that I thought was utterly clueless, and it has surprised me both times.  If it happens a third time, I will no longer be surprised.

Reader Interactions

349Comments

  1. 1.

    Ken

    Figures, this goes up just after I ask my question in the thread below.  Repeating:

    I don’t suppose Trump is represented by Habba again? I’d love to see how her “Three of you owe us for putting you on the court” argument goes over.

  2. 2.

    WaterGirl

    @Ken: No, not Habba.  Trump has added some hot-shot attorney who is well-known for his cases before the Supreme Court.  So no clown show today with some hapless lawyer.

    That doesn’t mean, of course, that Trump won’t have pushed them to make some ridiculous arguments, and that won’t have caved to that.

  4. 4.

    Josie

    I’m thinking that you are Josh are both right. My experience has been that a number of the “hale and well met” guys are that way only with other men, not so much with women.

  6. 6.

    Shalimar

    @Josie: That type of person tends to be very fond of the phrase “bros before hos.”  Which says everything about how they see women.

  8. 8.

    WaterGirl

    @Josie: Oh, I agree that Kavanaugh is surely like that with men, but for Josh to say that in what sounded like an approving way, with no mention of the rest, is a disappointment.  Not coming off as much of an ally if you can forget the rest of it, or deem it not worthy of mentioning.

  9. 9.

    Betty Cracker

    Almost 10 years ago, John Oliver paired audio from a SCOTUS argument with video of dogs in robes to represent the justices and suits to represent the lawyers. It was hilarious! If I were a rich dilettante, I’d arrange a livestream video of every SCOTUS case with dogs standing in for the humans. Hey, they won’t allow cameras, so it’s the next-best thing!

  10. 10.

    DFH

    Boof is Kavanaugh.

    Hale and well met is a misspelling of “hail fellow and well met”, a rather derogatory phrase to describe a certain kind of man, indeed much like “bros before hos”

    hail-fel·low-well-met

    1. showing excessive familiarity.

      “Harold was accustomed to hail-fellow-well-met salesmen”

    A backslapper. A glad-hander. Not a compliment. JoshTPM is cool.

  11. 11.

    WaterGirl

    What do we think is the most primal of alliances or identity?  Gender?  Race?  Political identity?  Is it more specific than that?  For black women, for instance, is it not female or black, but both?  For a liberal male who thinks of Boof as “hale and well met” and not about rape and lies, does gender trump political identity?

  12. 12.

    Miki

    @WaterGirl: Trump’s atty clerked for Scalia, and has appeared before SCOTUS five times. Colorado’s atty is a noob before SCOTUS. He clerked for Kagan as well as Gorsuch (when he was on10th Circuit). gift link

  13. 13.

    Chief Oshkosh

    @WaterGirl: I didn’t listen to the podcast, but are we sure Marshall said it in an approving way? As a guy, I can say that when someone that I heretofore haven’t met pulls the “hale and well-met” schtick on me in a professional setting, it’s a red flag to me that, at the very least, his competency and work ethic need to be examined closely.

    ETA: “As a guy” meaning to highlight that, at least for me, not all men are in the hale and well-met club.

  15. 15.

    twbrandt

    I was about to say “hail and well met” is not a compliment, but a derogatory term applied to smarmy glad-handers; but DFH got there before me. I think Josh is spot-on here. Although given the misunderstandings shown here maybe that phrase is outmoded now.

  16. 16.

    WaterGirl

    @DFH: Well, his voice didn’t sound disapproving at all.

    I googled hale and well met before I finished the post, and it said;

    “Hail fellow well met” is an English idiom used when referring to a person whose behavior is hearty, friendly, and congenial, in the affirmative sense.

  17. 17.

    FastEdD

    Not trying to be a Negative Nelly, but I have zero confidence that SCOTUS will do the right thing today re: the 14th amendment. Would they put their fingers on the scale in a presidential election? Hell, they already did and gave us George W Bush, and that was many years ago and it was a court that wasn’t even as corrupt as this one. I still hold out a little hope that they might refuse to hear the case about “immunity” however. A little. You’d think our judicial system would try to protect itself.

  18. 18.

    WaterGirl

    Anderson must be Trump’s attorney.

    “Officer” is up first.

    “can’t exclude a candidate for president b/c the disability can be lifted before taking office”

  19. 19.

    Shalimar

    @WaterGirl: I don’t even get the “hale and well met” part.  Even if you’re a very forgiving type and assume the rapey evil stuff was decades in the past, the image of Kavanaugh that stands out far above everything else is the snarling asshole threatening to get his revenge after he was confirmed.  Whoever told him he needed to do that to impress Trump so he didn’t withdraw the nomination gave Boof really bad advice.

  21. 21.

    schrodingers_cat

    @WaterGirl: Are you really surprised? Josh Marshall gave space to that abominable John Judis to write his anti-immigrant xenophobic screeds on TPM. The veneer of acceptance is tissue thin in many a supposed ally as I have learned since T strode onto the national scene.

  22. 22.

    WaterGirl

    Who was it earlier this week who quoted Alice in Wonderland – either the Red Queen or the White Queen – raspberry jam yesterday, raspberry jam tomorrow, but no raspberry jam today.

  28. 28.

    WaterGirl

    @TBone:

    “You couldn’t have it if you did want it,” the queen said. “The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday—but never jam today.” “It must come sometimes to ‘jam today,’ ” Alice objected.

    and

    Jam tomorrow is an expression for a never-fulfilled promise, or for some pleasant event in the future, which is never likely to materialize.

  32. 32.

    TBone

    The LADY speaks up!  Let me stop you right there!  She’s slashing 😊 his dumb argument.  Sotomayor is knocking him down right off the bat ❤️

  35. 35.

    WaterGirl

    Arguing for Trump will be Jonathan Mitchell, a conservative lawyer who is the only one of the three who has ever argued before the Supreme Court. He’s done so five times — and during his most recent case, his legal position so exasperated Justice Elena Kagan that she obliquely and sarcastically referred to him as a genius.

    Arguing against Trump will be Jason Murray, a Denver lawyer whose firm describes its mission as holding powerful people accountable. Late last year, Murray successfully persuaded Colorado’s top court to declare Trump ineligible to run in that state due to the Constitution’s insurrection clause — a bombshell decision that paved the way for the Supreme Court to take up the question.

    There also will be a third lawyer taking a brief turn at the lectern on Thursday: Shannon Stevenson, the solicitor general of Colorado. Stevenson will speak on behalf of the Colorado secretary of state, who is responsible for enforcing the state’s election laws.

  36. 36.

    WaterGirl

    @Ramalama: I was in the hall for a speech by Sotomayor,, but maybe this is Kagan.

    Okay, they just said Kagan.  But I think the female justice speaking now is the second female to speak, yes?

  38. 38.

    Betty Cracker

    @twbrandt: My understanding of the phrase aligns with yours — it usually has a negative connotation in the contexts I’ve seen. Haven’t heard the podcast in question, but Marshall definitely does not have a good opinion of Kavanaugh, so I doubt he meant it as a synonym for “congenial.”

    @TBone: Who should have recused himself into the fucking sun since his wife is an insurrectionist!

  42. 42.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @DFH:

    Thank you. This is exactly what I was about to point out (both the mangling/misspelling of the original phrase, and the fact that it wasn’t meant as a compliment to Boof).

  55. 55.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @WaterGirl:

    The same Wikipedia article goes on to observe:

    In contemporary language the phrase is used as shorthand for someone who is genial or hearty but with the implication of superficiality or ingratiation.

    I didn’t hear Josh’s podcast, but I suspect he was using it in this sense.

  57. 57.

    TS

    It appears he is saying – trump can’t be removed from the ballot – he maybe can be disqualified from holding office  but not from standing for election.

    Sounds weird to me!

  58. 58.

    Old Man Shadow

    I honestly thought they’d go with the originalist bullshit and say that the authors of the 14th amendment were targeting former Confederate leaders, so Trump is okay.

  60. 60.

    Attempted Chemistry

    Kagan sounds like Noo Yawk.

    Sotomayor has a low, raspy voice.

    Brown Jackson has the clear, careful, deliberate voice of a Black person who knows that’s how you get taken seriously in this world. (She’s also smart as hell. Like, Kagan and Sotomayor are high quality minds, but KBJ is a smart person’s idea of a smart person.)

    Coney Barrett has a flat, midwestern voice and feigns confusion a lot.

    Thomas sounds like he just got over a cold yesterday.

    Alito sounds like his ulcer is giving him trouble.

    Gorsuch is unbelievably smug with every word.

    Roberts is generic.

    And Kavanaugh sounds like he’s just about had enough of you kids.

  62. 62.

    Ken

    @TBone: “OF COURSE a state can disqualify…”. GOOD DAY, SIR. YOU LOSE

    Who said the “OF COURSE”? If Trump’s lawyer, or Alito or Thomas, then yes you lose. Others, I’m not so sure.

  63. 63.

    cwmoss

    @WaterGirl: I always, without exception, refer to kavanaugh as “Justice Drunken Rapist” and his colleague on the bench as Amy Coathanger Barrett.

  67. 67.

    Leto

    Boof speaking about original intent, elusive language, of the amendment. Shoot that mf’er into the sun.

  70. 70.

    TaMara

    I’m listening, but I’m with Elie here…there is no way they’ll keep him off the ballot. And I also agree with Hillary from last night’s MSNBC interview, it’s better he get his ass kicked in Nov. (I’ll see if I can find a link to that interview)

  72. 72.

    cwmoss

    @Chief Oshkosh: hail fellow well met isn’t a super common idiom —I had to look it up to confirm my suspicion that JoshTPM was not using it as a compliment. I believe he thinks kav is as much of a fawning schmuck as I do

  76. 76.

    lowtechcyclist

    @TS:

    It appears he is saying – trump can’t be removed from the ballot – he maybe can be disqualified from holding office  but not from standing for election.

    Which makes no sense – if a 23 year old runs for President and meets all non-age-related requirements to be on the ballot, the states can’t keep that person off the ballot based on age?

    All the Constitution says is that the 23 year old can’t BE President, it says nothing about whether that person can be on the ballot.  ETA: No different from insurrection on this issue.

  82. 82.

    cmorenc

    Let’s not underestimate some legitimate constitutional issues with implementation of the “insurrection” clause of the 14A:

    who has jurisdiction to make a legally binding determination that a person has committed “insurrection”?  Can each state separately decide this (if so, the reasoning leans at least in the direction of “independent state legislature” or state courts)  Or, does this lie with Congress?  (although the 14A distinguishes that impeachment is not the excusive pathway to implement the “insurrection” clause).  Or is the issue solely one for the federal courts (and ultimately SCOTUS?)
    what due process rights does the person accused of insurrection have to contest the accusation?  In the Colorado case, Trump was seeking to be on the Colorado ballot (minimum contacts) .  Was Trump properly served with legal process, i.e. notice to appear with fair opportunity to contest the charges?  Presumably so.
    What is the legal definition of insurrection?  What exactly must be proven in the body with proper jurisdiction, to apply the insurrection charge against a person?  Yep, it appears plain to us that this should be rather easy to show (and purportedly was in the Colorado case) – but will SCOTUS agree that the Colorado court properly applied a correct definition thereof?

  85. 85.

    Leto

    @lowtechcyclist:

    All the Constitution says is that the 23 year old can’t BE President, it says nothing about whether that person can be on the ballot.

    apparently there was a case where a person was disqualified from being on the ballot because they were a foreign born person. So that would be similar.

    Also it’s fucking ridiculous that they would craft this disqualification amendment, including every damn office imaginable, EXCEPT pres and VP. And Kagan just makes that point.

  88. 88.

    TS

    @lowtechcyclist:

    Which makes no sense – if a 23 year old runs for President and meets all non-age-related requirements to be on the ballot, the states can’t keep that person off the ballot based on age?

    The point he made was that someone may be 34 11 months at election but he would be 35 before inauguration, thus could not be taken off the ballot

    The later argument is interesting –  President Trump is the only President  (excluding Washington) who didn’t hold an office of the US prior to becoming President. (ie all the others were member of the Senate/reps or had a position as an officer of the United States)

    And now he is arguing that President and VP are NOT officers – or some such thing.

  90. 90.

    wjca

    @WaterGirl: Am I wrong or Trump’s lawyer dancing on the head of a pin?

    Absolutely wrong.  Angels dance on the head of a pin.  And he’s no angel.

  91. 91.

    WaterGirl

    Trump’s attorney is saying Trump has immunity for Jan 6?????

    Did he have a blackout earlier this week so he missed the appeals court ruling???

  96. 96.

    eclare

    @cmorenc:

    Barbara McQuade was on Morning Joe previewing the arguments, and she said there were eight different issues in this one case.  If TIFG wins just one, he’s on the ballet.

    She’s on quite a bit, former US attorney.

  98. 98.

    catclub

    @zhena gogolia: Should be “hail fellow and well met “ in any case

     

    There is a hymn that starts

    “Hail to the lord’s annointed   ……

    Hail in the time appointed …..”

     

    I always think of winter precipitation  and weather reports at that point.

  103. 103.

    Scout211

    @eclare: If TIFG wins just one, he’s on the ballet.

    I do love me some auto-correct.  Trump in tights, though. . . help! Brain bleach needed, stat!

  106. 106.

    catclub

    @TS: The later argument is interesting – President Trump is the only President (excluding Washington) who didn’t hold an office of the US prior to becoming President. (ie all the others were member of the Senate/reps or had a position as an officer of the United States)

     

    Ronald Reagan?  George W Bush? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

  107. 107.

    Alison Rose

    Sorry, y’all, I know this is way off-topic, but this seems promising! From Zelenskyy’s FB just now:

    I met with General Valerii Zaluzhnyi.
    I thanked him for the two years of defending Ukraine.
    We discussed the renewal that the Armed Forces of Ukraine require.
    We also discussed who could be part of the renewed leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
    The time for such a renewal is now.
    I proposed to General Zaluzhnyi to remain part of the team.
    We will definitely win!
    Glory to Ukraine!
    🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦

    Along with a picture of the two men together in Zelenskyy’s office, shaking hands and smiling for the camera. So…sounds like maybe he’ll be changing jobs perhaps, but still staying on board in leadership.

  112. 112.

    cmorenc

    @eclare:

    Barbara McQuade was on Morning Joe previewing the arguments, and she said there were eight different issues in this one case.  If TIFG wins just one, he’s on the ballet.

    Core point is: there are plausible legal exit ramps for SCOTUS to avoid holding that the Colorado judgment is binding, without needing to follow the unprincipled “just because’ route of Bush v Gore.

  113. 113.

    Leto

    @eclare: Nikki Haley can’t beat, “No other option”.  She can’t beat Trump, but she’s going to beat Biden? This is the type of circular arguments people make in sports which denies reality.

  115. 115.

    WaterGirl

    @eclare:  Harry Litman put out an article a few weeks ago, and linked to it again yesterday, also listing something like 8 arguments they might use.

    He also said that all 8 would requite the SC to twist themselves into pretzels, but that if they DO NOT want to disqualify, they have options to pretend to have swayed them to their decision

    I see that #112 is saying the same thing I am.

  123. 123.

    debit

    @Leto: ​ Clearly she can’t beat Trump in a primary, but I worry about her in the general. Any candidate needs more than the base to win, especially if there’s a 3rd party spoiler siphoning off votes. Haley might bring Biden republicans back to the fold, and nab some independents. Don’t underestimate the danger of anyone who is not Trump.

  125. 125.

    eclare

    @Leto:

    I don’t make circular arguments in sports.  She would absolutely pound the age issue.  Like it or not, fair or not, that is an issue.

    Plus Americans are suckers for that “new car smell.”  I like Joe’s chances against TIFG much better.

  126. 126.

    UncleEbeneezer

    @eclare: She also has a new book coming out about Mis/Dis-information, that looks good.  I listen to Barb on the SistersInLaw podcast and read a lot of her posts, newsletters etc.  She’s really good.  Very Progressive values, clearly, but also understands and respects our system of law.  Will criticize it’s faults but is also will point out the many good things it achieves.  And she’s really one of the only tv pundits who never took the bait and panicked about the DOJ’s investigations into 1/6.  She said from very early on that Trump would likely be indicted and even guessed it wouldn’t come until sometime in 2023 due to the size/scope/complexity of the cases and the speed of the Courts.

  128. 128.

    Scout211

    I didn’t know that KBJ had handled some J6 cases before she was appointed to SCOTUS.   She has some experience that the others do not.

  136. 136.

    Ramalama

    There’s this assumption that if Colorado can boost (but not Boof) Trump from Colorado’s ballot, that Trump would lose the Presidency, that he would be denied as a result of one state.  But shouldn’t the onus be on Trump to win the 49 remaining states??

  138. 138.

    UncleEbeneezer

    @eclare: Me too.  Neither of them shy away from admitting when things are more complicated than mad people on Twitter would have you believe.

  140. 140.

    TaMara

    @debit: This. For people looking for a Not Biden option, there she is, if she’s somehow put on the ballot (TFG keels over or is removed)

    I’d be very worried about that. Right now, in the primary she’s facing the cult, in the general, she’s the off-ramp to “not voting or voting for Biden” voters. I honestly believe beyond Trump’s dwindling base, he has little support. Biggest fear around him is election interference by our enemies and his team.

  142. 142.

    different-church-lady

    Ain’t interested in being a gloom-monger, but I just can’t imagine this is going to go any way but, “Fuck the constitution, we want him as president.”

  144. 144.

    TBone

    Murray is good.  His shield has taken many blows.  It is holding. This isn’t a rabbit hole now, it’s an entire warren.

  145. 145.

    Leto

    @debit: so I’m going with this premise: SCOTUS will keep the traitor on the ballot. The traitor could be criminally convicted tomorrow, and he’ll still be on the ballot. He could drop dead today, and he’ll still be on the ballot. Her first task? Beat the traitor. Until she does that, she’s irrelevant.

    @eclare: she’s already pounded on age. And? Has that done anything for her? Has it helped her overcome “no other option”? I’ll worry if she becomes a viable option I her own state. Which is my old state, as she ranks right around palmetto bug levels of popularity there.

  146. 146.

    Dangerman

    @Scout211: Trump in tights … Brain bleach needed, stat!

    Tights cause no grief; now, if it had been said that Trump likes to frequent the Clothing Optional beach, then I’m ordering a pallet of brain bleach.

  147. 147.

    TBone

    JFC Roberts is interrupting AND putting words in Murray’s mouth! Nobody is letting him finish a sentence!  These are not neutral arbiters but Murray isn’t having it.

  149. 149.

    debit

    @TaMara: ​ The only comfort I would take from a Haley vs Biden campaign is that I could survive a Haley presidency. I wouldn’t like it, and it would be hard to get up and fight every day for four years, but I could survive it. I cannot survive another Trump presidency.

  150. 150.

    The Kropenhagen Interpretation

    @Shalimar: That type of person tends to be very fond of the phrase “bros before hos.” Which says everything about how they see women.

    Utterly valid, yet I have had this phrase directed at me as a gay man to put my friends above someone I was dating.

    So other interpretations include “established relationships before prospects” or “put your interlocutor’s needs above anyone elses.”

    @WaterGirl: It’s been dormant because we haven’t had an insurrection UNTIL TRUMP.

    Well, there was this mild fooferaw in the mid 19th century that was the whole reason we amended the Constitution to prohibit oath breakers from holding office.

  152. 152.

    Leto

    Roberts bringing up the tit-for-tat argument. Projection. Murray saying, “We haven’t had to adjudicate this for 150 years because of how extraordinary it is”. Roberts arguing that red states are going to claim everything Dems do is insurrection. Truth.

  156. 156.

    Miss Bianca

    @Chief Oshkosh: And ffs, people, it’s “HAIL”, not “HALE”, as in hale and hearty, but “Hail (Hello!), fellow well-met.” As noted up above, “Hail, fellow well-met” is the greeting of a glad-hander, and used to describe such.

    I am agnostic as to what Josh Marshall’s use of the phrase means about his attitude towards women.

  158. 158.

    Almost Retired

    JFC the relentless interruption and hostility directed at Murray by the Snarling Six stands in marked contrast to their “would you like a pillow” treatment of Mitchell.

  161. 161.

    MomSense

    I don’t know WTF to make of this hearing.  I’m listening but I have so little faith in this SCOTUS that listening just causes anxiety.

  163. 163.

    Dangerman

    This isn’t going the way I expected it at all. Sure, keep Trump on the ballot and he will stop at just giving you another tax cut if he wins. In related news, I got a bridge to sell.

  164. 164.

    TBone

    Get ready for more interruption where he can’t get a sentence completion.  oh wow, he WAS allowed to complete a thought!

  165. 165.

    Leto

    There are current military officers who believe Biden isn’t President. They believe he’s disqualified. But they still follow the orders because they can’t make that decision. Such a dumb hypothetical.

  167. 167.

    debit

    @Leto: ​ I agree, they’ll twist themselves up in knots to keep him on the ballot. And I’m not going to sleep or even breathe easy until the election is over and Biden is sworn in for his second term.

  171. 171.

    TaMara

    If you guys need some distraction from this, you should google the 91-year old Norma Anderson and listen to some interviews with her. She is a firecracker and if they hadn’t kept saying she was 91, I would have had a hard time believing it – take that all those “Biden is too old” folks.  She’s sitting in the court day, probably ashamed of the conservatives on the court for being trump stooges and shooting daggers at them.

  173. 173.

    Leto

    @debit: agreed. I’m sure Biden and team have contingency plans for other candidates if the hamburglar drops dead. Until that time, it’s one less thing to worry about.

  174. 174.

    Alison Rose

    @debit: This is how I feel. She’s awful and she would do awful things, but she doesn’t terrify me like Trump does, and also, at least I can stand looking at her and listening to her. I might say rude things but it doesn’t make me want to scream and throw my laptop against the wall.

  176. 176.

    TBone

    Ugh Scalito whiny interrupting.  Get ‘im Jason.  Scalito voice is grating my last nerve.  But he lets Jason finish a sentence.  Now we have to parse Rump’s “meaning.” Jason cutting that off at the knees.

  180. 180.

    wjca

    @TaMara: but CO is not going to win this case, so, I’m with Hillary, we have to beat his ass in NOV

    Likely true.  But just for a little light amusement (which we could all use these days), consider if they did uphold Colorado.  Then what happens?

    1. That would apparently give Supreme Court imprimatur to the fact that he committed insurrection.  Which makes the case against him for doing so more robust.
    2. Any other state’s Secretary of State thus would be totally justified in keeping him off the ballot as well.
    3.  Even if he won the most electoral votes, the House would be justified in refusing to count those, since he would be ineligible to serve.  Making taking back the House even more important.
    4. What the Senate does about the VP is a different question.  Presuming the VP nominee is not similarly ineligible, does he then become President?  That would be my take, but IANAL.
    5. In light of 2) and 3) do we see a mad scramble by the GOP to figure out how they nominate someone else? (I’d bet yes.  Reluctantly, but yes.)  And how do they (can they?) do so without an explosion amongst the cultists?
    6.  What do the cultists do?  Armed marches on Washington? Targets on the backs of the Supreme Court justices? (Are they capable of differentiating among those who voted for or against the god-king? Not the smart money bet.)  Just sit out the election in November?
    7.  And, of course, TIFG has a complete and utter meltdown on he private social media platform.  And maybe in court, as the decision gets mentioned.

    As I say, just an amusing fantasy, most likely.  But fun.

  182. 182.

    TaMara

    @Leto: My fantasy…he is resoundingly defeated in NOV and drops the next day. I’d rather be rid of him than see him in an orange jumpsuit, because even from that venue he’ll suck up all the O2 because the media can. not. quit. him.

  183. 183.

    eclare

    @debit:

    I agree.  This country has been put through hell since 2015.  I wouldn’t like it, but as long as we kept one house of Congress, I could survive.

    I have insurance through the ACA, a unified Republican govt would terrify me.

  184. 184.

    TBone

    I’d like to point out again that the legal arguments SHOULD leave politics and political ramifications aside.  In a perfect world. Le sigh.

  185. 185.

    Miss Bianca

    @Leto:

    Which is my old state, as she ranks right around palmetto bug levels of popularity there.

    Ooh, elaborate, please! Why was she so unpopular in SC? She seems like bog-standard Republican wing-nut to me, which to my mind should have made her popular in the “too big to be a lunatic asylum” state.

  186. 186.

    narya

    Haley DOES scare me, specifically about women’s right to bodily autonomy. She blah-blahs around it, but she is every bit as ban-it-all as the rest of them. If she is in charge of DOJ, expect her to support interfering in what blue states do.

  188. 188.

    Miss Bianca

    @Almost Retired: Believe me, if you lived in Colorado, you would have learned to hate him.

    The only issue he’s remotely any good, oddly, is when it comes Native American rights. Why that is, ain’t exactly clear, at least to me.

  189. 189.

    The Kropenhagen Interpretation

    @debit:  I agree, they’ll twist themselves up in knots to keep him on the ballot

    I don’t think they’ll have to. They will set some standard, whether it’s a good standard remains to be seen. Ideally, it would center around some mutually agreeable finding of fact before disqualifying someone, like a conviction on impeachment or in criminal court.

    Or they could pull a Bush v Gore and do a one time cut out that only applies here.

    Trump’s teams arguments are terrible, though. The President isn’t an officer of the US? Laughable.  A riot isn’t an insurrection? You’re right. But the riot wasn’t all that happened. In the end, the riot may well have fucked up the real insurrection in Congress.

  190. 190.

    Leto

    @Miss Bianca: my parents still live there, they’re evangelicals, so are plugged into that network. Everywhere you go in the state it’s: Trumpov. The sun rises and sets on him. Everything he says is the new new good book. Haley might have been governor, but she took down the Confederate flag. She’s spoken out against him. She’s not him. Yes, she might have a good idea here or there, but she’s not him. Insanity.

  191. 191.

    Dangerman

    @TaMara: My fantasy…he is resoundingly defeated in NOV …

    Problem is that isn’t possible; any loss will be because the election is rigged, doncha know. We’ll get J6 again.

    We gotta find a way to get beyond this bullshit. Is Lake still fighting for rigged in Arizona? I don’t subscribe to Asshole Quarterly anymore.

  193. 193.

    Leto

    @TaMara: I want justice. I’ll admit there’s a using the justice system as revenge feeling, but I want justice. He’s broken state/federal law, and I want him to be brought to account. I want us as a country to finally live up to the “everyone is equal under the eyes of the law”.  We keep making the same mistakes wrt to this.

  197. 197.

    TBone

    Bony Carrot is such a … She said “eggs in basket” and I want to slap those words out her Handmaid’s mouth.

  198. 198.

    Leto

    @TBone: listen, if they wanted this action to happen they would’ve written it down. And if they did write it down, maybe it doesn’t mean what it means. As even if they wrote contemporaneous writings about the subject, maybe it doesn’t mean what they wrote. So… we’re going to decide this how we want to.

  199. 199.

    TBone

    @Leto: so true.  But I still fight back.  Come up swinging every time!  The Supremacists know that public opinion is against them. They know that their reputation is in tatters.

  200. 200.

    TaMara

    @Leto: Completely understand!  I would not cry if he was marched off in chains and also stripped of all his businesses and any money he still has…

    I just want to never hear his name again…but I suppose I’ll have to wait for my demise for that to happen, since reduction to ashes won’t be enough to stop the maddness (I’m looking at you Reagan)

  201. 201.

    Ken

    If you’re finding these legal arguments boring, there’s always the opening paragraphs of the lawsuit Gina Carano filed against Disney. (Elon Musk is backing her suit, and there’s speculation the text came from him; either that or from the deranged and defective chatbot he recently released.)

  202. 202.

    Leto

    @TaMara: please take my ashes and shoot them into the void. Hopefully in a billion years I’ll be far enough away to not have to hear about this worthless fuck.

  203. 203.

    catclub

    @eclare: She’ll lose by at least 30 in SC. That has no bearing on how she would do in the general, in say, WI. Or PA.

     

    If she loses by only 30 in SC and a few more states, that just shows that Trump  GOP is much less monolithic than he would like.

     

    Biden is running at 90% of Democratic primary voters.

  207. 207.

    Miss Bianca

    @Dangerman: I’m not sure we would get a new J6. It seems to me, living in my blood-red rural county, that Trump enthusiasm has definitely waned – Republicans still plan on voting for him, natch, and even seem to see it as a foregone conclusion that he’s going to win, but I think the fact that there have been actual consequences for previous insurrectionists – as in, arrest, prosecution, and prison time – seems to have had a somewhat sobering effect on most of them, anyway.

    ETA: One interesting thing I am noticing at the local level is that just as the national level GOP are lighting into each other like rats fighting over a moldy bagel remnant, so they are here. The same stupidity and venality that prevents the House Goopers from any effectiveness at actual governance is showing up at the local level too, and some on the right are starting to notice. Good times!

  208. 208.

    Leto

    @Ken: is her lawyer also a fanfic writer? Wowza… should be dismissed on basic 1st amendment rights: government can’t regulate speech. Business can.

  209. 209.

    TBone

    Shannon Stevenson is already impressive.  Standing objection!

    I would love to hear her tell Clarence to STFU. She’s getting there.

  210. 210.

    Kay

    Three of them are only on the court because of the coup ringleader and one of them is married to a regional coup captain

    its just hard to take it seriously

  211. 211.

    TaMara

    @catclub: Not just 90% – isn’t his turnout actually larger than the Republicans? I keep meaning to look that up – but I thought I read in NH and NV there were more Dem voters than Rep.

    Someone find that out, kthx, I have got to get some work done and I’m dragging today.

  213. 213.

    Almost Retired

    I miss the days when Thomas didn’t speak during oral argument.  Those were good times.

  217. 217.

    Chief Oshkosh

    @TaMara: The electorate already did its job. We crushed the orange squirt in 2020. The judiciary is dropping the ball. The system is failing. If Biden wins and has a majority in one or both part of Congress, he really needs to push court reform. Hard.

  218. 218.

    The Kropenhagen Interpretation

    @Leto: Perhaps, in your next life, you will hear about Trump trying to become a second Hitler then sad tromboning his way into ignominy, despite the weaknesses he exposed in our legal system, thanks to Joe Biden and the American voters.

    Granted, there’s no reason your “next” life should adhere to our notions of the order of time. It could well be in the past. I suspect emotional continuity rather than temporal continuity as one life passes to the next.

  220. 220.

    Anoniminous

    @TBone: ​

    Public opinion doesn’t mean a goddamn thing. The Supremes have a job for life and can do anything they please.  Which is why I keep saying the legal system in this country is fundamentally corrupt.

  221. 221.

    Kay

    I’m still glad the Colorado judges did an actual legal analysis with a rational conclusion.

    Im so often ashamed of lawyers and judges these days. That took courage. Bravo.

  223. 223.

    The Kropenhagen Interpretation

    @TaMara: isn’t his turnout actually larger than the Republicans?

    This turnout will be dwarfed in November. Primary turnout is good for vibes, but has unproven predictive value.

  225. 225.

    PST

    @Miss Bianca: In regard to “hail fellow, well met,” one surprise for me when first reading Jane Austen was the way “condescension” was always used in a positive way. Likewise “fulsome” originally had no negative connotations. That too changed, although it may be swinging back. I agree with those who do not think Josh meant to compliment Boof. It might be a helpful character trait to take into account when predicting what a justice will decide. There could be a difference between someone keen to avoid a decision that might embarrass him with his friends at the club verses someone who probably doesn’t give a shit what anyone else thinks.

  227. 227.

    comrade scotts agenda of rage

    @MomSense: ​
     

    I hate him and his fucking mother too.

    GMTA.
    As much as I despise the conservative justices in toto, particularly Uncle Clarence, I always remember where fucking Gorsuch sprang. Movement conservative from the womb.

  228. 228.

    Leto

    @Miss Bianca: did you see the truck nuts convoy turning on each other in TX? They get to TX, there’s not this mass problem, so they start fighting with each other. If we could send them out into the desert to resolve this by themselves, without harming bystanders/general public, I’d be down for that.

  229. 229.

    sdhays

    @Leto: So, Roberts thinks that we should ignore laws in the Constitution if bad actors will attempt to abuse the laws?

    That’s an interesting position for a judge to take.

  232. 232.

    Leto

    @The Kropenhagen Interpretation: I’m hoping for my “next life”, that my family spreads me under a nice hardwood tree. Say a cherry tree. Where I will be absorbed into the tree, and then a hundred years later, harvested, and turned into a nice piece of heirloom furniture. That’d be nice.

  234. 234.

    Kay

    @TBone:

    Exactly. On the record should the worst happen and he’s back in power, because they’ll be a kind of accounting of who was on what side. That’s the reward for being out front. History.

    I’ve gotten so cynical I was shocked when it happened – “holy shit- the real judges are back!” I was grinning.

  235. 235.

    TBone

    Remember, the MSM is in the discouragement business.  The Court has many amici briefs in addition to oral argument to consider

  240. 240.

    Matt McIrvin

    @TaMara: In NH there were far more Republican voters (to the point that Trump got more voters than Biden, despite not winning as decisively) because only the Republicans were having a real primary. Don’t know about NV.

  242. 242.

    Barbara

    @Leto: It’s good to remember that Haley’s elevation to prominence came when Mark Sanford promoted her candidacy after his second term.  She’s old guard — she cares about things like luring companies to set up shop in South Carolina and everything she did and said, including taking the confederate flag down, was aimed at a narrow slice of the constituency that really cares about those things as well.   There is a lot of in-migration to South Carolina — I spent a summer in Charleston at a client location, and most of their workforce came from other states.

    My understanding as well is that people don’t trust the bona fides of her faith — that she stopped affirmatively being a Sikh because she realized that she had to declare herself as a Christian if she wanted to succeed in South Carolina’s political landscape.  This is a much bigger thing in a Southern state than it would be anywhere else in the country.

    So basically, she is an opportunist whose fault lines are a little too obvious.

    I’ve been following a real time twitter of Neal Katyal and he seems to think that the Trump side is going to win, but the real issue I suspect is on what grounds. The question that seems hardest to me for the ballot deniers is how to respond to the conclusion that the net effect would be for the 14th Amendment — a federal provision — to unleash a disuniform standard for ballot access at the state level based on a finding that a candidate engaged in insurrection against the United States.

    Also, the argument in support of the Colorado decision is being handled by first time litigants in front of the court.  That’s usually a mistake because those with experience not only argue better, they are attuned to the kinds of arguments and concerns that will appeal to individual justices.  And I will say it for the eleventy billionth time, it’s outrageous in my humble opinion that any collection of nine people should have such power.

  245. 245.

    Matt McIrvin

    @wjca: In one of Paul Campos’s doomier LGM posts he speculated that most of us only think the Court will rule in Trump’s favor because we’re scared of the terrible things that will happen if they don’t (civil war, I guess).

  246. 246.

    Miss Bianca

    @PST: “Affable and condescending!” I always lol – or at least, grin broadly – when I read that description of Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

    Of course, the character who uses “condescending” in that approving way…is an idiot. So, maybe that’s a sign that “condescending” was already descending, so to speak, into a less-than-approving epithet.

    @Leto: I did see that, and it brought a warm glow to the cockles of my liver.

  248. 248.

    Quinerly

    @Barbara:

    Neil Katayl is on the mark. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is 9-0 against Colorado. It did not go well for Co. As I was listening, I was cringing.

  252. 252.

    oldgold

    No way this succeeds.  And, all things considered, perhaps it should not.  Like the Second Amendment, this clause suffers greatly from being poorly drafted.

    On an optimistic note,  I do think they will deny cert on the immunity case.

  253. 253.

    Barbara

    @oldgold: That would be a compromise outcome I could live with, honestly.  Let a jury convict Trump of an honest to God criminal offense.

  255. 255.

    Quinerly

    @TBone: the CO side missed a lot of arguments.

    I’m with Joyce Vance…7-2 or 8-1 in favor of Trump. Doesn’t mean I like it. Pretty obvious to most of the legal community that CO lost.

  256. 256.

    WaterGirl

    It occurred to me partway through that perhaps the C-SPAN feed might indicate who is talking at any given time, but I didn’t want to interrupt and have to find my place on C-SPAN and miss what was happening in real time.

    Indeed, C-SPAN does show a photo and a name for the person who is talking at any given time.  I plan to watch / listen again later on the c-span link.

  259. 259.

    jimmiraybob

    In addition to the Colorado court’s excellent work nailing down the historical foundation for Amendment 14’s Section 3, there are two additional documents submitted to SCOTUS that also give a solid foundation (in a texturalist, originalist approach):

    1) “Brief for Professors Orville Vernon Burton, Allan J. Lichtman, Nell Irwin Painter, James M. McPherson, Marsha Sinha, et. a’., As Amici Curiae in support of Respondents.”

    2) “Brief of Amicus Curiae Sherrilyn A. Ifill in Support of Respondents and Affirmance.” Sherrilyn A. Ifill is the counsel of record and recent President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. is Distinguished Professor of Law at Howard Law School.

    Both can be found in PDF by an easy Google search.

  261. 261.

    Miss Bianca

    @Quinerly: I personally think it’s premature to say CO lost, or lost completely, or whatever. But maybe that’s just my CO chauvinism speaking.

  262. 262.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Barbara: Someone with legal knowledge at LGM got tremendously annoyed when I guessed they’d rule that Trump needs a criminal conviction. Apparently every lawyer who’s actually looked at the insurrection clause agrees that whatever due process standard there is, criminal conviction is NOT it and has nothing to do with this criterion. Not even Trump’s lawyers are bringing that up.

  264. 264.

    TBone

    OMG Norma Anderson & Krista Kater, Plaintiff and witnesses to today’s proceeding are ⚡🔥❤️

  265. 265.

    Barbara

    @TBone: The documents are the most important prong.  Oral argument is to answer questions for judges or justices who have already more or less made up their minds based on written submissions.  That is the case like 99% of the time.  But having a hard time answering those questions is a poor sign.

  267. 267.

    oldgold

    This whole debacle was so unnecessary. The answer was the second impeachment.

    The person I blame, as with many of our current problems, is Mitch McConnell.

  268. 268.

    Barbara

    @Matt McIrvin: Honestly, I haven’t followed this too closely but it is hard for me to wrap my mind around using the word “insurrection” as a standard for denying ballot access.

  271. 271.

    wjca

    @Matt McIrvin: most of us only think the Court will rule in Trump’s favor because we’re scared of the terrible things that will happen if they don’t (civil war, I guess).

    I agree that there will be calls for civil war (and/or insurrection).  And attacks in various local areas.

    But I don’t see any state legislatures actually voting to secede.  They, at least enough of them, remember how that worked out the last time.

    Nor do I think we see enough folks with guns trying to fight the army.  Even if some military members do go the Robert E. Lee route, I just don’t see it becoming nearly big numbers enough to make a serious force.  And the amateur militia types will mostly fold up as soon as somebody is shooting back at them — those that aren’t dead from massive incompetence in the first exchange of fire.

    Would it be messy?  Yes.  Would people get killed? Absolutely.  Including some innocent bystanders.  But would it get to being a threat to the nation the way the Civil War was? No.  Not anywhere close.

    And all that’s before we get to the economic issues.  We’ve got a total money economy these days.  What would they use for money anyway?  Virtually nobody is self sufficient any more.  Not even for food beyond a week or two at the outside.  The Federal government can leave any rebel areas that do arise with nothing to support themselves but bullets — low nutritional value there.

  273. 273.

    TaMara

    @Quinerly: I think the next discussion needs to be…should we strengthen this clause next? I mean, we probably shouldn’t be complacent now that they tried to overthrow the government once that they won’t do it again. Put in actual clear and concise protections BEFORE it happens again.

  275. 275.

    Miss Bianca

    @Barbara: I haven’t been listening to the arguments in real time, but judging from what other commenters have been saying who have, it doesn’t strike me that CO’s lawyers are making bad arguments, necessarily. It *does* strike me that they are being constantly interrupted by certain…shall we say…bad faith actors on the bench, and that would likely throw almost anybody off their game.

  278. 278.

    wjca

    @Quinerly: 7-2 or 8-1 in favor of Trump. Doesn’t mean I like it. Pretty obvious to most of the legal community that CO lost.

    But not, I think, with that many signing on to a single opinion.  We may not get to everybody writing their own concurring or dissenting opinions.  But we could come closer than I’ve ever heard of.

  279. 279.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Barbara: Me too. They’re probably going to say something that effectively makes that clause a dead letter. The question is just what that will be, and how far it goes.

    Arguments that the President has special immunity powers or is “not an officer” seem weirdly trollish, classically Trumpian and less plausible than arguments to the effect that the bar to impeding democratic process in some way should be very high. But I’m not a lawyer, myself.

  280. 280.

    TBone

    @Anoniminous: wait just a goldurn minute there, bucko.  The Supremacists enacted a code of ethics (admittedly toothless as it may be) in response to public pressure.  And.  SEE YOU IN ROEVEMBER BUDDY BOY

  281. 281.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Barbara:

    The question that seems hardest to me for the ballot deniers is how to respond to the conclusion that the net effect would be for the 14th Amendment — a federal provision — to unleash a disuniform standard for ballot access at the state level based on a finding that a candidate engaged in insurrection against the United States.

    The answer is, we have 51 separate elections for President in this country.

    Do they all have the same standards for allowing ex-felons to vote? For allowing college students to vote in the precinct where their dorm is?  For having enough polling sites to keep the lines from getting hours long?  For being able to vote early? For being able to mail in one’s ballot?

    Fuck no, they sure don’t!  So why should different standards for ballot access in the several states be a problem?

    I bet that’s already a thing anyway: while, absent insurrection, the candidates of the two major parties are surely on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC, I bet the rules for their doing so differ from state to state, it’s just that we’re talking different heights of exceedingly low hurdles.

    Same for third parties and independent candidates, I’m sure it’s a slew of different rules in the various states.  So why should differing standards in this one area be an issue?

  283. 283.

    gvg

    @TaMara: I wouldn’t dare as long as there are those in Congress that I consider a part of the insurrection. I honestly expected more shoes to drop by now on Congressmen. I really think some of them are on the take also. Those are what I haven’t heard being investigated.

  285. 285.

    Hoodie

    @oldgold: it’s not any more ambiguous than many constitutional provisions, clearer than some others. Any constitutional provision or statute is subject to ambiguity. The problem is that this provision has practical implications that could be problematic, the biggest being the potential for nonuniform application or mischief by bad faith actors. I was initially surprised that justice Jackson seemed skeptical, but she could be thinking of the inevitable blowback, eg, how red states might try to use this against a black congressperson who engaged in a protest where there were peripheral incidents of violence. After the ridiculous failed impeachment of Mayorkas, that’s entirely conceivable. It also could add to forces that are driving towards dissolution if states start trying to disqualify national candidates on this basis without some sort of national standards. If I were to guess, they’ll reverse on the grounds that there is no implementing legislation as to how to enforce it. I think the Colorado court was right from the standpoint of pure interpretation, but the Supremes will be more consequentialist.

  286. 286.

    Quinerly

    @oldgold:

    McConnell probably deep in his black heart agrees. Hindsight is always 20/20. I am sure he wishes the country was done with Trump.

    A coward leading cowards.

  287. 287.

    lowtechcyclist

    @wjca:

    We may not get to everybody writing their own concurring or dissenting opinions.  But we could come closer than I’ve ever heard of.

    The Justices wrote six separate opinions in the Bakke case (1978).  I don’t know if that’s the all-time champ or not for the number of separate opinions, but it would be tough to beat.

  290. 290.

    Quinerly

    @Miss Bianca:

    Did you listen to the arguments? I did.

    When I was practicing, I never argued before the Supremes.  Few attys do. But I know enough to know, the arguments didn’t go well for CO. Everyone should read/listen to Justice Kagan questioning her former law clerk, Jason Murray. That was telling, imo.

  294. 294.

    TBone

    @Quinerly: well then I’m not arguing with you 😊 just playing devil’s advocate.  I’m a lowly paralegal/assistant. Also retired, praise be.

  297. 297.

    Quinerly

    @TBone: yes.

    I retired from practicing at the end of 2019.

    Never argued before the Supremes, but did have a couple of arguments before MO Court of Appeals. Had my hand in writing at least 20 appellant briefs. A lot goes into this. I get it.

  298. 298.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Hoodie:

    If I were to guess, they’ll reverse on the grounds that there is no implementing legislation as to how to enforce it.

    I’m not making any guesses other than that they will reverse Colorado’s decision.  But I’d prefer those grounds to just about any other.

    On the one hand, we really need to simply win this election at the polls in nine months, without any gimmicks.  And it isn’t like the disqualifications will help us that much anyway – if we’re in danger of losing Colorado in November , TFG’s gonna win anyway.  The only real difference it might make is assuring that the one elector for Maine’s second Congressional district is a vote for Biden.  (Lord help us if this comes down to 269-269 v. 270-268.)

    But on the other, I think we really need this section of the 14th to have meaning, and a decision on those grounds would leave the door open for enabling legislation that would make that happen.

  299. 299.

    Soprano2

    @schrodingers_cat: Like I said in another thread, you can’t underestimate how scared white people are of brown-skinned immigrants, or any immigrant they don’t consider to be “white” (because the definition of who is considered to be “white” has changed over time). We’ve seen it over and over again in our history; the only surprising thing would be if it didn’t happen. I think many white people subconsciously know that they have treated brown-skinned people terribly in many instances, and are terrified that if the brown-skinned people get a majority in this country they’ll return the favor. ETA – you notice how the usual suspects didn’t say much of anything when we said we would accept Ukrainian refugees.

  301. 301.

    Big Fly

    @Leto:

    You’d more likely end it all as a pie ingredient, or bird food, before reaching the elegant furniture stage in a hundred years. Sorry.

  302. 302.

    Quinerly

    @TBone: all good.

    I was just a lowly business and commercial atty for most of my practice. Translation….higher dollar amt collection atty for banks and corporations. Last time I was remotely involved with Constitutional Law was that section of the Bar exam in 1985.

  303. 303.

    rmjohnston

    @debit: Haley does not have support from the Republican base. If she’s the nominee then the MAGAts either don’t vote (including down-ballot races) or write in Trump and head home.

    Competitive elections in the U.S. are primarily about turning out the base, and a Haley general election candidacy would be pure gold for team democracy.

  304. 304.

    TBone

    @Quinerly: ❤️ I’ve known many attorneys in my day.  Some, I wouldn’t spit on if they were on fire.  I had to listen to Rush Limp balls every day in one guy’s office.  But he was a very nice guy to me personally, very encouraging! Trying to work while being subjected to that was good training. My first law job was at an office where the top partner had a portrait of Nixon prominently displayed.  The partner who I worked for was an angel.  Go figure.  I left a lot of jobs before I found my “Ok, I can stay here” firm.  I’ve assisted in many, many practice specialties but I’m no constitutional scholar either! I’m a citizen who can read though.

  305. 305.

    Matt McIrvin

    @lowtechcyclist: I’ve been reading Teri Kanefield on Mastodon–she’s been talking people down from the ledge about this and that (I was one) but she’s getting sick of it.

    She makes the argument that, whatever happens, there’s really no substitute for behaving like small-d democrats. She’s said over and over that if we end up with a majority (or enough people) actually wanting to elect a wannabe dictator as President, we have a political problem that no legal weird trick is going to solve. And that the way democracies often really die is when the ~30% antidemocratic opposition (Crazification Factor or close enough) not only take over mainstream discourse but manage to get the other side to respond in kind. That’s not to say that Colorado’s move is authoritarianism–it’s not–but that many of the people pinning their hopes on it seem to be developing antidemocratic feelings of their own.

  306. 306.

    Anoniminous

    @TBone: ​
     

    I’m a citizen who can read though.

    Which puts you miles ahead of the average American. average American.

    “About 130 million adults in the U.S. have low literacy skills according to a Gallup analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education. This means more than half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 (54%) read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.

  309. 309.

    jimmiraybob

    @wjca: “I agree that there will be calls for civil war (and/or insurrection).”
    The right wing has been calling for civil war for decades.  I say let em bring it but that’s because they won’t.  Most are either cowardly loud mouths or olds ridden with the inflictions of age  (I say this as an old feeling his age).​

    The civile war is happening in the courts as we speak.

  312. 312.

    Roberto el oso

    @Leto: sending the sad sack convoy folks out to the desert is an excellent idea, except that it would lower the IQ of the desert.

  313. 313.

    wjca

    @Quinerly: I agree. I really think it will be 9-0.

    I suppose the question for us is, how badly will they shred the various arguments that TIFG’s lawyers have put forth?  Even if they rule in his favor.

  314. 314.

    Barry

    @sdhays: “So, Roberts thinks that we should ignore laws in the Constitution if bad actors will attempt to abuse the laws?

    That’s an interesting position for a judge to take.”

     

    Remember, he is a bad actor.  And these guys *love* gutting laws.

  315. 315.

    TBone

    @Anoniminous: I have told my mother’s story before.  She divorced and put herself through U of Penn for her master’s degree in teaching remedial reading, while waitressing , and all while dealing with a lot of other bullshit .  I was her practice model and she taught me to read at age 3.  So I had a head start.  It’s why I’m so vehemently pro-teaching (plus my stepdad retired from being a cop to become a college professor of Russian history and American history).  Both maternal grandparents were teachers.  I was surrounded by and given reading material above my pay grade my entire life.  Jargon doesn’t intimidate me.  I was very lucky and I advocate to START ‘EM YOUNG.

  320. 320.

    Captain C

    @Ken: Reason number XX why the Captain is not a judge:

    Judge CC:  “Counselor, is this really yours and your client’s argument?”

    Gina’s Lawyer:  “Yes, it totally is.”

    Judge CC:  “I’m giving you five seconds to withdraw it and withdraw the case before a) I dismiss it with prejudice as a frivolous lawsuit, b) sanction your client for bringing a frivolous lawsuit before this court, and c) refer you to the state bar for disciplinary actions.”

  322. 322.

    JWR

    @lowtechcyclist:

    But on the other, I think we really need this section of the 14th to have meaning,

    And make it self-executing, correct? (Not sure I’m using the proper language there.)

    Also, keeping Trump off of any states ballot doesn’t preclude anyone from voting for him via write-in, does it?

  323. 323.

    MomSense

    @Quinerly:

    That actually pisses me off.  We don’t have federal elections.  We have state run elections for federal offices but they aren’t federal elections.  I would love it if we did have federal elections for president and got rid of the fucking electoral college.

  324. 324.

    Roberto el oso

    I’ve heard the “hail fellow well-met” description my entire life and have always understood it to be similar to Texans’ use of “good old boy” as a description for someone who projects surface amiability. The  application can tilt either positively or negatively, depending. Think of Andy Griffith in “Matlock”, the aw-shucks-humble-country-lawyer veneer hiding a colder intelligence beneath, or, to stick to the American South, Rod Steiger’s character in “In The Heat Of The Night”, where the easygoing appearance can vanish into bristling menace when the schtick ceases to work its magic.

    It’s also a term I’ve seen used a lot in British fiction, where the implication is more of a friendly dimwit.

    Depending on the context therefore, not automatically a compliment.

  325. 325.

    Miss Bianca

    @Quinerly: So, in other words, Kagan is saying that that clause of the 14th Amendment is…unenforceable? That states get *no* right to decide that there are grounds for disqualification to be on the state ballot? That states, in effect, have no actual say over their own elections?

    Sorry, I’m a lowly peon and non-lawyer, so the fact that CO’s Supreme Court decided that the state was, in fact, in charge of who gets to be on the state ballot was what gave me the apparently risible idea that there must be some merit in their arguments.

    ETA: Also, WTF with this “one state gets to decide who’s going to be President” BS? Jesus Christ, when has that *ever* been the case? If *that’s* all Kagan’s got by way of objection, then I don’t think highly of it.

  329. 329.

    Citizen Alan

    @Soprano2: I still recall being shocked that a respected attorney in my hometown at the time (now deceased, but at the time, he was also the public defender!) told me over lunch one day that he was terrified of Obama becoming President because he genuinely did not believe it was possible for a black man to not want to take revenge on all whites for past racism if said black man ever got the power to do so.

  330. 330.

    DaBunny42

    I took Marshall’s comment (I believe he said “Hail, fellow well-met”) to mean Kavanaugh is a back-slapping “part of the crowd” guy who wants to be accepted as part of the (white, male) gang of “cool kids” (or what passes for that in the Republican party).

    That would fit the context of his comments, that Kavanaugh is too cowardly to slap Trump down himself, and would prefer the DC Circuit to do the dirty work for him.

    It was *NOT* a complement, even if it was inartfully worded.

  332. 332.

    DaBunny42

    @Roberto el oso: Agree. In this case, he was talking about K not having the guts to criticize Trump himself, because of the risk of ostracism. It was not a complement.

  336. 336.

    wjca

    @Miss Bianca: in other words, Kagan is saying that that clause of the 14th Amendment is…unenforceable? That states get *no* right to decide that there are grounds for disqualification to be on the state ballot? That states, in effect, have no actual say over their own elections?

    Perhaps she is looking at saying that Colorado can keep TIFG off the ballot in its primary election, since that’s not really an election for a Federal office.  (It’s for delegates from the state to a party nominating convention.)  BUT, a general election would be an entirely different question.  Whether that would come with guidance on what the criteria would be then, I hesitate to guess.

  337. 337.

    JWR

    @Miss Bianca:

    Again, I don’t see where the argument is that *one* state is deciding FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY.

    Me neither. And removal from a ballot doesn’t prevent a write-in vote, I would think.

  339. 339.

    MomSense

    @Quinerly:

    No, but they could decide for WV and presumably that decision would have to be based on something and subject to legal challenge

  340. 340.

    Paul in KY

    @Quinerly: He should have responded: ‘Justice Kagan, we remove many unqualified people from standing for President. Those who are too young and those who don’t meet the birth or citizenship requirements. This removal is as cut and dried as those. It has been soberly decided by the Sec. of State’s office that Mr. Trump did in fact engage in insurrection and for that reason he is excluded from our ballot. Other states may come to a different conclusion than ours, and in those states I assume he will be on the ballot, if he is the GOP nominee. Theoretically, he can still obtain 270 electoral votes, without Colorado’s. So I in no way think that this one state is deciding the outcome of the upcoming Presidential election.’

  343. 343.

    piratedan

    @Quinerly: naturally I didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express, but shouldn’t the answer be…

    In the eyes of the State of Colorado, because he violated the 14th Amendment for his planning and implementation of the events of J6, and as such he’s ineligible to be on the ballot.  Colorado didn’t ‘decide” this, the Constitution did.

  346. 346.

    Uncle Cosmo

    @JWR: ​[R]emoval from a ballot doesn’t prevent a write-in vote, I would think.

    I’m less concerned with “a civil war” than a two-prong approach by Mango Mussolini’s minions:

    1. Where Grump is on the ballot, send open-carry squads to polling places in blue areas as “observers” to “verify the vote”. Once word gets out of their presence (and the unwillingness of LEO to remove them) a lot of Democrats will be intimidated from showing up to cast their votes.

    2. Where Grump is not on the ballot, instruct all Grump voters to go to their polling place carrying their guns, write him in and take their sweet time doing so. That’d gum up the whole process right nice. And any attempt by poll workers to speed the process up will be met with resistance from those mooks (while flaunting their weapons, which again mostly-sympathetic LEOs would just overlook).

    I don’t think there would even need to be “blood at the polls and blood in the streets**” – just the threat of violence would be sufficient to sabotage the election (more properly, the series of 51 elections for federal offices held in the several states and DC).

    I guess the best way to work around these scenarios is to vote early, by mail if possible – it would be a lot easier to defend centralized ballot-counting operations against an armed mob. That we even have to think about such things makes me SMH.

    ** R. A. Heinlein, “Concerning Stories Never Written”, a postscript in the volume Revolt in 2100, describing a (fictional) electoral takeover of the USA by televangelist Nehemiah Scudder as prologue to the main story in the book (“If This Goes On–“).

  348. 348.

    David 🏈 Mahomes! 🏈 Koch

    No one here thought this corrupt, hackneyed court would do the right thing, did they? At least not after what they did last term on abortion bounties, Dobbs, affirmative action, and gay weddings, along side leaking opinions, taking bribes, and giving slanted private access to any litigant before the bench who pays for a luxury vacation.

    The strength of this site is it has never been pessimistic, nor optimistic, rather it has always been a realist site.

  349. 349.

    Johannes

    @Leto:

     

    @Leto: I agree with Leto; this Court has become far too comfortable erasing provisions of the Constitution that the majority dislikes, first the militia clause of the Second Amendment and now, quite likely, section 3 of the 14th Amendment, by adding restrictions and qualifications that aren’t there in the text.

    Back in 2000, I published a book in which I argued that if  the only way to reach your desired conclusion is Text=0, you are not just wrong, but catastrophically so. I still think I was (and am) right.

Comments are closed.