As the Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on disqualifying Donald Trump, justices kept returning to one issue: the potential for inconsistency between how states run their elections.
“We need faith in the system,” she told Justice Alito at one point, before suggesting that the ball, at the end of the day, is in the Supreme Court on deciding whether to disqualify Trump.
“Ultimately it’s up to this court to review,” she said.
Oh sweet summer child, you’ve come to the wrong place.
States certainly can’t exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot.
Geeze louise, the Jan Six committee found the Defendant had organized and encouraged an insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court looked over the evidence and came to the same conclusion.
Only the Supreme Court seems to believe it’s impossible to tell what this “insurrection” thingie is. It could be anything! Like “Vote Blue!”
Assertions of the wisdom of Federalism have become like political cross dressing for justices.
Did none of the lawyers push back on the idea about 50 different results? Does this mean 50 different insurrectionists? This is judges trying to avoid an issue: there WAS an insurrection. Trump led it. He CAN be disqualified.
Apparently not. So they would have been good with the defeated traitor states just running all their old US reps and senators, state reps etc, and putting old Bobby Lee on their ballot for president, because hey! Those states said it wasn’t an “insurrection.”
(just a war for independence…)
As I listened to the comments from the judges about preserving the sanctity of federal elections and how the voters should get to choose, I kept wondering if they are living in the same country that I am.
Yeah. It also makes on wonder if they are aware of all the voting rights they’ve scuttled.
After the Supremes performance today, I’m embarrassed.
I heard just a snippet of the "oral arguments’ today before I was ready to kill my radio. Grown men and women wondering what an insurrection was. I’m driving down the road yelling for somrone to get the justices a fucking dictionary. Do these people know how to read I hope? At that point I knew this was a lost cause.
It should not have been
Blather about a 2/3rds vote removing the charge. The lawyers and justices utterly blank on the fact that In trump’s second impeachment (it was about insurrection) the vote in the Senate was 57 to 43 to convict trump. I would have therefore thought if guilt was determined by the Senate (but did not rise to the 2/3rds needed for removal) after a trial it should’ve neen sufficient for the Court to realize trump was in the middle of an insurrection and wanted to hold power illegally.
Cowards all
Reality for the justices is not our reality. I am not sure what they were smoking in the cloakroom
Don’t forget to include the Congress coming to the conclusion that trump was involved in the insurrection. His 2nd impeachment was about that and the vote was 57 to 43 to convict. But the vote needed to rise to 67 to remove that puke from office. Even still … a majority voted to convict him. That ought to count to the Supreme Court one would think.
I am considering shipping dictionaries to the justices. Apparently an adult needs to read the definition of “insurrection” to each justice
trump’s attorney argued that removing trump from the ballot would disenfranchise tens of millions of voters. They forgot to add that disenfranchisement of voters is the role of the electoral college. It’s what happened in 2000 and 2016 when those who voted for the popular vote winner were told their votes didn’t matter.
“Ultimately it’s up to this court to review,” she said.
Sardonically: Less fly fishing, more adjudication.
I don’t know if that’s gonna float.
Couldn’t the Supreme Court resolve the inconsistency issue by allowing de novo review of any appeal from a state’s decision to remove a candidate from the ballot? Just make a judicial determination whether it is the correct decision or not. If not, then candidate gets added back to the ballot. If it was the correct decision, then any state is free to remove as they should be.
It sure would be nice if they applied this whole idea that states should treat elections uniformly to state policies that block people from getting to vote. But, I guess that would be too far for the Republicans on the SC.
It was a bit disingenuous to claim that some states would disqualify candidates just because they could, because that’s not what Colorado and Maine did at all…they used a process that considered the evidence and made a decision based in their state law. The Republicans gave the game away though, because Republicans in the states definitely would disqualify Democrats just for being Democrats if they could…we’re at the edge of Republicans arresting political opponents and using the government to interfere in elections already (and it’s happening in some cases around the abortion initiatives right now).
Maybe it’s better if the SC punts on this, disqualifying Trump would set fire to Republicans who would eject every Democrat possible and force elections to be Republican only affairs everywhere they could get away with it before November.
“It would come down to a handful of states deciding an election,” Roberts thundered at one point. “That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”
It already happens, Mr. Roberts. It’s called The Electoral College.
Sounds like a lot of repeat work when insurrection is already part of a statute.