“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not just for their own state but for the nation?”
I don’t know … ask Florida.
12 Likes
Do these members of The Federalist Society understand what federalism is?
ETA: For the record, I not not understand why we still have states.
I mean, surely we do not need TWO Dakotas.
8 Likes
“ Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not just for their own state but for the nation?” [Kagan] said.
Absolutely. Why in 2016 Trump wouldn’t have been elected without Colorado’s electoral votes.
Wait.
4 Likes
Justices Aghast: Does A Single State Have The Power To DQ Trump?
DQ Decision: SCOTUS Endorses Trump
“I am in control here, in the White House.”
— Then Secretary of State Alexander Haig, assuring the nation that he was acting President following the failed 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.
5 Likes
But two Dakotas is fantastic for providing four reliable Senate seats.
6 Likes
Perhaps that was part, but just a part, of my point…
1 Like
It just seemed like they all came in determined to punt. That is not terribly surprising. A little more surprising was just how bad a job they seemed to do at justifying it. I thought the lawyers defenses were solid, and was confounded by SCOTUS double digging into all these non-issues. No, it is not a gateway to states ejecting candidates left and right- only if they are insurrectionists. And, as the lawyer pointed out several times, states determine their own manner of elections in every other way.
8 Likes
Yes. They seemed to be ready like a drowning man to grasp at whatever flotsam or jetsam would save them from their feared delegitimizating decision if they supported federalism and allowed a state to follow the Constitution.
Trouble is, now many of us now view them all as cowards and not legitimate. TBD of course, since obviously questions today are not determinative of the eventual ruling. But I for one am prepared to be disappointed by justices I thought were better.
4 Likes
I admit that is a headline making statement and is in fact a strong argument.
But, it is an argument for revising the constitution. Until that happens it is the court’s job to implement a course of action based upon what is currently written; not to chart a course based on an imiginary construction.
If the constitution, as written, allows a state to read the facts presented and disqualify a candidate for cause on it’s own and playing by its own rules then so be it. Allowing other, un-written rules to influence those seeing to follow the dictates of the constitution sounds like a trip through the looking glass.
8 Likes
probably rolled up $100 bills, just for fun.
4 Likes
I found the proceedings to be very frustrating. If a state can’t initiate the action that would enforce the 14th Amendment language, what entity can? If Trump can’t hold the office, how should he be able to run for it? The question of insurrection has already been addressed by lower courts, with the convictions of many individuals. Unfortunately, the court seems intent to not answer the difficult questions. If a bad faith candidate can flaunt the constitution without consequence, maybe it is a suicide pact.
9 Likes
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson … ask[ed] later why “President” doesn’t appear explicitly in the list of individuals that the Disqualification Clause bars from taking office.
Majority Leader or Speaker of the House or Secretary of Agriculture do not appear either. Why should it be significant that “President” doesn’t appear explicitly?
4 Likes
Hey, here’s an idea you fucking morons - end the state by state bullshit altogether and get rid of the Electoral College, a vestige of slavery that we don’t seem capable of figuring out.
5 Likes
Anything they fucking want. The legal system is where laws don’t apply.
Oh, now you’re suggesting something that makes sense. But unless you can figure out a way that getting rid of it can also make money, you can forget about it. "Murica is a money cult, nothing more.
1 Like
Or ask Uncle Thomas, he voted for that coup.
We don’t bite though we may yell some. Some use dirty words or add ** to them. Sometimes they rant to let out their frustrations (helps to have an outlet other than those family members who will never agree). I think SCOTUS is a frequent source as well as the Electoral College system. But, the orange guy, is probably the biggest. You don’t have to post every time you read comments. There are some who will and it’s a mixed bag. Welcome!
The state could disqualify a convicted (proven) insurrectionist much like a 32 year old.
No one has been charged, much less convicted under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 around January 6th
Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.
ETA. Admittedly RI, DE, NH and VT are small states but they pale vs the litany of empty lands with 3, 4 or 5 electoral votes.
2 Likes