LISTEN: Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Disqualifying Trump – TPM – Talking Points Memo

Let’s just say that the 6 Tarantulas allow that he can be removed from the ballot(s).
That will imply an insurrection did occur, right?.
Won’t that affect the Jan 6 case that Smith is trying?
Wouldn’t that alone keep them from finding against Chump…knowing this decision will trickle down and affect another ongoing case of huge import?


Let’s hear the justices’ questions.

Listen closely, kids.

Ya gonna hear a diaper load of discomfort.

For an old Boston pol like me it just doesn’t get better than this.

I got coffee and a puppy nearby. Let the games begin.


Yep, they don’t just know who’s buttering their bread, but also where that butter came from and why their bread is getting so very much butter.


How many folks think that when the Founders jotted down the 14th they had Presidential exceptions in mind?

This isn’t a question of law it’s one of semantics. A bullshit argument invented to give the SCOTUS and excuse to “save their boy” as Elie Mystal put it. We can expect Trump will stay on the ballot not because what he did was cool with our Founders but because his bros take up 6 seats in SCOTUS.

Make America Great Again? Try just making America America again.


I’m looking for the weaseling out of literal interpretation, original intent, etc.

Would love to hear references to the Framers of the 14th such as Thaddeus Stevens.


My guess is that they’ll find that it isn’t self-executing, so they’ll blame Congress for not creating a mechanism for them to find unconstitutional.


So, 6 religious fundamentalists that lied flat on national TV to get their jobs as the legal arbiters of our entire nation are about to tell us that a president who tried to overturn a legal election using a mob of people he knew were armed and who he directed at the seat of our government is perfectly legally able to run again and finish the job off, having seeded our voting apparatus countrywide with extremist lunatics.

Good job, America. Way to prove your churches, and your money, and your legal system, and your election system is corrupt to the very core.


The way to do that is to say that the Presidential oath is different from every other one-- which it is, in which combination of words it uses. (I think it’s “uphold” vs “defend” the Constitution?). The way this uniquely applies to Trump is that every other President we’ve ever had so far has always taken the other worded oath at some different point, in lower office on the way up. So Biden would be a match because he took the magical oath when he became a Senator earlier, so the 14th WOULD apply to him, just not Trump.


Have you tried the sweet funk of marijuana? No yard arm required…


There’s six of them.


Religious people who lied to get the job and now 10s of thousands of American women are raising their rapist’s children at their own expense.

To hell with all of them. Root and branch they need to go


Against my better judgment, I will be watching on CNN. But will follow along here as well. Very technical and complex arguments are full of coded legalese and insider comments and hard to follow. Hoping for some kind of sense and some signs of sane legal thought.


I don’t think CJ Roberts wants to destroy the Court with that,

As above, I am giving Roberts a bit of leeway on this day. I don’t think he’s fully on the Fascist Freeway to Hell.


Just running the scenario of this hearing, in recent history, has there been any SCOTUS where the majority are less qualified to rule on the case before them?

Just a few issues, 1) well known corruption 2) several belong to the well known Federalist Society that holds an extremist view of the Presidency (at least many of them do) known as the unitary executive theory 3) several with conflicts in interest regarding its impacts on the person that put them in their esteemed position. Golly, that was just off the top of my head, probably more.


“You like beer, don’t you, counsel? The whole court likes beer, you know. One of the interesting, little noticed, aspects of this case is that Colorado is a state that makes beer …”


He knew what he did was wrong. He knew that he was inciting a riot or attempting to get others to do so. He knew he had created chaos and sedition and refused to quell the mob. He knew he had planned a coup d’etat, even for months before the election.


And then in his second act, he pulled this crap in furtherance of his crimes:


Jan. 6 does not qualify as “insurrection” because it did not involve “an organized attempt"

The “Who? Trump? Organized?” defense.


Seems like a poor substitute for fatso in absentia.


he called for “peaceful and patriotic protest” on the morning of Jan. 6; there’s no way that he can be held liable for the actions of others within the Capitol

This is but one component of the J6 insurrection. As such, cannot be evaluated as if it occurred in a vacuum. Jack Smith’s prosecution will lay out ALL of the criteria. When that does occur-- this argument will become moot.


From the Live front page:
What Trump wants, he said in the briefing, is for the Supreme Court to “evaluate President Trump’s state of mind” on Jan. 6 as part of a declaration that it was not an insurrection.

Darn I should have read his Reply Brief instead of reading the DC Appeals Decision (much more palatable). Are we all up on the briefs? (No underwear puns please!)

1 Like
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available