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

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

14 Likes

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.

5 Likes

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.

4 Likes

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.

17 Likes

“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 …”

11 Likes

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.

DISQUALIFIED!

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

22 Likes

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

The “Who? Trump? Organized?” defense.

6 Likes

Seems like a poor substitute for fatso in absentia.

5 Likes

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.

9 Likes

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

I have 2 fundamental questions:

  1. how would “uphold” vs “defend” make the President immune from the 14th? in my mind they are synonyms

  2. how is the President not an “officer” of the U.S.? is it because of (1) above?

I have tried to understand these arguments but I’m not a legal scholar, nor a particularly good researcher, so please explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old.

The one argument (made by many commenters here) that makes sense to me is that S3 is not self-executing because of subsequent language that explicitly invokes legislative action as the remedy.

6 Likes

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.

Pretty sure we know Trump’s ‘state of mind’ on Jan 6th and it wasn’t on not causing an insurrection.

8 Likes

I don’t think you get to spend two months planning a crime and then on the day of, say you forgot about it.

19 Likes

Or wedge issues  ; - )

10 Likes

The “Founders” were long dead by the time ther 14th Amendment was “jotted down” and enacted.

2 Likes

25 Likes

The 14/3 says “oath to support” and the POTUS oath says (providing more, not less detail) "preserve, protect and defend " Trump is doing nonsense is implying that the lack of the word “support” let’s him off the hook.

11 Likes

T’s state of mind in any given day: bat shit crazy, murderously angry at anyone or anything that doesn’t worship him, and convinced that he should be able to do anything that supports his wishes.

12 Likes

Leonard Leo is busy being a full time clerk to Judge Cannon in Ft. Pierce because she is completely inexperienced and completely isolated and cannot intuit the party line without a nightly chat on Discord.

15 Likes

Because he is elected, not appointed. That’s the weak argument. The Colorado decision is very readable on this issue.

6 Likes
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available