Octopus Overlords

I'm also listening along and I agree (as a layman, as I understand things). My perspective is there's no way the SCotUS wants to be the arbiter of who appears on a ballot. I believe they will fully embrace "let the people decide", i.e. that it's not up to the courts to decide who can or cannot appear on a ballot because freedom. If the people want to nominate and elect an criminal insurrectionist, then so be it - as long as they're over the age of 35.

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:10 pm I don't think SCOTUS let's this stand. I'm not expert on this issue, but I have a hard time seeing them vesting 50 secretaries of state with the power to keep candidates off the ballot. I'm not sure I disagree.

I think their concern, in probably practical terms, is that partisan Secretaries of State could find ways/reasons to disqualify candidates (I'm looking at Texas, for example) so that we wind up with a national patchwork of states where someone like Trump could be disqualified in some of the blue states and Biden in some of the red states. (You can see Alito teeing this up with his question about whether it qualifies as insurrection to give foreign aid to a country that hates us.) They also don't want to be back here, or have lower courts be back here, fighting over the same issue multiple times -- that's the administration of law argument.

I don't think any of them are buying the argument that the President isn't an officer. The self-executing portion is what they'll use when they write the opinion overturning the Colorado decision. By the way, of course it's Clarence Thomas -- famous for not asking questions -- to ask the first question of each attorney in a case he was asked to recuse himself from due to his wife's connections with January 6.

I didn't understand Murray's position with respect to the questioning by Gorsuch about whether military officers must follow the orders of an insurrectionist POTUS if that POTUS is immediately disqualified from holding office the minute he or she engages in insurrection (because disqualification is self-executing):

In a testy exchange, Justice Gorsuch presses Jason Murray, the lawyer for the Colorado voters, on his argument that a person who engages in insurrection is disqualified from the moment they do so. If that’s true, Justice Gorsuch says, does that mean lower officials would stop being obligated to obey orders from a sitting president who engaged in insurrection? When Murray starts to discuss a different scenario, Justice Gorsuch says, “Don’t change the hypothetical.”

Murray ultimately says that while a president is in office, “impeachment is the only way to validate” that they have engaged in insurrection, so lower officials would still be obligated to follow their orders until and unless that happened.

Shouldn't the answer to that question be an, "absolutely, they are free to disregard an insurrectionist POTUS's orders." They have a duty to uphold the Constitution. If POTUS is leading an insurrection, it cannot be constitutional to follow those orders, right?

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:46 pm Shouldn't the answer to that question be an, "absolutely, they are free to disregard an insurrectionist POTUS's orders." They have a duty to uphold the Constitution. If POTUS is leading an insurrection, it cannot be constitutional to follow those orders, right?

You'd think so, but Gorsuch seemed to be implying if someone was in that office, they'd need to follow those orders - because clearly our President is King.

Dogstar wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:45 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:10 pm I don't think SCOTUS let's this stand. I'm not expert on this issue, but I have a hard time seeing them vesting 50 secretaries of state with the power to keep candidates off the ballot. I'm not sure I disagree.

I think their concern, in probably practical terms, is that partisan Secretaries of State could find ways/reasons to disqualify candidates (I'm looking at Texas, for example) so that we wind up with a national patchwork of states where someone like Trump could be disqualified in some of the blue states and Biden in some of the red states. They also don't want to be back here, or have lower courts be back here, fighting over the same issue multiple times -- that's the administration of law argument.

I don't think any of them are buying the argument that the President isn't an officer. The self-executing portion is what they'll use when they write the opinion overturning the Colorado decision. By the way, of course it's Clarence Thomas -- famous for not asking questions -- to ask the first question of each attorney in a case he was asked to recuse himself from due to his wife's connections with January 6.

I agree with all of this. They don't want individual Secretaries of State to be making this decision, which kind of makes sense, but kind of doesn't. I mean, it is the job of the Secretaries of State to administer these federal elections, and there's no question they are within their right to keep candidates off if they are not (1) natural-born citizen of the United States; (2) at least 35 years old; or (3) have been a resident of the United States for 14 years. It's just when the issue is more nuanced -- are they an insurrectionist -- that SCOTUS becomes uncomfortable.

I feel the core of CO's argument has got to be that this was clearly an insurrection. It's not nuanced, and SCOTUS shouldn't be so scared of slippery slope issues that they strip the states of the right to prohibit insurrectionists from running. It's not carte blanch power to exclude, either. The excluded candidate can make all kinds of due process arguments, which Trump has failed to bring forward. His attorney said, point blank, they're not arguing due process here because that would just require a remand and continued litigation.

Also, btw, Thomas didn't ask questions for many, many years, but he broke his self-imposed vow of silence quite some time ago and has been pretty vocal since then.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:49 pm You'd think so, but Gorsuch seemed to be implying if someone was in that office, they'd need to follow those orders - because clearly our President is King.

I think Gorsuch is enjoying taking Murray to the woodshed -- and by listening to CSPAN and following Twitter -- Murray hasn't exactly covered himself in glory today (for the record, I am not remotely articulating that what Murray is doing is easy -- plenty of lawyers have had bad days before the Court). The case before the court isn't about lawful orders or insurrection itself. There was probably somewhere Gorsuch wanted to take that or explore in terms of when being an insurrectionist becomes disqualifying per the appropriate clause, but I'd be surprised if he honestly believes that military officers are duty bound to follow the orders of someone leading an insurrection.

Well, that's a wrap. I predict a unanimous reversal.

Dogstar wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:55 pm I think Gorsuch is enjoying taking Murray to the woodshed -- and by listening to CSPAN and following Twitter -- Murray hasn't exactly covered himself in glory today (for the record, I am not remotely articulating that what Murray is doing is easy -- plenty of lawyers have had bad days before the Court). The case before the court isn't about lawful orders or insurrection itself. There was probably somewhere Gorsuch wanted to take that or explore in terms of when being an insurrectionist becomes disqualifying per the appropriate clause, but I'd be surprised if he honestly believes that military officers are duty bound to follow the orders of someone leading an insurrection.

Maybe I'm not understanding what I heard, but there seemed to be a lot of "Trump has not be declared an insurrectionist" while simultaneously arguing "Trump was the President so therefore he could not be declared an insurrectionist as he's immune" going on. It all felt very circular - like they needed him to be in office first to then declare he was ineligible but once he's in that office he's immune, so what are we going to do?

I'm not sure of the name of the lawyer opposite of the trump side, but from what I heard in between driving to get gas for the car, he didn't seemed to prepared. From what I heard from Trump's side, he seemed to have some valid, convincing arguments (not that I liked that).

I suppose that if he's (theoretically) barred from holding office, he can still run for office. He just can't be sworn in. If he wins and steps are taken to disqualify him, either his running mate takes the big chair, or the RNC could more-or-less appoint his replacement, depending.

The GOP might actually support such a process - they get the Presidency, but they Dump the Trump.

So your theory is that if he runs for office, wins the Presidency and then is somehow legally told before inauguration day that he's ineligible to serve, that will be a smooth, straight line to a final resolution, fully supported by the GOP?

I'm going to suggest that if Americans elect a criminal rapist insurrectionist to the Office of the President, he's not only going to take his seat but there will be violence if he's not permitted to do so. There will likely be slightly less violence if he is.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:08 pm So your theory is that if he runs for office, wins the Presidency and then is somehow legally told before inauguration day that he's ineligible to serve, that will be a smooth, straight line to a final resolution, fully supported by the GOP?

I'm going to suggest that if Americans elect a criminal rapist insurrectionist to the Office of the President, he's not only going to take his seat but there will be violence if he's not permitted to do so. There will likely be slightly less violence if he is.

It was purely a theoretical. The point was to say that even if the Colorado case goes the way it seems to be going, it still doesn't eliminate the 14th. It just clarifies how it can be invoked.

The hypotheticals around that are more to look at the possibilities, not to predict how events would unfold.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:49 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:46 pm Shouldn't the answer to that question be an, "absolutely, they are free to disregard an insurrectionist POTUS's orders." They have a duty to uphold the Constitution. If POTUS is leading an insurrection, it cannot be constitutional to follow those orders, right?

You'd think so, but Gorsuch seemed to be implying if someone was in that office, they'd need to follow those orders - because clearly our President is King.

Soldiers may not follow illegal orders. An order to disregard the constitution would be illegal.

For example say the president goes gaga and says "I want you to take over the country for me. I order you to do it."

Soldiers who followed that obviously illegal order are committing an illegal act themselves.

Where its different is if the president is more cunning and says "I want you to march to Chicago and leave the Capitol undefended (while a mob of my followers hangs my vice president and the members of the House)." then that's a harder order not to obey unless you know the underlying intent of doing so.

Question.
If I'm understanding this correctly a big problem is that Trump hasn't been officially declared an insurrectionist, correct?
If so, what's the process to do tgat?
What's the likelihood of that happening?

He's been ruled to have engaged in an insurrection by two CO courts, after a trial.

That isn't the big problem though. The big problem is the slippery slope of states being able to determine who is on their ballot.

They dodged the issue of declaring Orange Florida Man is not an insurrectionist. Essentially saying that Congress must enact a law (or something) to enforce the 14th Amendment, which of course it will never do. Bizarrely, since the President is in charge of enforcing the law, theoretically Biden could take steps to enforce it...

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:22 pm They dodged the issue of declaring Orange Florida Man is not an insurrectionist. Essentially saying that Congress must enact a law (or something) to enforce the 14th Amendment, which of course it will never do. Bizarrely, since the President is in charge of enforcing the law, theoretically Biden could take steps to enforce it...

Why would a new law be needed if the whole point of the amendment was to prevent insurrectionists from holding office?

14th Amendment

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
...
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Doesn't that mean that they don't actually need a new law then?

Also does it mean that Congress would have to charge him with insurrection in the first place?

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:35 pm 14th Amendment

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
...
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The counterargument here is that Section 5 was intended to force a state (by will of Congress) that otherwise wanted to - to not allow a certain person to hold these positions - Not that it was intended to keep a state from doing it themselves.

Welcome to America, where the rules are made up and intent doesn't matter.

Punisher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:30 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:22 pm They dodged the issue of declaring Orange Florida Man is not an insurrectionist. Essentially saying that Congress must enact a law (or something) to enforce the 14th Amendment, which of course it will never do. Bizarrely, since the President is in charge of enforcing the law, theoretically Biden could take steps to enforce it...

Why would a new law be needed if the whole point of the amendment was to prevent insurrectionists from holding office?

They dodged that one by saying it does not prevent insurrectionists from running for office. So who is going to tap Orange Florida Man on the shoulder at the inauguration?

For what are we listening there?

(Not to be rude, but most of us don't have attention for every unintroduced 5+ minute that comes along.)

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:14 pm For what are we listening there?

(Not to be rude, but most of us don't have attention for every unintroduced 5+ minute that comes along.)

1) Sometimes it's interesting to hear the actual exchanges and not just a transcript.
2) It further demonstrates that this is likely to be a unanimous opinion against CO.

Moliere wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:38 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:14 pm For what are we listening there?

(Not to be rude, but most of us don't have attention for every unintroduced 5+ minute that comes along.)

1) Sometimes it's interesting to hear the actual exchanges and not just a transcript.
2) It further demonstrates that this is likely to be a unanimous opinion against CO.

I've heard some prognostication from reputable SCOTUS watchers that Roberts is likely doing all he can to push the Court to release this decision and the one in the DC election interference case on the same day. Roberts is going to pull out all the stops to come up with unanimous decisions in both appeals: For Trump (he can be on the ballot) in the CO case, and against Trump (he does not enjoy absolute immunity) in the DC election interference case. It's Roberts' last gasp attempt to try to salvage the reputation of this SCOTUS. I think he'll get a unanimous vote on CO, but I'm not sure if it'll work out that way in the interference case.

Horse trading in the SCOTUS. I don't hate that it's happening, I hate that it's become necessary.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:33 am Horse trading in the SCOTUS. I don't hate that it's happening, I hate that it's become necessary.

I’m no SCOTUS scholar, but I don’t think that’s really a new thing.

Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 12:13 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:33 am Horse trading in the SCOTUS. I don't hate that it's happening, I hate that it's become necessary.

I’m no SCOTUS scholar, but I don’t think that’s really a new thing.

It's not new, but now it's the only way.

Gee, I wonder what's coming next?

Justice Alito takes aim at Obergefell again, warning that the decision means "Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct" are being "labeled as bigots and treated as such" by the state and "society."

The case was "MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. JEAN FINNEY"

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that his office filed a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to hear a landmark case to support the fundamental freedom of religious liberty, Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney. In this case, the court removed jurors from a case solely because they held Christian beliefs—even though the court explicitly found that the jurors were unbiased.

Act like a bigot, get labeled a bigot. It’s not the state that’s doing the labeling.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:47 pm Gee, I wonder what's coming next?

It would make a heck of an October surprise.

It’s a strategy to make us a managed democracy / the loyal prosecutors will create the circumstances for laws to be overturned

I think his point is also to put a bright light on the fact that Thomas wouldn't be dismissing this offer simply through a consistent application of ethics.

An estimated 18% of the populace approves of the Supreme Court brought to us quite literally by the TFG and the corrupting of the GOP. Gawd, I hope Biden reminds of this in a way the Clinton never hammered home what GOP was doing in 2016 as I screamed it from the rooftops on deaf ears.

Oh, and by the way, today it's coming out that Sonia Sotomayor is apparently having health problems, and has had them for some time.

I'm sure it's fine though.

New Records Show Supreme Court's Sonia Sotomayor Took Unusual Step Of Traveling With A Medic

In February 2018, a medic from Grand Junction, Colorado, accompanied Sotomayor on a trip she made to southern Florida, according to the records.

On a three-day book tour with stops in Illinois and Tennessee in October of that year, the Marshals Service incurred costs for “baggage (medic),” which could refer to medical personnel or be a more benign reference to medical equipment in the justice’s luggage. Sotomayor was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at age 7 and gives herself insulin shots multiple times a day.

Both trips occurred after a January 2018 episode in which paramedics treated her at her home for low blood sugar.

In 2021 and 2022, Sotomayor made at least four trips — to Florida, New York and Puerto Rico — in which the Marshals Service mentioned baggage containing “medical gear,” or redacted a description of “baggage/medical supplies.”

Someone test her for low doses of Novichok.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:50 pm Oh, and by the way, today it's coming out that Sonia Sotomayor is apparently having health problems, and has had them for some time.

I'm sure it's fine though.

Maybe if it's serious she'll retire before November to make sure Trum...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL