Im not sure why you keep bringing up age. The discussion is whether or not he participated in insurrection. I fully understand there is a significant percentage of the population who thinks he has, regardless. Now if a 14 year old identifies as a 35 year old, then yes, with the complete stupidity around woke politics, the kids has an argument and would probably win.
I don't think insurrection was ever a line of questioning from the judges today. I was commenting on the line of thought that states aren't permitted to determine whether a candidate is ineligible.
The justices did mention that each state getting to define what constitutes an insurrection is problematic, since there would allow bad actors to make mischief.
Age is pretty clear, but not exactly either. What is the "age of 35"? You can argue that age started at conception, not birth. Resident and Citizenship also have some ambiguity. What is a "Citizen of the US"? What is a "Resident within the US"? Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." The 22nd Amendment also has some ambiguity. What does "elected" mean? Does Congress "choose, by ballot, the President" count as "elected"? 22 Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." The states have decided on these themselves, and if there is disagreement, the Court needs to resolve these ambiguities. They should do so for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as well. If the Court says the State cannot make these decisions, then the Court needs to define them clearer. If they say the State cannot make these decisions and the Court doesn't need to define them... we are stuck. Maybe my logic is completely failing here — please show where it is failing.
I didn’t get to hear the arguments but it sounds like the Justices will look to it as a matter of the right of voters to vote who they want.
It also sounds like the lawyers for CO didn’t do a good job. With all of the legal luminaries such as Judge Luttig supporting their case it seems the CO lawyers weren’t that well Prepared for the arguments.
Why don’t you get to the point so I don’t have to play your game for 5 posts where you try to set debate land mines? SCOTUS and border policy has been anything but consistent. The ruling the other day with Texas was barely held by a majority and you better bet Amy Coney Barrett got some nasty grams after that decision that’ll probably impact any subsequent decisions that come their way when Biden inevitably has to step in because Republicans in Congress want to politicize the border. The ruling the other day should have been 9-0 in any normal Supreme Court makeup. So if you have a point to make, do it and don’t waste my time trying to pull my chain.
FWIW there was no lack of amicus briefs, which gave better answers to the questions he fumbled. I heard from a talking head court expert that it was clear from the get go on how the court would rule. The talking head consensus is that this will be a 9-0 ruling.
I do have a point to make. You keep calling this a far right fringe Supreme court when they are more moderate than not. You live in a world where you believe your political views are 100% right. That is how far from reality you are. Everything is fringe to you.
Yes there are a lot of amicus briefs but this was oral arguments where the CO lawyers needed to shine.
Listened to part of it. Didn't seem prepared. I'd love to see a 9-0, 8-1, or 7-2 judgment, but I'm not satisfied with the arguments, at least in terms of how I interpret the judges' thinking. So weak. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-appears-unlikely-to-kick-trump-off-colorado-ballot/
I need to take a break from this subject. Apologies for not nerding out here as I was already fatigued from spending many hours reading on the original Baude piece and multiple response articles. This was a conservative ConLaw argument by conservative originalist scholars from like summer of 2023 that went mainstream and became a litmus test for partisanship. Gross. You can be a conservative and think Trump should be barred by states and you can be a liberal and think the opposite. There are good arguments for all sides and there are great articles about this and great legal nerd podcasts about this too. I just hate how things evolve once it gets out into the mainstream. It's a good case to study, but it shouldn't be a litmus test. I hate how it's become so politicized. The other one (absolute presidential immunity), is more or less a joke. I guess I should post on the other thread, but here is one tidbit from the oral argument during the appeals court (I'm paraphrasing): One of the judges to Trump's lawyer, "So are you stating that if a president chooses to assassinate a political opponent purely for personal reasons, then that cannot be charged as a crime, ever?" Trump Lawyer, with Trump seated next to him, "Uhh, yes, no charges allowed, ever."
What seemed surprising to me is that they mostly focused on the idea that one state would open the door for all states. I get that argument, but to me, the biggest weakness is that a state could bar him for insurrection without the candidate having ever been convicted or even tried for insurrection. I guess the questions about that opening the door kind of skirts that issue.
This was another insane liberal attempt to abuse our judicial system to "get Trump". Looks set to receive a bipartisan smackdown at SCOTUS. SHAME on liberals for trying to repurpose our once-respected legal system to do their political dirty work. Unconscionable.
I think it’s self executing but should somehow be decided at the federal level and not on a state by state basis. That seems to be where the court is going.
