Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 8 2024 12:28pm)

After listening to oral arguments I think it's clear the officer argument has no legs. That would require they disentangle a ton of contradictions in the constitution. Something that became very obvious listening to this is that the founders weren't giving a huge amount of thought into which offices are "offices under the united states" as opposed to just "offices".

Several justices were concerned about incongruity between the states on who can be on the ballot. This is incredibly stupid as that's literally the entire point of having 50 different state elections that all regulate their own ballot access. It's shameful that this concern would even come from a superme court justice, and a sign of the intellectual weakness of the current court that their concerns can frequently be answered by a high school civics class. Then again they've just flat lied about the facts of plenty of cases in the last few years, so it's not surprising they would feign ignorance of the design philosophy of the system.




The biggest concerns seemed to be about the process. Does congress have to act? How can states go about it? Is it self executing? These are hard questions, so I don't expect they will spell out what the actual process needs to be. I think they will just kick it back with a vague "not enough due process" or just say congress has to act. I fully expect this court to avoid doing their job and just kick it back in whatever way is most convenient.

Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 8 2024 05:01pm)

As the Justices point out (pages 67-75), the overarching thrust of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power and prevent states, as bad actors, from sending former Confederate officers to Congress. The notion that the 14th amendment instead empowers states to decide whether a candidate can run for federal office is completely incongruous with the intent. To Thomas's point, there's a complete lack of evidence of states ever exercising that authority.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-719_feah.pdf

Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 8 2024 06:07pm)

That's an entirely separate argument to what you bolded. I think they're likely to hide behind who gets to exercise the authority or some other procedural nonsense.

Whether states have the authority is separate from the concern about incongruity between the states. The former is a real question, the latter is intentionally misunderstanding the design philosophy of the system.

Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 8 2024 05:39pm)

It wouldn't be hiding to say that Congress has authority by way of Section 5, and that Trump can be convicted of insurrection federally and thereby disbarred. The justices already explored that argument, and it would allow them to shut down Trump's more spurious arguments.

Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 8 2024 03:01pm)

As the Justices point out (pages 67-75), the overarching thrust of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power and prevent states, as bad actors, from sending former Confederate officers to Congress. The notion that the 14th amendment instead empowers states to decide whether a candidate can run for federal office is completely incongruous with the intent. To Thomas's point, there's a complete lack of evidence of states ever exercising that authority.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-719_feah.pdf

Quote (Handcuffs @ Feb 8 2024 10:22pm)

But is the lack of precedence due to the fact that this is an unprecedented situation?

Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 8 2024 07:32pm)

Colorado's counsel brought up a similar argument, and Alito's response was to note that impeachment was hitherto rare, and yet we've had 3 in the last 50 years.

I agree in the sense that the Justices have it right. If Donald Trump is barred, red states will immediately retaliate, and it will be no holds barred from there.

Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 8 2024 07:32pm)

Colorado's counsel brought up a similar argument, and Alito's response was to note that impeachment was hitherto rare, and yet we've had 3 in the last 50 years.

I agree in the sense that the Justices have it right. If Donald Trump is barred, red states will immediately retaliate, and it will be no holds barred from there.