In the justices’ biggest election case since Bush v. Gore, the court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House.
Most people commenting here didn’t hear the questions beyond what clips they heard via the media. The ignorance is astounding. And in a hard core anti-trump voter.
I heard much of the questioning. Alito, Kagan and Thomas sounded genuinely stupid. The major arguments for Trump that I heard were:
1.we might have to decide differing decisions from differing states. ( Alito )
that’s the job of the SC, they do it all they time. Colorado’s lawyer explained clearly how it’s done. Since Trump doesn’t dispute any of the evidence, the SC merely needs to set a standard for how to determine if he engaged in an insurrection.
2.Should a single state be allowed to decide the election? (Kagan)
States decide presidential elections by picking electors and all states get to choose some electors. The election may hinge on the result of a single state because it’s so close, but no state unilaterally chooses the president.
There’s not much historical precedent for the state’s doing this (Thomas)
There’s not much, but there is some, mostly because confederates were eventually were “pardoned” by congress, and since not many people have been office holders, lead an insurrection, and tried to run again. Meanwhile, there’s precedent for the states barring candidates on other constitutional grounds, being too young for instance.
The clause talks about holding office, not running for office (Gorsuch)
None of the other qualifications clauses talk about running but about being “eligible” for office, whereas the 14th amendment says (in slight paraphrase) “shall not hold”. Plainly such a candidate is ineligible, yet ineligible clauses have been used by states to bar candidates.
These are from memory and I had to stop listening at that point. Maybe the questions got better later.
I don’t recall hearing that when I listened to the arguments today, but I get your gist.
Most people commenting here didn’t hear the questions beyond what clips they heard via the media. The ignorance is astounding. And in a hard core anti-trump voter.
I heard much of the questioning. Alito, Kagan and Thomas sounded genuinely stupid. The major arguments for Trump that I heard were:
1.we might have to decide differing decisions from differing states. ( Alito )
that’s the job of the SC, they do it all they time. Colorado’s lawyer explained clearly how it’s done. Since Trump doesn’t dispute any of the evidence, the SC merely needs to set a standard for how to determine if he engaged in an insurrection.
2.Should a single state be allowed to decide the election? (Kagan)
States decide presidential elections by picking electors and all states get to choose some electors. The election may hinge on the result of a single state because it’s so close, but no state unilaterally chooses the president.
There’s not much, but there is some, mostly because confederates were eventually were “pardoned” by congress, and since not many people have been office holders, lead an insurrection, and tried to run again. Meanwhile, there’s precedent for the states barring candidates on other constitutional grounds, being too young for instance.
None of the other qualifications clauses talk about running but about being “eligible” for office, whereas the 14th amendment says (in slight paraphrase) “shall not hold”. Plainly such a candidate is ineligible, yet ineligible clauses have been used by states to bar candidates.
These are from memory and I had to stop listening at that point. Maybe the questions got better later.