re: Place your bets now for what SCOTUS does with the Colorado Ballot case

7-2

quote:

---

Roberts writes a majority opinion where he crafts a very narrow reversal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision on entirely esoteric procedural grounds that raises more questions and confusion than it answers. Kav and maybe Kagan support it. He doesn’t touch the merits. He doesn’t discuss that the Colorado communists read out section 5 of the 14th A.

---

Ding ding ding.

They’ll do what they often do when in a pickle. Provide some dicta on the merits to feed a law review circle jerk, but ultimately send the case back saying the procedures to date fall below the threshold for adequate due process.

And then go shoot some quail.

Puts Trump back on the ballot as they should

Obviously, it should be 9-0 as allowing for this would cause chaos; however, is it possible that they rule that states can do what they want? They could rule that the federal government can’t remove someone off the ballot unless it meets this criteria and states can do what they want .There doesn’t seem to be anything constitutional that would stop this, correct?

quote:

---

is it possible that they rule that states can do what they want?

---

Sure it’s possible, but I think it’s unlikely and that would be completely unmanageable from a legal perspective.

First of all, the Federal Government just as a rule presumes it has the power to do whatever TF it wants. The further left you are, the more likely you are to believe in this premise. I can’t see even the 2 diversity hires on there remotely wanting to have anyone other than the federal government deciding the question.

Furthermore, from a straight up legal perspective, the 14th Amendment doesn’t provide any authority to the states to do anything. At most, it provides the power to make the determination to Congress.

Article I of the Constitution provides states with the authority to determine how to select the members of the electoral college, and to draw congressional districts. However, Art. I of the constitution itself defines the qualifications for president/congress. The Secretary of State of Colorado does not.

Holding that the states had some power to decide the qualifications of presidents, wouldn’t be supportable constitutionally.

All that said, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortions either - so of course that’s possible.

The only good news is 7 out of 9 of the justices actually understand the constitution, even Roberta. So I think the chances of sending back to the states are very remote, based on Article I.

Thank goodness the Wise Latina and Affirmative Action Jackson are too stupid to be able to persuade the other 7. They will be outvoted.

I think the best thing for the country would be is that Kagan stays true to her reputation for intellectual honesty and writes the opinion and holds that Congress determines the qualifications of the president, not angry cat ladies on power trip.

quote:

---

Furthermore, from a straight up legal perspective, the 14th Amendment doesn’t provide any authority to the states to do anything. At most, it provides the power to make the determination to Congress.

---

So, do you think Congress is the only body that can enforce the provision against the States? If a State elects an oath-breaking insurrectionist to its State legislature, do you think only Congress can act to remove him?

quote:

---

Congress has no legislative authority over state legislatures. So they would have no authority to remove him.

---

But the Constitutional Amendment applies to State offices as well. I don't think you can argue that only Congress can enforce Section 3 at the federal level, and then argue Congress cannot enforce Section 3 at the state level.

The Amendment has to be interpreted in a way that makes sense in all circumstances.

And since it is an Amendment, if it is inconsistent with other provisions in the Constitution, it supercedes them.

And the federal insurrection act does not apply to state offices.

quote:

---

The President is neither an Officer under the United States nor is he an officer of the United States. The 14th doesn't apply to him.

---

I think that will be ultimately be the majority - or at least plurality - opinion. It's not super clear with respect to the 14th Amalendment though. And while that will resolve the issue as to Trump, it leaves open a lot of questions over down ballot candidates.