- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LIVE (*now adjourned*): Supreme Court hearing case on Trump's Colorado ballot eligibility
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:29 am to EKG
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:29 am to EKG
This is a watershed moment.
If states can choose who they allow to run for federal office, this could get wildly out of hand.
If it is upheld, Texas should prevent Biden from running for president within the state.
If states want the ability to determine who can run for state office, so be it.
They can choose “how” elections should be run within their states, but the concept of them choosing “who” can run for federal office is out of the question.
If states can choose who they allow to run for federal office, this could get wildly out of hand.
If it is upheld, Texas should prevent Biden from running for president within the state.
If states want the ability to determine who can run for state office, so be it.
They can choose “how” elections should be run within their states, but the concept of them choosing “who” can run for federal office is out of the question.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 9:31 am
2
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:31 am to EKG
Colorado hasn’t gone yet.
AP link
AP link
quote:
6 min ago
These arguments are getting hyper-technical right out of the box
BY NICHOLAS RICCARDI
The first wave of questioning is about Trump attorney Mitchell’s argument that a state can’t disqualify a candidate under Section 3, only ban someone from office — and it’s up to Congress to decide not to seat a federal official.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Mitchell if a candidate came into an election office and said he lived out of state, could that election office bar him from the ballot?
No, Mitchell said. He later admitted this is a novel argument. “This is a one-off,” he said of the historic case.
13 min ago
First question comes from Justice Clarence Thomas
BY NICHOLAS RICCARDI
Thomas asked Mitchell whether Congress needs to pass legislation for Section 3 to work.
“It is entirely up to Congress,” Mitchell responded.
In a sign of how weird this case is, he’s citing an 1869 case decided by a then-supreme court justice who was acting as an appeal judge. There’s very little precedent here.
16 min ago
And we’re off
BY NICHOLAS RICCARDI
Arguments began with Trump’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, making his initial statement. “The Colorado supreme court’s decision is wrong and should be reversed for numerous, independent reasons,” Mitchell said.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 9:32 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:31 am to Scruffy
quote:
They can choose “how” elections should be run within their states, but the concept of them choosing “who” can run for federal office is out of the question.
Pretty much.
If this comes to pass, that Soros push to get people elected into SOS and AG positions will cause things to get ugly.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:32 am to teke184
quote:People say “slippery slope” all the time, but this is a pretty damned obvious one.
If this comes to pass, that Soros push to get people elected into SOS and AG positions will cause things to get ugly.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:34 am to Scruffy
I realize this is said constantly, but if Trump's team loses this, the country is done.
If this isn't a 9-0 vote, God help us.
If this isn't a 9-0 vote, God help us.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:35 am to EKG
4 ladies on the court and 2 lady men. Ominous. No way something as insignificant as the US Constitution can compete with all those feelings.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:36 am to TDTOM
quote:
When will they announce a decision?
Could be any time between now and the beginning of July.
However, I expect a decision prior to Colorado's primary on March 5.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 9:38 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:37 am to hogcard1964
quote:The precedent that would be set here is that state governments, not the electorate, can decide who is allowed to run in elections.
if Trump's team loses this, the country is done.
Conservative states can ban Democrats, progressive states can ban Republicans, for no other reason than “because”.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:37 am to hogcard1964
quote:
If this isn't a 9-0 vote, God help us.
There's really no way the wise Latina and that dumb black lady DON'T go with Colorado, is there?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:39 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
There's really no way the wise Latina and that dumb black lady DON'T go with Colorado, is there?
It is a non-zero chance but a very low one.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:39 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
There's really no way the wise Latina and that dumb black lady DON'T go with Colorado, is there?
Depends on what the majority decides to do, or how many of these issues they actually want to tackle.
But yea, I would expect wise latina and KBJ to write their own opinion, dissenting at least in part.
We could get 5-6 opinions on this one, because no way Thomas and Alito don't pen their own as well.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:40 am to hogcard1964
quote:
if Trump's team loses this, the country is done
That ship sailed when the federal government sued one of the fifty states for taking steps to protect itself from a foreign invasion when fedgov chose not to do so.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:41 am to Indefatigable
quote:
We could get 5-6 opinions on this one, because no way Thomas and Alito don't pen their own as well.
Putting up all the opinions side by side on this one could be enlightening.
I can see well written ones by Alito, Thomas, Kagan, etc, as well as two written in crayon by Sotomayor and Jackson Brown.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:41 am to teke184
Ketanji lol what a clown
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:42 am to BearCrocs
It is the SCOTUS equivalent of Obama being made head of Harvard Law Review without contributing a single article.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:43 am to teke184
Also, why are the justices not letting the attorney respond in full? They keep cutting him off.. Jesus
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:43 am to teke184
quote:
It is the SCOTUS equivalent of Obama being made head of Harvard Law Review without contributing a single article.
I find it interesting that the one liberal judge on the court that had no prior judicial experience and came from academia (Kagan) is the most rational and constitutionally-oriented of the three.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 9:44 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:43 am to Scruffy
quote:
Conservative states can ban Democrats, progressive states can ban Republicans, for no other reason than “because”.
What a clusterfrick this would be.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:45 am to Indefatigable
Kagan serving as Solicitor General meant she actually had to be able to argue based on the law in front of the Supreme Court.
I’d say that tightened her skills more than ruling on racist fireman qualification exams in the northeast.
I’d say that tightened her skills more than ruling on racist fireman qualification exams in the northeast.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:45 am to EKG
quote:
First question comes from Justice Clarence Thomas
That is HIGHLY unusual. I mean...I'm sure one can count on one hand the amount of times this is happened his entire time on the Court.
Page 2 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News