Did Murray make this point?
I think that is right, although I guess theoretically things could get messy if they somehow passed a bill via simple majority that just said something like, “Donald Trump is not an insurrectionist.” The Amendment arguably just talks about needing a 2/3 vote to give permission for someone who was an insurrectionist to hold office, so you could do some tap dancing to argue that if he never was an insurrectionist you don’t need the 2/3 vote.
As far as the Colorado issue, I think they stayed their ruling while the SCOTUS is hearing the case. NYTimes liveblog says that CO has printed his name on the ballots (but might not count votes in his favor if SCOTUS declares him ineligible.
When the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualified Mr. Trump from being president again, it stipulated that its ruling would be stayed if Mr. Trump’s lawyers appealed. In that event, the Colorado secretary of state would “continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”
That is where we are now.
Colorado law required the secretary of state, Jena Griswold, to certify who had qualified for inclusion on the ballot a month ago, on Jan. 5, and she certified Mr. Trump in accordance with the stay. Ballots have been printed with his name, and voters can expect to receive them within days. (All registered voters in Colorado get ballots by mail automatically.)
In other words, even if the Supreme Court were to deem Mr. Trump ineligible tomorrow, it would be too late to exclude him from Colorado’s primary ballot.
But if the justices were to rule Mr. Trump ineligible before the state’s March 5 primary, Ms. Griswold said that Colorado would not count votes cast for him. “I urge the court to issue a ruling quickly so that voters can be sure they are casting their vote for someone who is eligible to hold office,” she said.
If they were to rule him ineligible after the primary but before Election Day on Nov. 5, “his name would not appear on the 2024 general election ballot,” Ms. Griswold added.
1 Like
I’m not listening to the argument, so I’m not sure. I just came up with it by doing my unfrozen caveman lawyer reading of the amendment.
1 Like
Fortunately, the Supreme Court need not look far for answers to these questions. They can simply look across the street at the Capitol, where majorities of both chambers of Congress already found that January 6 was an insurrection and that Trump not only engaged in it but “incited” it.
This may come as a shock. When, one might ask, did Congress ever hold such votes?
Those votes came in the second impeachment of Trump, in January and February of 2021, in which majorities of both the House and the Senate backed an article of impeachment against Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”
LOL
1 Like
Man i really hope my 9-0 prediction comes through since he’s a lock to win anyway.
lol America. Just so much lol all the time. Banana republic with nukes.
It doesn’t matter what Hawaii’s state constitution says if the doctrine of incorporation is applied to whatever individual rights are protected by the Second Amendment.
I just like to see a state supreme court call that SCOTUS’ bullshit.
It would be amusing to see Hawaii develop a whole different set of law based on some combination of Native Hawaiian law and American “history and tradition” (but from 1959, not 1789)
2 Likes
It’s like Sharia law, but for Hawaii.
“Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct” are being “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the state and “society.”
9 Likes
Gee, what could possibly get people who engage in adhering to religious beliefs about homosexuality labeled bigots?
1 Like
Like a reply said, there’s absolutely no way Alito would ever vote to allow those who have a religious belief against the death penalty to be allowed to stay on a jury. It’s all just a one way street with him.
It’s been said many times, but bears repeating: Alito is the most nakedly partisan hack to ever be seated on SCOTUS. No coherent judicial philosophy whatsoever.
Death penalty deeply ingrained in religious traditions. And our country! EZ game.
1 Like
Alabama chief judge quoted the bible in his frozen embryos are babies concurrence.
1 Like
Headline is fine, but, uh, 27% of democrats approve of the Supreme Court? Come on.
1 Like