spoiler alert
8 Likes
Goddamn it, I cant find a picture of the pilots shaking hands after this, so Ill just have to go with this instead.
3 Likes
Make sure you announce it to the plane and call the flight attendant a crazy lady
2 Likes
Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation,â Justice Elena Kagan asked, saying that âseems quite extraordinary.
So then why are states allowed to stop people under 35 from being on the ballots if they canât stop an insurrectionist from being on the ballot?
The justices seemed concerned that one state could affect the entire presidential election process, and that there needed to be some guidance from Congress before such an extraordinary measure could be taken
Didnât congress write the fucking thing?
Kavanaugh and Roberts are concerned that one state could throw a presidental election?
1 Like
1 Like
Not only that, but the Amendment contains a mechanism that allows Congress to let an insurrectionist take office if they vote to allow it.
"Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So, the face value reading of the text should be that an insurrectionist is automatically disqualified and if Congress doesnât like it, they can vote on it.
4 Likes
So the resolution introduced by Gaetz et al., having no chance to get 2/3 approval, is meaningless.
The Colorado primary is March 5. The SC more or less has to issue a decision before that. Or no? Maybe CO would postpone?
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, âDonald Trump is not an insurrectionist.â 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 donât 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. Trumpâs lawyers appealed. In that event, the Colorado secretary of state would âcontinue to be required to include President Trumpâs name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.â
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 Coloradoâs primary ballot.
But if the justices were to rule Mr. Trump ineligible before the stateâs March 5 primary, Ms. Griswold said that Colorado would not count votes cast for him. âI 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,â she said.
If they were to rule him ineligible after the primary but before Election Day on Nov. 5, âhis name would not appear on the 2024 general election ballot,â Ms. Griswold added.
1 Like
Iâm not listening to the argument, so Iâm 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 âincitedâ 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 âincitement of insurrection.â
LOL
1 Like
Man i really hope my 9-0 prediction comes through since heâs a lock to win anyway.
lol America. Just so much lol all the time. Banana republic with nukes.
It doesnât matter what Hawaiiâs 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 SCOTUSâ 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 âhistory and traditionâ (but from 1959, not 1789)
2 Likes