@ManyRoads
My bet is this:
* #SCOTUS dispenses with the silly "support" and "officer" arguments.
* It refuses to address CO ruling findings of fact on insurrection.
* It remands the case back to CO, suggesting, but not demanding, #Trump stay on CO ballot.
* It refuses to make a national determination, punting to Congress.
@Stinson_108 @ManyRoads
Sadly, that seems to be best case.
A huge missed chance for the SCOTUS to strengthen the Constitution and build up the body of law by setting legal tests and precedent.
But maybe, maybe, the ruling will be better than I fear.
Look at it from #SCOTUS perspective.
Say Wyoming sought first-mover advantage to disqualify a Democrat under #14A3. SCOTUS needs to set a standard for the finding of fact.
Say the USVI sought first-mover advantage to disqualify a Republican. That wouldn't work. I want my state to determine its own standard.
Solution: let the House take a disability removal vote on all candidates who have electoral votes presented. Better late than never.
@Stinson_108 @ManyRoads
Four thoughts:
1) one state's decision is not biding on another
2) it doesn't matter who moves first, or who reacts next, when they are all appealed to the SCOTUS who continually refine the body of law around insurrection removal.
3) Congress can remove the liability on anyone they choose
4) The party can choose to change nominees of one candidate is excluded from too many states. Voters ALWAYS detain the ability to vote and for the party they want.
@Stinson_108 @TCatInReality @ManyRoads exactly, and who else gets to decide if it is not the States? If they put a 21 year old on the ballot, or a non citizen who then says those votes don't count?
@enmodo @TCatInReality @ManyRoads
On the day a 21 year-old throws her hat into the ring, an election authority knows four things that will not change before Inauguration Day: date of birth, birthright citizenship, period of residence, and previous term(s) of service.
The state election authority cannot predict whether Congress will vote 2/3 to remove her disability.
@Stinson_108 @enmodo @ManyRoads
The very wording of your hypothetical shows that the disability exists ...and would continue to exist until if/when Congress lifts it.
This isn't hard.
Thru due process, CO found Trump ineligible. And that remains unless Congress lifts it - or the SCOTUS says they did it wrong.
@TCatInReality @Stinson_108 @ManyRoads that's how I think it should work, but from the reporting I've heard of the arguments before SCOTUS yesterday it sounds like they are moving to "no State can decide what insurrection / supporting insurrection", only Congress can - which as we know won't happen because it has been broken by those supporting insurrection in violation of their oath to uphold the constitution. And we have no recourse to say SCOTUS is wrong.
@enmodo @Stinson_108 @ManyRoads
I listened to the whole thing and barely heard any discussion about the actual events - and no real discussion on the criteria. Maybe that was in the briefs.
What I heard was a broad concern about diff states applying diff standards and processes. But I thought the CO SG was brilliant when pointing out that exists today, as intended under Article 2.
@TCatInReality @Stinson_108 @ManyRoads and remember in 2000 they did not give a damn about "diff states applying diff standards and processes." re. counting votes. Naturally Right wing justices change what they care about based on which way the wind is blowing.
IMO even if SCOTUS wanted to side with CO they won't because they know hence forth many Red States will remove D candidates at the last minute for bad-faith reasons and SCOTUS will have to rule on dozens of cases every election.
@enmodo No, you have it backwards.
The 2000 decision if anything emphasized different states applying the same standards to counting of votes. In fact, consistent standards was key to the ruling then.
Y'all are reaching really hard to try to justify a supreme court ruling that is simply not in the cards based on the arguments before the court.
Sometimes one side loses the case because it's simply not the side with the winning argument.
