Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #trumpvanderson, aggregated by home.social.
From the start of the justices’ private discussions of the case, #TrumpvAnderson, it was clear that the court was going to say no…. Allowing states to excise candidates from ballots in a national #election was out of the question, the justices agreed. With sparse & cryptic text in the amendment, & little case #law, to guide them, they raised various ideas for the court’s ruling & rationale.
#law #SCOTUS #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #ElectionInterference #illiberalism #extremism #corruption
For my American friends who are cheering up #SOCUS on abandoning your #Constitution in #TrumpvAnderson this is what you are cheering up to https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-strongman-fantasy.
“[…] to the end it may be a government of laws and not
of men.” Those were the days …
When your Supreme Court gave up on your Constitution, there is not much more to discuss. It was a nice experiment to have a republic while it lasted.
I gave it a day for the dust to settle, but the #TrumpVAnderson opinion is out. Full text here.
Follow-up to my thread 🧵:
Majority is on authority grounds. Definitely feels very Roberts and Thomas. However, it also goes to great lengths to say that the only vehicle to get any president off the ballot is conveniently one of the hardest to do at this moment in time.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurred, which I found very surprising because I did not expect a per curiam decision given how politicized the case is. Not sure how some notion of “the court should act as one on political matters” is still present after a recent slew of cases suggesting just the opposite. The opinion does (correctly, in my opinion) draw attention to the outright resolution that the majority holds.
Barrett says much the same as the triad concurrence, but her point is much more idealized than the latter. It’s reminiscent of Souter concurrences.
@DemocracyMattersALot
it’s funny how they no longer hurl the accusation of “Judicial Activism” around as an insult the way they used to…
#GOPHypocrites #overreach
#TrumpVAnderson
So, do i have this straight? The #SupremeCourt doesn't dispute that trump is an antidemocratic insurrectionist, but they dispute the exact mechanism to disqualify him from the presidency, in the interests of democracy.
Ballot Disqualification: Another SCOTUS Credibility Hit.
#scotus #Trump #Colorado #TrumpVAnderson #Congress #Election2024
oh well, at least we did get a thoroughly shady cite to Bush v. Gore in the Sotomayor concurrence. That part I liked…
#SCOTUS #TrumpVAnderson #OathbreakingInsurrectionist
All in all, the majority opinion in #trumpVAnderson is a disgrace.
It has been clear for years that the most promising possible nonviolent way to prevent Trump from becoming president again is by turning out as many voters for his general election rival as possible, particularly in swing states. (I know, I certainly know, that even a clear win of electoral votes by a rival is no guarantee Trump won’t try to seize office.) 7/7
The justices in the five person majority in #TrumpVAnderson show, once again, their utter disdain for the most elementary features of U.S. rule of law. They disregard text and precedent and trample separation of powers. Unsurprisingly then, their decision is primarily a piece of partisanship only masquerading as judicial work. 5/ #RuleOfLaw
So, the majority opinion in #trumpVanderson, adopted by five justices (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh), insists that
a) section 3 requires implementing legislation, which means
b) only one branch of the federal government, Congress, may enforce section 3, and
c) these five justices prescribe a wholly novel, extra-textual, and entirely unprecedented set of requirements for any disqualification legislation Congress might pass. 4/ #LawFedi
Second, claim Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, Congress must pass specific legislation to disqualify insurrectionists who took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Nowhere is this in the text of the 14th Amendment. Nor can it be justified by reference to historical practice. 2/ #trumpVanderson
Hello everyone, sorry I had to work on Feb 8 during oral arguments on the 14th amendment section 3 case. I did listen to it after the fact and will be boosting #SCOTUS toots 2/9/2023 afternoon Pacific time. If you're not interested, you can temporarily block my boosts #uspol #TrumpVAnderson #trumpIneligible
#TrumpVAnderson And finally, Mr. Murray made a complex argument that I find compelling. Instead of looking at the back half of the officers provision as a residuary designed to catch anything (which is the norm with statutes), he starts with that as encompassing everyone under the definition. Then, he specifically "tacks on" all of the named positions, because they aren't included in the broad "officer" definition but Congress still wanted to preclude "oath-breakers" as he calls them from holding those positions of power.
Under this view, President wasn't left out of the named views because it wasn't intended to be part of the balance at all, it was left out because it obviously fell within the broad definition (unlike the listed positions).
#TrumpVAnderson First off, I don't think anything today swayed the Justices' opinions (as is standard for oral hearings). At the end of the day, I listened in to hear what the Justices cared about by what questions they asked, because I want to predict the ideological splits. Here are my clearest takeaways (some Justices omitted because my opinions on them are murkier, maybe because they didn't ask enough questions or because I couldn't tell who was speaking)
KBJ and Kagan seem to be taking similar stances on states' authority, with Sotomayor tentatively there if the two are willing to cabin that position to holding that Colorado's decision should only apply to Colorado.
Thomas wants to law-and-order this on Constitutional authorization grounds and keep Trump on the Colorado ballot. I'm not surprised given his reluctance to ever give weight to history behind the Fourteenth Amendment (that view puts him on the opposite side of the line to KBJ for a more specific reason than just political alignment).
Roberts seems the most well-informed on the debate as a whole. His use of that knowledge is concerning, because he's clearly got a view for how he'd write the majority (only applying the Fourteenth Amendment's Section 3, disregard any other constitutional provision's grant of authority or analogous treatment) and was only permitting Mr. Murray to argue along those lines.
One argument I think is particularly easy to follow (or at least rings closer to normal con law) is the debate around freedom of voters. If the voting population wants to elect someone, would a decision for Colorado effectively disenfranchise them? Of course, see Mr. Murray's legendary assertion that what Trump did was attempt to disenfranchise the entire nation.
It’s really difficult to tell which way this court will go, after listening to the oral arguments. #uspol #TrumpVAnderson
#TrumpVAnderson It's over, I'll put up some wrap-up thoughts and a follow-up to one argument soon
#TrumpVAnderson (re: the recanted holding and repealed statute)
#TrumpVAnderson "That's a feature of our process, not a bug."
Hell yeah, counsel
#TrumpVAnderson On this point, the SG is lumping sec. 3 in with the other disqualifications, which #Sotomayor is now questioning but her phrasing leads me to believe that she wants this argument to be heard by the other justices rather than actually challenge it.
Not looking good for American Democracy.
#TrumpVAnderson #SCOTUS
#TrumpVAnderson Counsel has navigated her way out of the Roberts pigeonhole!!
...and he immediately jumps in to try and get things back on his track lol
#TrumpVAnderson Counsel's labeled Petitioner's entire argument as a hypothetical, which I agree with.
#TrumpVAnderson Solicitor General of Colorado now at the podium.
#TrumpVAnderson Counsel's got a really good argument for why Section 3 applies to the President given construction, but I'm not sure if I can articulate it now. It has to do with an exclusion-intent framing rather than an element framing, I'll come back to it.
#TrumpVAnderson Another crazy clapback, Trump tried to disenfranchise the people on Jan 6!!
The reason I don’t usually listen to Supreme Court oral arguments is because they rarely, probably almost never, make a difference to the outcome of a case. Before today’s oral argument in #TrumpVAnderson it seemed clear to me that despite the correctness and validity of the Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove Trump from ballot on ineligibility, the conservative justices would all vote to reverse. I still think all of that.
Fuck you Justice #Kavanaugh! #RoeVWade was settled too until you guys stepped-in when you specifically said you wouldn't! #TrumpVAnderson
well, would you look at what Norma Anderson gone done…
#TrumpVAnderson
#SenatorAnderson
#Colorado #SCOTUS
#SenAndersonGoes2SCOTUS
https://coloradosun.com/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court-arguments/
#Kavanaugh is desperately trying to make Griffin’s Case more controlling in #TrumpVAnderson.
Respect for those with the stomach to watch the #TrumpVAnderson Supreme Court hearing on Trump today.
For me it brings up the feelings one would experience watching a domestic abusers case as to weather or not he is aloud to continue beating them.
God I love Justice #Kagan. She's bloody brilliant. #TrumpVAnderson
#ClarenceThomas asked the first question in oral argument, which reminds me of how inappropriate it is for him to be participating. #TrumpVAnderson
I very rarely listen to oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court, but #TrumpVAnderson is so important, I am. Here’s the link to C-Span audio feed.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?532724-1/supreme-ct-hears-case-fmr-pres-trumps-colorado-ballot-eligibility&live
There’s no #legal #question: The #USConstitution #disqualifies #Trump from the #presidency as a result of his insurrection against the constitution and laws of the United States.
The #SupremeCourt’s role is to #enforce the #Constitution, and it should do so in #TrumpVAnderson to #disqualify Donald Trump from running for #president.
https://www.thestate.com/opinion/article285109812.html#storylink=cpy
Will be interesting to see what mental gymnastics self-proclaimed “originalist” Supreme Court Justices will use to argue that #section3 of the #14thamendment does not disqualify Trump from holding the office of U.S. president. Here’s an excellent amicus brief from leading experts on the history of the provision and how it was understood by people at the time of its adoption. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298999/20240129110006501_23-719%20bsac%20American%20Historians%20Final.pdf #LawFedi #TrumpVAnderson #RuleOfLaw #14thAmendmentSection3 #history