Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump on the 2024 ballot

[Ingomike]

If the Constitution says the Presidential Election would be thrown to the House of Representatives how is the quote wrong?

Roberts said that if states cherry picked candidates “If this were to occur, then the presidential election would be determined by "just a handful of states," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he added.“

It would not be determined by "just a handful of states," it would be by congress…

 

[Leadeye]

Roberts said that if states cherry picked candidates “If this were to occur, then the presidential election would be determined by "just a handful of states," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he added.“

It would not be determined by "just a handful of states," it would be by congress…

It will be determined by who writes the biggest check.

 

[foszoe]

Roberts said that if states cherry picked candidates “If this were to occur, then the presidential election would be determined by "just a handful of states," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he added.“

It would not be determined by "just a handful of states," it would be by congress…

I thought since the HoR is populaton based that the handful of populous states would determine the presidency

 

[chipbennett]

I thought since the HoR is populaton based that the handful of populous states would determine the presidency

Not when each state gets one, and only one, vote in a contingent election - such as would be the case here.

 

[Ingomike]

I thought since the HoR is populaton based that the handful of populous states would determine the presidency

No because the constitution says one vote per state so Indiana has one vote. As I understand it each states house delegations vote amongst themselves to determine the one vote the state casts…

 

[foszoe]

No because the constitution says one vote per state so Indiana has one vote. As I understand it each states house delegations vote amongst themselves to determine the one vote the state casts…

yeah so basically as long as red states outnumber blue states. or the the other way around depending on one's preferences.

 

[HoosierLife]

yeah so basically as long as red states outnumber blue states. or the the other way around depending on one's preferences.

But don’t Rs control more state houses?

 

[foszoe]

But don’t Rs control more state houses?

I THINK they are saying the US House of Representatives casts the votes but only 1 vote per state.

 

[HoosierLife]

I THINK they are saying the US House of Representatives casts the votes but only 1 vote per state.

Electoral College Ties - 270toWin

How is the president elected if the electoral vote ends in a tie or no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes?

www.270towin.com

This doesn’t really answer who votes smh

 

[foszoe]

Electoral College Ties - 270toWin

How is the president elected if the electoral vote ends in a tie or no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes?

www.270towin.com

This doesn’t really answer who votes smh

I don't think the situation has anything to do with the electoral college. I think the electoral college only comes into play when there is a popular vote. I think they are discussing the situation when a candidate is not allowed on a state ballot.

Thats enough of me thinking, I will let them respond

 

[KG1]

It appears that SCOTUS is setting aside the question of whether or not J6 was an "insurrection" for the most part.

According to observations made in the article below, throughout the argument, the justices barely touched upon the meaty issue at the center of the case: whether Trump participated in an insurrection. The ruling is unlikely to hinge on that question.


Rather they appeared to be focusing on whether the provision in Sec 3 can be enforced by the States verses Congress. They seem to be weighing heavily in the direction that only Congress has the authority through legislation to enforce Section 3 based on the language of Section 5. If anything, it looks like they will most likely strike down Colorado's SC ruling based on the lack of States having the authority to enforce.

I've heard from a number of legal prognosticators that SCOTUS will probably rule 9-0 to strike. Possibly a majority of 8-1 with Sotomayer being the lone dissenter. I doubt very much she will stand alone on this issue though and will ultimately join the majority. Her focus appeared to be on the side of lack of due process argument and that's coincidently what the dissenting opinion was focused on in the Colorado SC ruling.

Supreme Court signals unlikely to let Colorado kick Trump off ballot

Trump is appealing a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that said he could be barred from the Republican primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

www.nbcnews.com

A majority of the justices appeared to think during the two-hour argument that states do not have a role in deciding whether a presidential candidate can be barred from running under a provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Justices from across the ideological spectrum raised concerns about states reaching different conclusions on whether a candidate could run, and several indicated that only Congress could enforce the provision at issue.

During the oral argument, justices pushed back on the idea that the provision can be enforced by states.

Even two of the three more liberal justices like Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson were skeptical that individual States have the authority to determine who is and isn't eligible to run.

"I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States," Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three liberal justices, told Jason Murray, the lawyer representing Colorado voters.

"It seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it?" she added.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the liberals, appeared to agree, asking why the authors of the 14th Amendment “would have designed a system that could result in interim dis-uniformity in this way, where we have elections pending and different states suddenly saying, ‘You are eligible, you’re not.’”

 

[Cameramonkey]

It appears that SCOTUS is setting aside the question of "insurrection" for the most part.

Good. I have a SERIOUS problem DQing somebody when they have not been ruled guilty by a jury of their peers. Or in this case, hasnt even been CHARGED by a prosecutor.

In this case, the CO SC made themselves the prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. And that is just flat out wrong.

 

[KG1]

Now of course Trump had to step on his dink a little in remarks following the hearing that the MSM will most assuredly exploit by rump apparently saying that J6 was an insurrection only that it was caused by Nancy Pelosi. Luckily SCOTUS does not appear to be focused on that issue.

MSN

Trump made this comment after the hearing in which his legal representation made an extensive effort in their argument when the issue came up briefly that what happened on J6 was not an insurrection.

"They kept saying about what I said right after the insurrection," he said outside Mar-a-Lago after arguments concluded in Washington, D.C. "I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi."

 

[jamil]

Roberts said that if states cherry picked candidates “If this were to occur, then the presidential election would be determined by "just a handful of states," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he added.“

It would not be determined by "just a handful of states," it would be by congress…

I thought what he was getting at is most of the red states would take the Democrat off the ballot, and presumably all their EC votes would go to the R candidate. Most of the blue states would take the Republican off the ballot, and so their EC votes would go to the D candidate. So basically that's a wash. And then the states that were too moderate to take candidates off would be the only competitive states, and would thus, figuratively decide the election.

So where I think Roberts gets something wrong is, that's essentially what we have now. The deep blue and red states are already a lock for their respective side. And then what's left undecided is the swing states. It's not that they decide the election. Each side still needs their EC votes to make the swing states competitive. But effectively, the only place it's actually a race is the swing states.

 

[jamil]

It will be determined by who writes the biggest check.

Eh, I don't think in this case. I strongly suspect SCOTUS is going to protect their turf. This is a federal issue not a state issue. I think Roberts is very protective of the federal court system, especially SCOTUS. I think if there were a swing vote on the conservative side of the court, it's Roberts. I think he'll overturn Colorado.

 

[Ingomike]

I thought what he was getting at is most of the red states would take the Democrat off the ballot, and presumably all their EC votes would go to the R candidate. Most of the blue states would take the Republican off the ballot, and so their EC votes would go to the D candidate. So basically that's a wash. And then the states that were too moderate to take candidates off would be the only competitive states, and would thus, figuratively decide the election.

So where I think Roberts gets something wrong is, that's essentially what we have now. The deep blue and red states are already a lock for their respective side. And then what's left undecided is the swing states. It's not that they decide the election. Each side still needs their EC votes to make the swing states competitive. But effectively, the only place it's actually a race is the swing states.

He could have meant that. Didn’t see it that way then but I see it now.

 

[KG1]

Eh, I don't think in this case. I strongly suspect SCOTUS is going to protect their turf. This is a federal issue not a state issue. I think Roberts is very protective of the federal court system, especially SCOTUS. I think if there were a swing vote on the conservative side of the court, it's Roberts. I think he'll overturn Colorado.

By all indications Roberts will join the majority decision to overturn.

During the oral argument, justices pushed back on the idea that the provision can be enforced by states.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that the "whole point" of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power after the Civil War in an attempt to bring Confederate states into line and questioned why it would give states the ability to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot.

"Wouldn't that be the last place that you'd look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to ... enforce the presidential election process?" he asked.

 

[jamil]

By all indications Roberts will join the majority decision to overturn.

During the oral argument, justices pushed back on the idea that the provision can be enforced by states.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that the "whole point" of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power after the Civil War in an attempt to bring Confederate states into line and questioned why it would give states the ability to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot.

"Wouldn't that be the last place that you'd look for authorization for the states, including Confederate states, to ... enforce the presidential election process?" he asked.

On the other hand, since state legislators have the sole authority over the manner in which elections are conducted, shouldn’t the state legislature be able to throw Trump if Biden off the ballot? Pesky Feds meddling in state matters.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Just to review: it's a really bad day when you're slapped down by Elana Kagan. Justice Gorsuch nuked him. Justice Thomas toyed with him... and I don't think he realized it.

 

[jamil]

I think it’s 9-0 middle finger to the Colorado’s SC ruling. 8-1 if Sotomayor gives in to her nutty “Wise Latino” partisan shtick.