Fogbow

Do Maine and the other states get their own thread, or are they all being lumped here

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 367a&ei=15

CNN anchor Boris Sanchez spent over seven minutes on Tuesday trying to get a really simple answer out of the chairman of Maine’s Republican party. But even after seven attempts, he was unsuccessful.

All Sanchez wanted to know was why it was wrong for Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot. (A decision he announced Tuesday that he is appealing.) When she explained how she came to her decision on December 28, Bellows cited not just the United States Constitution, but Maine’s constitution as well. And a former Republican lawmaker in the state who was proactive in requesting Trump’s removal from the ballot, Tom Saviello, defended Bellows and her decision while declaring Trump to be “not qualified.”

But Maine’s GOP chair Joel Stetkis thinks she was wrong. Sanchez wanted to know why, legally speaking, Bellows was wrong — and he asked Stetkis seven times:

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:59 pm Do Maine and the other states get their own thread, or are they all being lumped here

I started a general thread for the 14th amendment eligibility cases a while back:
viewtopic.php?p=214151#p214151

Reality Check wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 1:07 pm

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:59 pm Do Maine and the other states get their own thread, or are they all being lumped here

I started a general thread for the 14th amendment eligibility cases a while back:
viewtopic.php?p=214151#p214151

Thanks for the link, I'll post the CNN link there as well.

I know states' rights, blah, blah, blah, but I've never understood why US elections are not covered by US law. I know what it all goes back to; it just isn't logical.

SCOTUS, unsurpisingly, granted cert., with argument to heard on February 8.

"For completeness":

SCOTUS wrote:The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.

Recall CREW had requested argument by January 19, and a ruling by February 11. I doubt SCOTUS will rule by February 11, meaning Colorado's mail-in voting likely will start with a cloud of uncertainty over it. (Or, in theory, if there's no decision by February 12, SCOTUS could deny as moot for the primary election.)

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 5:36 pm SCOTUS, unsurpisingly, granted cert., with argument to heard on February 8.

"For completeness":

SCOTUS wrote:The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.

Recall CREW had requested argument by January 19, and a ruling by February 11. I doubt SCOTUS will rule by February 11, meaning Colorado's mail-in voting likely will start with a cloud of uncertainty over it. (Or, in theory, if there's no decision by February 12, SCOTUS could deny as moot for the primary election.)

Well, that would conveniently get them off the hook, wouldn't it.

I don't know what to think about where this is going to go. I don't trust 6 of the members of the Supreme Court. At all. But some of them are pretty deeply steeped in old school right wing thuggery as opposed to Trump thuggery. Maybe if they think one of the other candidates has a better chance of beating Joe Biden they will do the right thing. For the wrong reason, but at this point I don't care, I just want Trump to be declared ineligible to ever be anywhere near the kind of power he would have if he gets back into the White House again.

Republican leadership did a thing.

Amicus brief arguing against SCoCO: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 20Cruz.pdf

Citizens for Ethics @CREWcrew wrote: NEW: The Supreme Court's decision on Trump's ballot eligibility will rely on the evidence we presented in Colorado.

We pulled the highlights from the 5 day trial into a 2 minute video so you can get up to speed before arguments on Thursday.

I didn't hear that whole case so I don't know if they mentioned this - but to me, one of the biggest and most powerful affirmations of trump's insurrection is that just about every one of the hundreds of J6ers have cited the reason they came to the Capitol was because trump asked/told them to.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:09 pm

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 2:48 pm Mor on the ground that 14/3 requires an enabling statute,

That seems to have been done, since 18 USC 2383 includes the disqualification language:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

although the notes to 103-322 cites to the original as (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §4, 35 Stat. 1088). I'd like to know if there was a preamble or some other explanation to that enactment.

The enabling statute I'm thinking of is one where Congress has established a specific court for determining insurrection disqualification. Such as a 3-judge (or 5 or 7-judge) special court in Washington, D.C. All the enabling statute you've cited says is what 14/3 also says; it doesn't say how to get there.

By taking the route I suggest, SCOTUS avoids the hard questions: (1) Was there an insurrection on January 6? (2) Did Trump foment it? (3) Did Trump take an oath to support the Constitution? (4) Is the Presidency an "office" subject to disqualification under 14/3? (5) Can an insurrectionist be elected President?

Listening to the questions asked tomorrow morning by the Justices will likely tip us off. So I'm sticking with my prediction that SCOTUS will hold 14/3 is not "self executing" but needs an enabling statute -- unless the defendant has been convicted of an "insurrection" crime.

As I've said before - all the Justices have made up their minds. This will be appellate theater. It matters not how well or poorly any of the lawyers does tomorrow. The die has been cast.

Great to see you, Stern! As always, I agree with you, tomorrow's appellate theater will be just that. I can not imagine they will not find a technicality, a narrow ruling, or some other way to keep Trump on the ballot. The real-world consequences and destabilization, along with institutional fear, don't bode well for the decision. I continue to agree with Michael Luttig, William Baude and M Stokes Paulsen, but these decisions aren't in a vacuum.

By the way, I'm barely holding on with my bet SCOTUS won't take cert in the immunity case.

At 9pm tonight, Hillary Clinton has an interview with Alex Wagner on MSNBC. The preview showed HRC thinking that under their stated "textualism", SCOTUS could determine that under the federalist system, they could punt on the Trump questions and say the states individually can decide. It went by quickly and Wagner bolted upright with a followup. HRC covers a wide range of topics and both Wagner and Chris Hayes said it was fascinating.

Posted on X about some of those opinions:

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious Feb 5
Thu Feb 8: Supreme Court Oral Arguments in 23-719 DONALD J. TRUMP, Petitioner, v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL., Respondents. #TrumpvAnderson docket is flooded with #14A Amicus briefs: https://supremecourt.gov/docket/docketf ... 3-719.html
Judge Michael Luttig's @judgeluttig brief: https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/2 ... 0Brief.pdf

On @InsideWithPsaki @jrpsaki Sun Feb 4, 2024, @neal_katyal recommended reading "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" by conservative professors @WilliamBaude and @MStokesPaulsen. #TrumpvAnderson Draft here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4532751

I can’t watch or listen. Just got over a two week migraine episode and don’t want to “flare up”those nerves again.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:18 am
I can’t watch or listen. Just got over a two week migraine episode and don’t want to “flare up”those nerves again.

Trump is Poison on the mind. It really is best to put him out of your mind and only check in on him in small bursts.

Dreadfully bad opening argument by Trump's lawyer. Justice Thomas indicates where he's going by asking the first question. He wants to know if 14/3 is self-executing. He gets a word salad response. But it makes no difference. We know where he's going.

This lawyer is awful. But it's all theater.

Kagan chimes in. She's interested in whether 14/3 is self-executing. I now predict at least a 7-2 decision that SCOTUS will determine that enforcing legislation re procedure is necessary.

Trump has once again selected a clinker to represent him. This guy would be fired his first day on the job as an associate in my lawfirm.

Thanks, Sterny.

Don't stop!

Coney Barrett chimes in with a state vs. Federal question. I think she is also in the camp that 14/3 needs Federal legislation.

Alito asks a question distinguishing running for office and holding office. Bizarre.

Then he shifts to the term "self executing." He says the phrase is wrongfully used. The question is "who can enforce section 3 with respect to a POTUS candidate."

Bingo.

Trump's lawyer calls one state's decision not being binding on other states as not being bound by "non exclusive collateral estoppel." He means "unilateral collateral estoppel" doesn't exist.

Sotomayor chimes in. Are states unable to disqualify obviously ineligible candidates.

The response is that 14/3 is different because Congress can defease the elected and ineligible POTUS of his disability and make him eligible.

Sure.

Brown Jackson asks how that changes the initial determination of ineligibility. She gets yet another stupid answer.

Trump's klown lawyer is lucky that this is just appellate theater. None of the stupid things he says will affect the result. Justice Kagan is sticking it to him again.

Trump's klown is finally getting around to a mechanism to determine disqualification.

Alito chimes in expressing his doubt on the fact that even though Congress has the power to lift the disqualification, that means a candidate is therefore eligible to run.

Kavanaugh chimes in on Griffin's case, the decision by CJ Salmon P. Chase (who's on the $%10,000 bill).

Now Brown Jackson moves on to the "officer" / "office" issues. Is Mitchell giving up that argument?

No.