I don't think you need to worry about it
by manofdillon (2024-02-08 12:01:35)

In reply to: 14th Amendment chess.  posted by IAND75

Cannot Reply Return to Political

It can certainly be hard to read tea leaves based on oral argument, but the liberal justices (at least Kagan and Jackson) are grilling Colorado's counsel pretty hard, and seem to have concerns about the workability of 50 separate states being able to exclude presidential candidates from the ballot without a conviction or determination by Congress. A 9-0 decision would not shock me, but I certainly don't see any of the 6 conservatives peeling off.

If they reject it, I hope it’s 9-0
by sprack  (2024-02-08 12:39:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Give Trump his small victory here in a case that probably never had a chance, take away the “it’s rigged!” argument and then move on to the real stuff.
I don't think it will be 6-3.
by manofdillon  (2024-02-08 12:44:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Kagan seemed awfully skeptical, and I think has more of an institutionalist bent than Jackson and certainly Sotomayor. She'd appreciate the harm to the court of a straight split along partisan lines. Most of the legal prognosticators I've seen since the argument concluded are predicting something between 7-2 and 9-0.

If the decision is limited (as it should be), it will be
by CMCIrish  (2024-02-08 17:45:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

that states can't decide qualifications under Section III of the 14th Amendment unless Congress gives them the right to do so, and it will be an 8-1 or 9-0 decision. My view is this is where this is headed.
Fascinating.
by Revue Party  (2024-02-08 18:45:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I don't comment on Supreme Court cases because I don't understand the law. If you're thinking it's 8-1 or 9-0 then I guess I really don't understand the law. I thought this was a possibility. Oops.

One interesting thing to me will be
by sprack  (2024-02-08 13:06:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

assuming Trump wins the case, what the majority opinion will say (if anything) on the whole question of whether Trump did engage in insurrection.
Almost 0% chance.
by manofdillon  (2024-02-08 14:14:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Maybe Thomas or Alito will question whether this constitutes an insurrection in a concurrence. But assuming the opinion is based on a finding that state courts lack authority to remove a presidential candidates from the ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment absent a criminal conviction or congressional authorization, they don't have to say anything about whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Roberts will want as much support for this as possible, and no way any of the liberals sign on to an order finding "Trump didn't do insurrection." The question wasn't a focus of oral argument at all.