Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Matt Hodges (matthodges@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:18:51 JST Matt Hodges

   #LawFedi is it even possible for SCOTUS to uphold Colorado without disqualifying absolutely?

   • Tim Chambers repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     johnlray (johnlray@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:19:09 JST johnlray

     in reply to

     @MattHodges Can #LawFedi please also clarify... there's, I mean... there's absolutely no way this sticks, right?

     Tim Chambers repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Jason Perseus (jasonperseus@mas.to)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:19:09 JST Jason Perseus

     in reply to

     • johnlray

     @johnlray @MattHodges

     No way it sticks. Unsure if affirming would automatically apply to every state, my assumption is no, but that people would bring similar actions in every state under the applicable state laws for who gets on the ballots, since every election system has its own laws.

   • Embed this notice
     Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:49:11 JST Heidi Li Feldman

     in reply to

     • Tim Chambers

     @MattHodges Hi. US Supreme Ct could uphold Colorado Supreme Ct w/out affecting where else Trump may be on the ballot; could uphold ruling that Trump unqualified to serve and rule Colorado may under its election laws, allow an injunction to state secretary of state prohibiting her from including Trump on the ballot. But Supreme Court could reserve reaching its own conclusion on Trump’s qualifications, on ground that question not ripe unless and until he’s elected. 1/ @tchambers

     Tim Chambers repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:49:15 JST Heidi Li Feldman

     in reply to

     • Tim Chambers

     @MattHodges Shorter: US Supreme Court could rule that Colorado election law prohibits CO secretary of state from putting Trump on ballot without deciding ultimate substantive question of whether Trump disqualified per 14th A Sec. 3. This would require some hairsplitting but US Supreme Court might try to dodge ultimate question, hoping that if it upholds Colorado other states will remove Trump from ballots, saving 2/ @tchambers

   • Embed this notice
     Michael Fisher (mjf_pro@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:50:08 JST Michael Fisher

     in reply to

     • Tim Chambers

     @MattHodges @tchambers It certainly is going to be wild to see how Uncle Thomas squares THIS circle. 👀😬

   • Embed this notice
     Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:58:45 JST Heidi Li Feldman

     in reply to

     @MattHodges Yes, but repeating my caveat that this would involve some real hairsplitting, saying that while qualification issue not ripe for US Supreme Court, it was ripe for Colorado state court because of imminent primary ballot finalization, a matter for states not federal government. Do you need me to explain ripeness of a case or controversy?

   • Embed this notice
     Heidi Li Feldman (heidilifeldman@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:58:46 JST Heidi Li Feldman

     in reply to

     @MattHodges … the US Supreme Court from having to decide definitively that Trump engaged in insurrection per 14th Amendment. 3/3@tchambers@indieweb.social

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hodges (matthodges@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:58:46 JST Matt Hodges

     in reply to

     • Heidi Li Feldman

     @heidilifeldman Thank you for the insights! So it sounds like you're saying that SCOTUS doesn't necessarily have to consider 14th A Sec. 3, even though Colorado used it for its justification; am I understanding that correctly?

     Tim Chambers repeated this.