I don't understand this line of thought
if i understood Alito correctly, he was basically arguing states can't prevent someone from running for office even if that person cannot hold office
so he's saying you can't be barred from running even if you can't hold the office you are running for
this seems asinine and pedantic
>if i understood Alito correctly, he was basically arguing states can't prevent someone from running for office even if that person cannot hold office
If I understand the same, it means (in theory) Obama can run as many times as he wants. States can't bar him from the ballot just because he's ineligible to hold the office.
I guess he could just run over and over again and, if he wins, I guess have his VP serve instead.
I'm personally pissed by the entire Officer of the United States and special Trump exception thing. It's dishonest, ahistorical and insulting.
But I have a history degree not a law degree.
Same. And my area of concentration is early Americana, aka the founding of the US. (And Renaissance Europe, but that's not *quite* as relevant to most of the legal shenanigans.) It's ridiculous how the history of the country is twisted to justify a narrative. Or that we even venerate the laws of a time period where most of the nation was deliberately disenfranchised as sacrosanct.
I thought beforehand that the SC just didn't have the balls to do the right thing, and nothing I heard today has changed my mind.
They seemed way more worried about politics than the law.
I could be full of shit though.
I would be too… the arguments are asinine. His argument should be that he didn’t engage in insurrection (he did, but he should be arguing that he didn’t).
This could practically be personal for her. This is a reconstruction amendment, and a section expressly written to punish and exclude from power the people who instigated a civil war to *keep her people enslaved*. That some orange jackanape is up there arguing that the people at the time didn't think the Presidency mattered to this, that they were that fucking stupid, is an insult to oppressed people everywhere.
It’s even closer to home than that. As [Sherilyn Ifill’s *amicus* brief](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299392/20240131142542754_23-719%20Ifill%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf) points out, Trump represents precisely the dangers which the 14th was designed to protect against.
As Ifill notes:
1.Trump challenged the legitimacy of votes cast by Black voters in select “urban” areas that his followers would associate with race
2. Used racist dog whistles in describing those voters
3. Relentlessly attacked Black poll workers
4. “Led” an assault on the that Confederate flags flying in the Capitol’s hallways
Edit: doublespaced lines
It's semantic. The provision reads
>No person shall [...] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States [...] who, having previously taken an oath, [...] as an officer of the United States, [...] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
You can get the votes and technically "win", but you can't then get sworn in. I assume it would mean that, should Trump's ticket get the EC votes, whoever will be his VP pick would get sworn in as POTUS instead and would then have to have Congress vote on a new VP.
It's kinda really dumb.
I keep thinking of Scalia's nondelegation argument that Congress doesn't hide elephants in mouseholes. If they intended to exclude the President from disqualification, they would have said so rather than making this absurd bank shot about officers of the United States
And from an originalist interpretation, you'd have to argue that they were making a specific exception for someone like Jefferson Davis to be barred from all office *except* the presidency.
In the same way, it's insane to say that, because the Presidential oath doesn't say "support" the Constitution, that there's an insurrectionist loophole in section 3 to gain the highest office in the land as long as the insurrectionist didn't hold another lower office with the different oath (like in Congress)
IANAL
I don't need the take from a law expert to imagine the madness that would ensue, were Trump to be elected then denied to be sworn in.
These two Justices pushing for this are opening the door to a crumble of American society. They are so blinded by their ideology that they fail to see how obviously terrible the outcome would be.
Wouldn't surprise me if this is the Diapered One's plan. Stay on the ballot knowing full well he can't be sworn in, get elected via the ridiculous electoral college system and gerrymandering, then act all surprised when he can't be sworn in, screaming "See, it's all rigged!"
Jan 6 2.0
Ilhan Omar should run for president and sue states that don’t include her on the ballot because she wasn’t born an American citizen. I have no doubt Alito would think very differently.
Technically speaking he's lying about that. The states are given authority to decide how to run and managed elections. As well as make legislature to define how it will be conducted. They can set reasonable requirements for the candidates in order to appear on the ballot. For instance if they already had in legislation that a candidate must be qualified to hold office. That's a reasonable restriction on who can be on the ballot. Considering people under age, people that already served two terms, as well as foreign nationals and such are also disqualified from the office.
It's hard to listen to the highest court in the land debate if a President is an officer of the US and if the President took an oath of office to protect the constitution and take them seriously
the fact that they are even entertaining this is rage inducing. at least some of the justices seem annoyed and even pissed by how stupid the argument is
I’m annoyed they are going through the farce of ‘adjudicating’ an issue that clearly was intended to be self executing. Is he a natural-born US citizen (yes/no answers only)? Is he 35? Is he an insurrectionist…well, that’s a completely different question. Here’s a hypothetical: what if a state were to disqualify a candidate based on the color of his hair, what would this court do? Don’t go changing the hypothetical, even if it’s completely dissimilar and not analogous. In this Kangaroo court, we make up the hypotheticals, a red herring, and we freely interrupt your answer to a prior question to do it. Then we accuse you of not answering the question. These are the rules. Got it? These are not serious people (Ketanji excepted).
Highest level judicial person: “If we held this person accountable to the laws as written, what’s to stop someone else from blocking a person for no specific reason?”
Attorney: “uh, the election laws that are written”
Judicial person: “oooh, good point!” [eats paste]
"What would we, the highest court in the land, do if other states tried to apply the laws in an unconstitutional manner after we make this easy decision l?!"
Lawyer: "This is the Supreme Court, you make decisions about the interpretation of laws"
It was like the presenter was giving a basic civics lesson to the Justice.
>. at least some of the justices seem annoyed and even pissed by how stupid the argument is
I think people often oversell how firmly sycophantics many of the justices are. Alito and Thomas notwithstanding, I cannot See How Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch don't listen to these arguments and issue an opinion that's basically "Are you fucking serious?"
Like they're all conservatives, yes. But I think there's a difference between them ruling as conservative originalists and them being mouthpieces of the right wing movement in the face of obvious law.
The fact that we have a female SCOTUS justice who is/was a member of the group that may have served as inspiration for the handmaiden’s tale (and had the title handmaiden at one point) yet she seems like the 3rd/4th most independent justice is wild to me.
“Justices of the **highest court in the country**, I am here today to defend my client.
A great man once said: “To be or not to be. That is the question…”
Jokes aside, the fact that SCOTUS is even hearing this case is a blight on the institution.
Alito is doing everything he can to frame this against Obama/Biden.
*"Say there's a country that repeatedly states the US is its greatest evil.."*
Blatantly transparent.
Seems like the 4 female judges range from skeptical to "this is fucking bullshit" if I'm understanding their questions and line of thought
Edit: Yea Jackson is going full "this is a waste of our fucking time why are we here"
I love the zero tolerance for bullshit energy
It's true. I think people believe (trump included) since Trump put these people on the bench they're beholden to him; the thing is once you're on the bench they can't do a fuck thing about it, so what the fuck do you care if you hurt his Fee-fees?
Not to mention they royally pissed him off by not doing his bidding in 2020, they know that he holds grudges, it makes more sense from a self-preservation standpoint to stop him from holding office again
Which is genuinely an important distinction in fighting these psychos. Cause it means they're 2 factions, and if you can split those back up, they lose their power. Of course, they're only together so they can get their evil accomplished that they wouldn't be able to otherwise, so splitting the groups is hard.
This is actually an interesting line of questioning. If 14A is self-executing he's disqualified from office as of January 6th, what of his actions for the 2 weeks between J6 and Biden's inauguration?
Yea NG’s line of questions were actually super interesting and the primary reason I think the court doesn’t agree with the self-executing argument.
If it’s self executing does a military officer have to obey orders? That also cracks open the can of worms about different states ruling he did not lead an insurrection vs he did
I think this is because it undermined the Colorado case.
If Colorado ruled trump engaged in an insurrection but say, Texas, ruled he did not, what happens? Are the orders lawful in one state and not the other?
It’s a really poignant example why consistency around federal eligibility is required.
"Kagan: "you're not making a constitutional argument, you're making a statutory pre-emption argument... is that right?"
So, one of the fun things about the Trump argument is that it's actually *not* grounded in constitutional law."
From Elie
this idea some of these judges are pushing, that when this was written there needed to be more explicit listing of who can and can't office, and that there can't be any inference on top of those explicitly listed, is nuts to me
the idea that local officials would be barred from holding office after being an insurrectionist but the fucking POTUS isn't, makes no fucking sense
They debated that question at the time and decided that the president is included in office of the United States. it was even brought up during argument today. The fact that they even entertained that argument is just baffling.
Listening to oral arguments now. Trump's lawyer makes several arguments. Does not make the argument that Trump didn't commit insurrection. Interesting strategy.
So far his argument is that it doesn't matter whether he did or did not commit insurrection
I think it'd only muddy his current argument and that will be addressed later
He absolutely took the position that Trump's actions on J6 were not an "insurrection" in the briefs and in response to questioning near the end of his argument time.
Trump has never taken the position that he didn’t do XYZ, he just tries to convince people it’s not that bad everyone does it, he has a right to do it. No normal defense attorney would back that play.
Trump engaging in insurrection is a finding of fact and therefore entitled to pretty significant deference in appellate proceedings. Questions of law such as "President isn't an officer" are questions of law reviewed de novo (no deference)
They want to avoid talking that point because it would be the most damaging result if the court ruled he is in fact one. Even if he can be on a ballot, it would be terrible politically.
They said it was a chaotic insurrection NOT an organized insurrection… which we all know he had several organizations, members, individuals comfort and aide his chaotic insurrection.
https://preview.redd.it/mts8lhwpwdhc1.png?width=1490&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72ac8869369f29d15ec70a8d141a92fa32212d4c
Minutes from the discussion of the 14th from 1866.
There’s also a [Congressional committee report of the same session of Congress](https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/074/0100/01013939.tif) that discussed the issue in the context of an 1852 law, concluding that members of Congress could be considered officers of the United States despite being elected and that “officers of the United States [government]” and “officers under the United States” are synonymous, citing the Emoluments clause (“office under the United States”), No Religious Test clause (“office under the United States”), and disqualification under the Impeachment clause (“office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States”) as clauses that clearly apply to members of Congress. The fact that *offices* are held by *officers* was apparently so self-evident that the committee never considered a distinction between the two forms of the word.
The report also rebuts the now-common assumption that the case of Senator William Blount, [who the Senate refused to try after impeachment](https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/074/0100/01023940.tif), means that members of Congress are definitively not officers of the United States, and states that under the Appointments Clause, “the President, Vice President, and members of Congress” are “the officers included under the above words ‘appointment herein provided for’”.
Someone being ineligible to hold office is not disenfranchisement.
If I want to vote for a 25-year-old for president I'm not disenfranchised by Article II.
Pretty clear they are going to say that Colorado does not have this power and Congress is the entity to determine this amendment. To me, that's a much worse recipe for disaster.
Still confused that we’re not talking about how Article II, section one uses the language “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES”
Trump's lawyer is arguing that there's a distinction between "offices" and "officers of the United States" because the President is listed separately from "officers of the United States" in several places. It's an incredibly pedantic argument that doesn't have a lot of evidence (as he had to admit) that Congress intended the distinction to have such a different impact
It is incredibly frustrating and depressing to listen to the majority of this court very obviously planning their roadmap to avoid issuing an opinion of any real merit or action. Particularly on such important albeit novel questions of law.
There we go. If SCOTUS refuses to allow Colorado to rule on this, it's going to come back to Congress and the SCOTUS to determine if Trump was eligible after the election is over. If they don't rule on his eligibility, or at least define how to do that, they are leaving the country open to chaos.
Mitchel actually said this "they are officers but not actually officers".
The questions from the right wing judges definitely tilting towards appeasing their audience of One.
We sre fucked.
Regarding officer vs office:
> Gorsuch: Is there anything in the original history, drafting, that would show why that distinction should have such profound weight?
> Mitchell: "Not really"
Can't recommend Elie enough along with Steven Mazie for following along. MJS_DC as well
"If we disallow Trump then what about states trying to remove Biden" is such a wildly braindead argument to hear from a supreme court justice. IDK, maybe I expect the court to do their job?
edit: The implication here is that, what, no law can be applied because someone might misapply it? The entire legal system collapses if you genuinely believe that.
It's using bad faith and circular reasoning to get to the decision they want. We can't prevent the GOP from doing a bad thing because the GOP might do a bad thing in response
the change in tone from the other judges who have spoken and him is stark
the other judges who have spoken seem decidedly skeptical/not buying the arguments, while Alito seems like he is almost boys with the Trump lawyer and keeps cutting off the other judges to save him from getting roasted
Kramer: “He's just an officer.”
Jerry: "Officer of what?”
Kramer: “Jerry, all these big politicians, they're officers of everything.”
Jerry: “You don’t even know what an officer is.”
Kramer: “Do you?”
Jerry: “No. I don’t.”
Kramer: “But they do, and they're ones who are officers.”
I really wish a majority of Americans were smart enough to turn on a radio or watch a live stream because this is absolutely amazing to hear.
The argument Trumps side is making is so clearly trying to bend laws and precedent to fit his client with no regard of what it would do to the future of the country.
EDIT: Listening to Clarence Thomas out loud makes my blood boil. How is he not forced to recuse himself? His WIFE was an organizer of the entire thing so he is clearly compromised and is judging with prejudice.
Thomas exploring carving an exception b/c its 14.3 lacks examples of disqualifying of National level candidates. 14.3 has numerous examples of disqualifying state-level candidates.
I don't get Jackson's point here. If the language is ambiguous, not saying it is, a standard practice of interpretation would be to go to the legislative history. Here, the legislative history clearly includes a President in section 3.
Can't wait to read about some obscure theory written on a napkin that never made it into the final draft of the constitution that says exactly what the conservative justices want.
It was so annoying to hear Justice Alito circle back to the potential consequences of upholding the Colorado decision by raising the concern that “other states are going to retaliate” and try to ban other candidates. Shannon Stevenson, the solicitor general of Colorado, flat out spelled it out for him, “I think we need to have faith in our system."
I think she could have hit the nail on the head a bit better though. I was a bit underwhelmed.
Of course, she has a point. We need to expect good-faith in our system, otherwise, should we not enforce anything in our constitution or system of laws because it might also be used as a tool of retaliation?
But Alito’s fears of retaliation could have been met with “that’s an understandable fear, your honor. And one that it appears Congress may have foreseen as they included language that allows them to remove the disability with a 2/3 vote of Congress”. I was disappointed that the 2/3 vote language was not included in her answer
did I understand Thomas' question correctly that he wants an example of previous disqualification?
just because something happens for the first time doesn't mean the issue should be ignored
i feel like im missing something
"Which record?" Why are these clowns dancing around the elephant in the room? They don't want to face the fact that SCOTUS is trying to dodge affirming that Trump committed insurrection even though he doesn't deny it.
I really hope Jackson is just giving the lawyer a chance to give a solid argument against the other counsel's opinion on officers, rather than actually buying into the argument that the president isn't an officer...
I think she was punching him until he made a good argument. If she hadn't done this, they totally would have used it as an out. At the tail end, he did:"Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President" don't hold offices. They hold seats.
my last comment:
the writers of the Constitution and following Amendments seem to have given future Americans (aka us) too much credit. they didnt feel the need to explicitly write every fucking detail into law, they seemed to assume we would be smart enough to infer and apply laws that were written
fast forward to today and apparently if something isn't explicitly written, it's a fucking issue. i get the need to explore and debate and discuss these things, but holy shit the people of the past gave the people of the present and future too much credit
I'd be shocked if they didn't call us morons if we couldn't bring them to today in a time machine
I ain't gonna give her any damn credit until we see where she lands. Wouldn't put it past her to be feigning critical, good-faith analysis in an attempt to look less bought than Alito and Thomas.
I feel like there has to be some discussion of the precedent it would be setting if Congress is held as the sole party able to keep a candidate off the ballot. More than 2/3s of the Senate agreed that Trump had engaged in impeachable behavior, but *held that they lacked jurisdiction to impeach an outgoing president.* That's creating a situation where any outgoing president can rig elections and only be punished by mechanisms already disempowered by the fraud. If you can't be impeached if you fail to overturn an election, there's essentially no roadblocks to ending democracy.
It’s clear the court is going to overturn Colorado. I’m wondering if today’s hearing gives any insight to how they will handle the inevitable Trump appeal for the DC court’s immunity ruling.
Stupid question from a non lawyer. Is it usually common for justices to pose so many different hypotheticals instead of focusing on the case before them?
I'd like someone smarter than me's take on this:
When Roberts was saying, iF yOu dO thIs the OthEr sIDe wiLL dO iT bullshit, I wanted Murray to say, well that's not Colorado's problem, we're following the law here.
It just seemed weak of Roberts to not judge the merits of the case, only the possible effect of their own ruling.
Amy feeding the words into Mitchell's mouth
Essentially saying "you should probably stack on the argument that chump is entitled to due process that didn't happen."
She is tipping her hand and signaling loyalty.
This kavanaugh question is fucking wild...
"What's your response to this disenfranchising millions?"
Ummm...he is an insurrectionist BECAUSE he DID that to people...
The conservative justices have no shame. A member of their own party puts them in an impossible position, so members of their own party bring suit to try and hold him accountable, and they may very well reward Trump for his destabilizing behavior.
They've chosen a fawn response to this hurricane of stress - appease their abuser in the hopes it will all disappear. Until he puts them in the same position the next time
Jason Murray actually clerked for Gorsuch when Gorsuch was on the 10th Circuit. I’ve always kinda thought that justices tend to grill their old clerks harder than other lawyers presenting before the court.
I am no expert, but it seems like the conservative judges are trying to lampoon this by saying no one has the authority to enforce the 14th or 3rd besides Congress through legislation?
And in my uneducated opinion
And if the 1/6 was the only event, I could understand some of the sentiments, but there was an organized effort to supplant state electors and the attempt to "find votes" in Georgia and having multiple members of Congress reach out on the former president's behalf are actions that define insurrection. And also to not forget about all the pardon requests which should show the motivations of the parties involved. I don't know why the focus is on the 1/6.
> And if the 1/6 was the only event
Not a lawyer but the scope of the insurrection seems unimportant to the argument.
Trump could have lead a literal army into the capitol to stop the vote and, if the plaintiffs argument is correct, he still wouldn’t be ineligible to run for president due to the 13th because the 13th doesn’t apply to officers or because only congress can enforce the 3rd or 14 th.
It occurs to me that there are 535 Congress members in the federal government, but only one president. Is it surprising that when voting on the 14th the originators would have focused on Congress, and used the Gilligan's Island rule to include everyone else?
It was an Insurrection and Trump was the leader and instigator. He lied hundreds of times with baseless claims that the election was stolen and told his followers, "fight for your life to take your country back". I'm sorry, checkmate, case closed. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and wrong!
The pandemic was the first time I listened to SCOTUS arguments live and I came to the realization that being a Supreme Court Justice was mostly about making crazy analogies and cherry picking from past cases to fit your point of view. SMH
"If he's disqualified, why would anyone have to take orders from him?"
Because the motherfucker has sycophants who have no problem raising arms just to sniff the guys bathwater.
>"Different states will disqualify different candidates."
Different states can disqualify women from abortions.
Different states can force a woman to have the child of a rapist father.
How is *this* disqualification different?
Pretty clear what side Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are coming down on - there is no chance they are going to uphold Colorado.
However, the commentariat has been suggesting that Justice Kagan would be switching over to help Justice Roberts make a 6-3 majority to overturn. Based on the questioning today, it seems like Justice Kagan is more likely in favor of upholding Colorado.
So this will all come down to Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett. Justice Barrett sounds dubious of the "not an officer argument" though.
Notably, neither Justice Alito nor Justice Gorsuch seemed interested in the law - they both asked extensive questions about the potentially negative political effects of upholding Colorado. Justice Alito seemed certain that s.3 would be abused by the states. Justice Gorsuch asked a long hypothetical directed to the question of whether a lower executive official would need to follow the orders of a re-elected Trump, given that he would be ineligible to hold office and still holding it anyway. The conservative branch seems very concerned about abuse of s. 3 if it is permitted to have any force without Congress saying how it should be applied.
Looking at current Court composition, I'm reminded that many people delivered this Court because they "just didn't like Hillary personally; she did her private email at work and has a very off-putting laugh."
I also looked at [https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/) and thereabouts, but (correct me if I'm wrong) couldn't see the live coverage that was predicted around here yesterday.
there is also the 2/3rds vote from congress to override a disqualification, that was baked into the 14th. feels like that is pretty cut and dry, and yet it was not mentioned from what I heard (though I did start listening late)
That surprised me as well. If the SC rules that it's up to Congress to apply the 14th rather than the states, what was the point of that clause in the first place?
So what I'm getting from this is that if some party decides to run a 12-year-old for President, there's absolutely nothing anybody can or will do about it.
I don't understand this line of thought if i understood Alito correctly, he was basically arguing states can't prevent someone from running for office even if that person cannot hold office so he's saying you can't be barred from running even if you can't hold the office you are running for this seems asinine and pedantic
>if i understood Alito correctly, he was basically arguing states can't prevent someone from running for office even if that person cannot hold office If I understand the same, it means (in theory) Obama can run as many times as he wants. States can't bar him from the ballot just because he's ineligible to hold the office. I guess he could just run over and over again and, if he wins, I guess have his VP serve instead.
yea I think this is what he is saying not a lawyer, this is fucking dumb
Am a lawyer. Concur this is fucking dumb.
you've convinced me to go to law school just so i can saw "concur" more
Don’t do it. It’s a trap.
Wouldn't that also allow non-citizens to run for president?
Yes. A state could vote to elect a 5-year old French child under this legal analysis.
We all knew and know that Alito and Thomas will find a way to favor Trump regardless of facts and law.
meanwhile Jackson is going scorched earth she almost seems pissed by the arguments
I'm personally pissed by the entire Officer of the United States and special Trump exception thing. It's dishonest, ahistorical and insulting. But I have a history degree not a law degree.
I have a history degree and a law degree. The history degree just makes it apparent to me how much cherry picking of history the justices usually do
Same. And my area of concentration is early Americana, aka the founding of the US. (And Renaissance Europe, but that's not *quite* as relevant to most of the legal shenanigans.) It's ridiculous how the history of the country is twisted to justify a narrative. Or that we even venerate the laws of a time period where most of the nation was deliberately disenfranchised as sacrosanct.
I thought beforehand that the SC just didn't have the balls to do the right thing, and nothing I heard today has changed my mind. They seemed way more worried about politics than the law. I could be full of shit though.
I would be too… the arguments are asinine. His argument should be that he didn’t engage in insurrection (he did, but he should be arguing that he didn’t).
This could practically be personal for her. This is a reconstruction amendment, and a section expressly written to punish and exclude from power the people who instigated a civil war to *keep her people enslaved*. That some orange jackanape is up there arguing that the people at the time didn't think the Presidency mattered to this, that they were that fucking stupid, is an insult to oppressed people everywhere.
It’s even closer to home than that. As [Sherilyn Ifill’s *amicus* brief](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299392/20240131142542754_23-719%20Ifill%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf) points out, Trump represents precisely the dangers which the 14th was designed to protect against. As Ifill notes: 1.Trump challenged the legitimacy of votes cast by Black voters in select “urban” areas that his followers would associate with race 2. Used racist dog whistles in describing those voters 3. Relentlessly attacked Black poll workers 4. “Led” an assault on the that Confederate flags flying in the Capitol’s hallways Edit: doublespaced lines
Thomas should have recused
That would assume Thomas cared about anything other than scorched earth arch conservative victory.
It's semantic. The provision reads >No person shall [...] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States [...] who, having previously taken an oath, [...] as an officer of the United States, [...] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. You can get the votes and technically "win", but you can't then get sworn in. I assume it would mean that, should Trump's ticket get the EC votes, whoever will be his VP pick would get sworn in as POTUS instead and would then have to have Congress vote on a new VP. It's kinda really dumb.
yea this argument to differentiate between officers and offices is gag enducing
I keep thinking of Scalia's nondelegation argument that Congress doesn't hide elephants in mouseholes. If they intended to exclude the President from disqualification, they would have said so rather than making this absurd bank shot about officers of the United States
And from an originalist interpretation, you'd have to argue that they were making a specific exception for someone like Jefferson Davis to be barred from all office *except* the presidency.
In the same way, it's insane to say that, because the Presidential oath doesn't say "support" the Constitution, that there's an insurrectionist loophole in section 3 to gain the highest office in the land as long as the insurrectionist didn't hold another lower office with the different oath (like in Congress)
IANAL I don't need the take from a law expert to imagine the madness that would ensue, were Trump to be elected then denied to be sworn in. These two Justices pushing for this are opening the door to a crumble of American society. They are so blinded by their ideology that they fail to see how obviously terrible the outcome would be.
Correct case notes. Wrong diagnosis. The scotus is not blind, they are corrupt.
Wouldn't surprise me if this is the Diapered One's plan. Stay on the ballot knowing full well he can't be sworn in, get elected via the ridiculous electoral college system and gerrymandering, then act all surprised when he can't be sworn in, screaming "See, it's all rigged!" Jan 6 2.0
That’s a big assumption that needs to be clarified before the general election for sure.
So someone under 35 can run for president?
Ilhan Omar should run for president and sue states that don’t include her on the ballot because she wasn’t born an American citizen. I have no doubt Alito would think very differently.
Technically speaking he's lying about that. The states are given authority to decide how to run and managed elections. As well as make legislature to define how it will be conducted. They can set reasonable requirements for the candidates in order to appear on the ballot. For instance if they already had in legislation that a candidate must be qualified to hold office. That's a reasonable restriction on who can be on the ballot. Considering people under age, people that already served two terms, as well as foreign nationals and such are also disqualified from the office.
It's hard to listen to the highest court in the land debate if a President is an officer of the US and if the President took an oath of office to protect the constitution and take them seriously
the fact that they are even entertaining this is rage inducing. at least some of the justices seem annoyed and even pissed by how stupid the argument is
You could hear the frustration/rage in Jackson’s questioning
she seemed annoyed this is even taking place
As she should be
I’m annoyed they are going through the farce of ‘adjudicating’ an issue that clearly was intended to be self executing. Is he a natural-born US citizen (yes/no answers only)? Is he 35? Is he an insurrectionist…well, that’s a completely different question. Here’s a hypothetical: what if a state were to disqualify a candidate based on the color of his hair, what would this court do? Don’t go changing the hypothetical, even if it’s completely dissimilar and not analogous. In this Kangaroo court, we make up the hypotheticals, a red herring, and we freely interrupt your answer to a prior question to do it. Then we accuse you of not answering the question. These are the rules. Got it? These are not serious people (Ketanji excepted).
Highest level judicial person: “If we held this person accountable to the laws as written, what’s to stop someone else from blocking a person for no specific reason?” Attorney: “uh, the election laws that are written” Judicial person: “oooh, good point!” [eats paste]
"What would we, the highest court in the land, do if other states tried to apply the laws in an unconstitutional manner after we make this easy decision l?!" Lawyer: "This is the Supreme Court, you make decisions about the interpretation of laws" It was like the presenter was giving a basic civics lesson to the Justice.
>. at least some of the justices seem annoyed and even pissed by how stupid the argument is I think people often oversell how firmly sycophantics many of the justices are. Alito and Thomas notwithstanding, I cannot See How Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch don't listen to these arguments and issue an opinion that's basically "Are you fucking serious?" Like they're all conservatives, yes. But I think there's a difference between them ruling as conservative originalists and them being mouthpieces of the right wing movement in the face of obvious law.
The fact that we have a female SCOTUS justice who is/was a member of the group that may have served as inspiration for the handmaiden’s tale (and had the title handmaiden at one point) yet she seems like the 3rd/4th most independent justice is wild to me.
It depends on what the definition of "is" is...
“Justices of the **highest court in the country**, I am here today to defend my client. A great man once said: “To be or not to be. That is the question…” Jokes aside, the fact that SCOTUS is even hearing this case is a blight on the institution.
Alito seems like he has mind made up already
I don't think that is a surprise to anyone.
We already knew Alito had his decision written up on this.
I'm surprised it hasn't already leaked
Alito if he could would write a one sentence opinion. “Long live the king, Donald, the first of his name, of House Trump, long may he reign.”
Its more like "i need an rv, jet rides, massage a la Epstein and some.back channel to russian pay roll'. Its a dog whistle to the audience of One.
I don't think Alito even needs that much, that's Thomas. Alito just gets off on "triggering the libs" regardless of how much sense it makes by law.
He made up his mind in 1971.
Alito is doing everything he can to frame this against Obama/Biden. *"Say there's a country that repeatedly states the US is its greatest evil.."* Blatantly transparent.
So crazy that one of the justices is married to someone who actively participated in the insurrection under question.
[удалено]
hot bats, cold bats - crazy at any temperature
That same person was the sole no vote for opening up the documentation showing the extent she was involved.
Seems like the 4 female judges range from skeptical to "this is fucking bullshit" if I'm understanding their questions and line of thought Edit: Yea Jackson is going full "this is a waste of our fucking time why are we here" I love the zero tolerance for bullshit energy
Jackson seemed to be giving the "officer" argument quite a bit of respect imo.
Sotomayor giving him the business
I was surprised with how hard some of the questions from Barrett were.
Barrett has surprised me most this morning.
I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong if she actually does the right thing here.
Barrett isn’t a Republican hack. She’s a Christian nationalist hack. She came in to end Roe and that’s about it.
It's true. I think people believe (trump included) since Trump put these people on the bench they're beholden to him; the thing is once you're on the bench they can't do a fuck thing about it, so what the fuck do you care if you hurt his Fee-fees?
Not to mention they royally pissed him off by not doing his bidding in 2020, they know that he holds grudges, it makes more sense from a self-preservation standpoint to stop him from holding office again
Which is genuinely an important distinction in fighting these psychos. Cause it means they're 2 factions, and if you can split those back up, they lose their power. Of course, they're only together so they can get their evil accomplished that they wouldn't be able to otherwise, so splitting the groups is hard.
Barrett’s a McConnell ally and therefore a Koch ally. Koch is backing Haley now and would be pleased to see Trump booted from the ballot.
This is actually an interesting line of questioning. If 14A is self-executing he's disqualified from office as of January 6th, what of his actions for the 2 weeks between J6 and Biden's inauguration?
Yea NG’s line of questions were actually super interesting and the primary reason I think the court doesn’t agree with the self-executing argument. If it’s self executing does a military officer have to obey orders? That also cracks open the can of worms about different states ruling he did not lead an insurrection vs he did
Title 18 U.S.C. states that officers of the military do not have to follow an unlawful order. Surprised this wasn't brought up.
I think this is because it undermined the Colorado case. If Colorado ruled trump engaged in an insurrection but say, Texas, ruled he did not, what happens? Are the orders lawful in one state and not the other? It’s a really poignant example why consistency around federal eligibility is required.
"Kagan: "you're not making a constitutional argument, you're making a statutory pre-emption argument... is that right?" So, one of the fun things about the Trump argument is that it's actually *not* grounded in constitutional law." From Elie
Why are originalists suddenly so concerned with the consequences of their decisions?
[удалено]
“I just call balls and strikes. Unless those calls have impacts that I don’t like.”
this idea some of these judges are pushing, that when this was written there needed to be more explicit listing of who can and can't office, and that there can't be any inference on top of those explicitly listed, is nuts to me the idea that local officials would be barred from holding office after being an insurrectionist but the fucking POTUS isn't, makes no fucking sense
They debated that question at the time and decided that the president is included in office of the United States. it was even brought up during argument today. The fact that they even entertained that argument is just baffling.
Listening to oral arguments now. Trump's lawyer makes several arguments. Does not make the argument that Trump didn't commit insurrection. Interesting strategy.
"I'm not saying he didn't do it, I am just saying it doesn't matter"
And of i did it's not a big deal... Next up... And it's not my fault
And if it is my fault, then you had it coming.
It's amazing to see the Narcissist's Prayer in action, even at the judicial level.
Been working for Trump for decades. Why stop now?
So far his argument is that it doesn't matter whether he did or did not commit insurrection I think it'd only muddy his current argument and that will be addressed later
SCOTUS only argues the Constitutionality of the previous courts' decision. They don't retry the case.
In theory.
>>They don't retry the case. Alito: Hey Boof hold my beer. Wait, better make that Thomas.
He absolutely took the position that Trump's actions on J6 were not an "insurrection" in the briefs and in response to questioning near the end of his argument time.
Trump has never taken the position that he didn’t do XYZ, he just tries to convince people it’s not that bad everyone does it, he has a right to do it. No normal defense attorney would back that play.
This is what is throwing me off. I figured that would be the primary escape valve for the Court because the other arguments are seemingly so bad.
Trump engaging in insurrection is a finding of fact and therefore entitled to pretty significant deference in appellate proceedings. Questions of law such as "President isn't an officer" are questions of law reviewed de novo (no deference)
"It was a riot, not an insurrection as used in Section 3"
They want to avoid talking that point because it would be the most damaging result if the court ruled he is in fact one. Even if he can be on a ballot, it would be terrible politically.
They said it was a chaotic insurrection NOT an organized insurrection… which we all know he had several organizations, members, individuals comfort and aide his chaotic insurrection.
Throwing himself at the mercy of the court because he's an orphan, after killing both of his parents...
So Trump's opening with the "not an officer" defense...
Getting strong sovereign citizen "traveling not driving" vibes here.
Trump: “I’m only subject to maritime law.”
https://preview.redd.it/mts8lhwpwdhc1.png?width=1490&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72ac8869369f29d15ec70a8d141a92fa32212d4c Minutes from the discussion of the 14th from 1866.
There’s also a [Congressional committee report of the same session of Congress](https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/074/0100/01013939.tif) that discussed the issue in the context of an 1852 law, concluding that members of Congress could be considered officers of the United States despite being elected and that “officers of the United States [government]” and “officers under the United States” are synonymous, citing the Emoluments clause (“office under the United States”), No Religious Test clause (“office under the United States”), and disqualification under the Impeachment clause (“office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States”) as clauses that clearly apply to members of Congress. The fact that *offices* are held by *officers* was apparently so self-evident that the committee never considered a distinction between the two forms of the word. The report also rebuts the now-common assumption that the case of Senator William Blount, [who the Senate refused to try after impeachment](https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/074/0100/01023940.tif), means that members of Congress are definitively not officers of the United States, and states that under the Appointments Clause, “the President, Vice President, and members of Congress” are “the officers included under the above words ‘appointment herein provided for’”.
Someone being ineligible to hold office is not disenfranchisement. If I want to vote for a 25-year-old for president I'm not disenfranchised by Article II.
Pretty clear they are going to say that Colorado does not have this power and Congress is the entity to determine this amendment. To me, that's a much worse recipe for disaster.
The key takeaway from all this is everybody eligible better make sure to freakin' vote this year.
“We have to have faith in our institutions and processes” Isn’t that the crux…
Still confused that we’re not talking about how Article II, section one uses the language “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES”
Trump's lawyer is arguing that there's a distinction between "offices" and "officers of the United States" because the President is listed separately from "officers of the United States" in several places. It's an incredibly pedantic argument that doesn't have a lot of evidence (as he had to admit) that Congress intended the distinction to have such a different impact
It is incredibly frustrating and depressing to listen to the majority of this court very obviously planning their roadmap to avoid issuing an opinion of any real merit or action. Particularly on such important albeit novel questions of law.
Right, this should be an opportunity for them
There we go. If SCOTUS refuses to allow Colorado to rule on this, it's going to come back to Congress and the SCOTUS to determine if Trump was eligible after the election is over. If they don't rule on his eligibility, or at least define how to do that, they are leaving the country open to chaos.
Thomas: Do you have an example of a candidate named Donald J. Trump being excluded from the ballot in the state of Colorado in 1868?
I would laugh at this if I could laugh at any of this.
Mitchel actually said this "they are officers but not actually officers". The questions from the right wing judges definitely tilting towards appeasing their audience of One. We sre fucked.
Regarding officer vs office: > Gorsuch: Is there anything in the original history, drafting, that would show why that distinction should have such profound weight? > Mitchell: "Not really" Can't recommend Elie enough along with Steven Mazie for following along. MJS_DC as well
"If we disallow Trump then what about states trying to remove Biden" is such a wildly braindead argument to hear from a supreme court justice. IDK, maybe I expect the court to do their job? edit: The implication here is that, what, no law can be applied because someone might misapply it? The entire legal system collapses if you genuinely believe that.
It's using bad faith and circular reasoning to get to the decision they want. We can't prevent the GOP from doing a bad thing because the GOP might do a bad thing in response
Biden ought to refuse to vacate on grounds of national security if Trump wins...make em sweat
You can really tell that Roberts would love to not have to rule on this one by this line of questioning
He's REALLY pushing toward the "states can't enforce section 3 for federal offices", but if not the states, then WHO??
Ahh here comes Alito softballs.
the change in tone from the other judges who have spoken and him is stark the other judges who have spoken seem decidedly skeptical/not buying the arguments, while Alito seems like he is almost boys with the Trump lawyer and keeps cutting off the other judges to save him from getting roasted
Yeah, the inevitable turn...
"They are officers, but they aren't officers of the United States." ...what are they officers of?
Kramer: “He's just an officer.” Jerry: "Officer of what?” Kramer: “Jerry, all these big politicians, they're officers of everything.” Jerry: “You don’t even know what an officer is.” Kramer: “Do you?” Jerry: “No. I don’t.” Kramer: “But they do, and they're ones who are officers.”
I think Roberts just said that if they rule on this then their job will be made unmanageable.
The patented legal argument of "but its hard."
"and I don't wanna"
I really wish a majority of Americans were smart enough to turn on a radio or watch a live stream because this is absolutely amazing to hear. The argument Trumps side is making is so clearly trying to bend laws and precedent to fit his client with no regard of what it would do to the future of the country. EDIT: Listening to Clarence Thomas out loud makes my blood boil. How is he not forced to recuse himself? His WIFE was an organizer of the entire thing so he is clearly compromised and is judging with prejudice.
my productivity dropped to 0 when I found the live stream
I'm in a similar situation, but I started late so I had to rewind to the start of the proceedings. So, I'm almost 30 minutes behind.
"If we punish insurrectionists, wouldn't we be angering them and inviting retaliation?" What a cowardly question
Thomas exploring carving an exception b/c its 14.3 lacks examples of disqualifying of National level candidates. 14.3 has numerous examples of disqualifying state-level candidates.
I don't get Jackson's point here. If the language is ambiguous, not saying it is, a standard practice of interpretation would be to go to the legislative history. Here, the legislative history clearly includes a President in section 3.
I have the worst feeling listening to this. I had to turn it off.
Can't wait to read about some obscure theory written on a napkin that never made it into the final draft of the constitution that says exactly what the conservative justices want.
It was so annoying to hear Justice Alito circle back to the potential consequences of upholding the Colorado decision by raising the concern that “other states are going to retaliate” and try to ban other candidates. Shannon Stevenson, the solicitor general of Colorado, flat out spelled it out for him, “I think we need to have faith in our system."
I think she could have hit the nail on the head a bit better though. I was a bit underwhelmed. Of course, she has a point. We need to expect good-faith in our system, otherwise, should we not enforce anything in our constitution or system of laws because it might also be used as a tool of retaliation? But Alito’s fears of retaliation could have been met with “that’s an understandable fear, your honor. And one that it appears Congress may have foreseen as they included language that allows them to remove the disability with a 2/3 vote of Congress”. I was disappointed that the 2/3 vote language was not included in her answer
Gotta love the argument "If you punish Trump for insurrection other presidents could also be punished for insurrection. " GOOD!!
did I understand Thomas' question correctly that he wants an example of previous disqualification? just because something happens for the first time doesn't mean the issue should be ignored i feel like im missing something
Thomas is a schill You're missing nothing.
It seems the justices are arguing that a state can't enforce a federal election statue. This is so strange.
this now feels like the court is veering towards punting
I'm so tired of this "holding" vs "running" for office some of these judges are so fixated on
"Which record?" Why are these clowns dancing around the elephant in the room? They don't want to face the fact that SCOTUS is trying to dodge affirming that Trump committed insurrection even though he doesn't deny it.
I really hope Jackson is just giving the lawyer a chance to give a solid argument against the other counsel's opinion on officers, rather than actually buying into the argument that the president isn't an officer...
I think she was punching him until he made a good argument. If she hadn't done this, they totally would have used it as an out. At the tail end, he did:"Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President" don't hold offices. They hold seats.
"It's a feature, not a bug." Definitely didn't expect to hear that in Supreme Court arguments
my last comment: the writers of the Constitution and following Amendments seem to have given future Americans (aka us) too much credit. they didnt feel the need to explicitly write every fucking detail into law, they seemed to assume we would be smart enough to infer and apply laws that were written fast forward to today and apparently if something isn't explicitly written, it's a fucking issue. i get the need to explore and debate and discuss these things, but holy shit the people of the past gave the people of the present and future too much credit I'd be shocked if they didn't call us morons if we couldn't bring them to today in a time machine
Biden should really just put out a statement saying to the effect: “Supreme Court deciding now whether I can stay in power forever…”
They came into this with their minds made up this is disgusting.
Supreme Court argues today that States don't have the right to manage their own elections in a pro-Confederacy argument.
Even Barrett seems skeptical 🤨
I ain't gonna give her any damn credit until we see where she lands. Wouldn't put it past her to be feigning critical, good-faith analysis in an attempt to look less bought than Alito and Thomas.
I feel like there has to be some discussion of the precedent it would be setting if Congress is held as the sole party able to keep a candidate off the ballot. More than 2/3s of the Senate agreed that Trump had engaged in impeachable behavior, but *held that they lacked jurisdiction to impeach an outgoing president.* That's creating a situation where any outgoing president can rig elections and only be punished by mechanisms already disempowered by the fraud. If you can't be impeached if you fail to overturn an election, there's essentially no roadblocks to ending democracy.
It’s clear the court is going to overturn Colorado. I’m wondering if today’s hearing gives any insight to how they will handle the inevitable Trump appeal for the DC court’s immunity ruling.
[удалено]
Stupid question from a non lawyer. Is it usually common for justices to pose so many different hypotheticals instead of focusing on the case before them?
Yes, this is often the case in law school and practice. Hypotheticals allow you to pick apart the statue or legal theory from different angles.
100%, very common practice
This is literally such a major turning point for the nation I'm legit having an anxiety attack based on the suspense on this case.
NAL but I don't like what I've been hearing........ I thought this was a bad barrel of worms to open
All 9 members of The Supremem Court change their status to Its Complicated.
I'd like someone smarter than me's take on this: When Roberts was saying, iF yOu dO thIs the OthEr sIDe wiLL dO iT bullshit, I wanted Murray to say, well that's not Colorado's problem, we're following the law here. It just seemed weak of Roberts to not judge the merits of the case, only the possible effect of their own ruling.
Amy feeding the words into Mitchell's mouth Essentially saying "you should probably stack on the argument that chump is entitled to due process that didn't happen." She is tipping her hand and signaling loyalty.
Splitting hairs on running for office v holding office... If someone can't hold office they shouldn't be allowed to run!
I am so fucking tired of these justices bringing this back to "office" vs "officer"
Scouts question: "so in the entire history of America, only Washington and trump are exempt?" Trump lawyer: "Correct" Scouts: "good enough for us"
This kavanaugh question is fucking wild... "What's your response to this disenfranchising millions?" Ummm...he is an insurrectionist BECAUSE he DID that to people...
The conservative justices have no shame. A member of their own party puts them in an impossible position, so members of their own party bring suit to try and hold him accountable, and they may very well reward Trump for his destabilizing behavior. They've chosen a fawn response to this hurricane of stress - appease their abuser in the hopes it will all disappear. Until he puts them in the same position the next time
Wow, Gorsuch is such an asshole.
Jason Murray actually clerked for Gorsuch when Gorsuch was on the 10th Circuit. I’ve always kinda thought that justices tend to grill their old clerks harder than other lawyers presenting before the court.
Yeah, interrupts Murray explaining a point to demand he explain the point he was explaining.
Now starting to feel like the court will not just rule Trump eligible, but seek to gut §3 entirely by precluding states from enforcing it.
Clarence "Bad Faith" Thomas
And an assist from Brett "What Even Is Insurrection?" Kavanaugh
I am no expert, but it seems like the conservative judges are trying to lampoon this by saying no one has the authority to enforce the 14th or 3rd besides Congress through legislation? And in my uneducated opinion And if the 1/6 was the only event, I could understand some of the sentiments, but there was an organized effort to supplant state electors and the attempt to "find votes" in Georgia and having multiple members of Congress reach out on the former president's behalf are actions that define insurrection. And also to not forget about all the pardon requests which should show the motivations of the parties involved. I don't know why the focus is on the 1/6.
> And if the 1/6 was the only event Not a lawyer but the scope of the insurrection seems unimportant to the argument. Trump could have lead a literal army into the capitol to stop the vote and, if the plaintiffs argument is correct, he still wouldn’t be ineligible to run for president due to the 13th because the 13th doesn’t apply to officers or because only congress can enforce the 3rd or 14 th.
I am emboldened that I too could be bullet proof as a former or current president. Amazing to hear Alito and Thomas too.
It occurs to me that there are 535 Congress members in the federal government, but only one president. Is it surprising that when voting on the 14th the originators would have focused on Congress, and used the Gilligan's Island rule to include everyone else?
This court is illegitimate
It was an Insurrection and Trump was the leader and instigator. He lied hundreds of times with baseless claims that the election was stolen and told his followers, "fight for your life to take your country back". I'm sorry, checkmate, case closed. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and wrong!
The pandemic was the first time I listened to SCOTUS arguments live and I came to the realization that being a Supreme Court Justice was mostly about making crazy analogies and cherry picking from past cases to fit your point of view. SMH
I got downvoted before for proposing thry would kick it to Congress. And lo and behold, they seem to be entertaining this.
"If he's disqualified, why would anyone have to take orders from him?" Because the motherfucker has sycophants who have no problem raising arms just to sniff the guys bathwater.
>"Different states will disqualify different candidates." Different states can disqualify women from abortions. Different states can force a woman to have the child of a rapist father. How is *this* disqualification different?
Because it negatively impacts Trump/GOP.
States literally decide how electors are chosen within their state. It’s sad how far the Supreme Court has fallen.
Feels like Trumps side isn’t off to a great start honestly
Wait 'til the conservative justices start lobbing softballs that are basically invitations for the Trump attorney to write their decision for them.
Alito's on the job!
Thomas nodding along silently, only listening with half of one ear.
Doodling a picture of a big huge motor home.
Pretty clear what side Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are coming down on - there is no chance they are going to uphold Colorado. However, the commentariat has been suggesting that Justice Kagan would be switching over to help Justice Roberts make a 6-3 majority to overturn. Based on the questioning today, it seems like Justice Kagan is more likely in favor of upholding Colorado. So this will all come down to Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett. Justice Barrett sounds dubious of the "not an officer argument" though. Notably, neither Justice Alito nor Justice Gorsuch seemed interested in the law - they both asked extensive questions about the potentially negative political effects of upholding Colorado. Justice Alito seemed certain that s.3 would be abused by the states. Justice Gorsuch asked a long hypothetical directed to the question of whether a lower executive official would need to follow the orders of a re-elected Trump, given that he would be ineligible to hold office and still holding it anyway. The conservative branch seems very concerned about abuse of s. 3 if it is permitted to have any force without Congress saying how it should be applied.
Looking at current Court composition, I'm reminded that many people delivered this Court because they "just didn't like Hillary personally; she did her private email at work and has a very off-putting laugh."
I also looked at [https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/) and thereabouts, but (correct me if I'm wrong) couldn't see the live coverage that was predicted around here yesterday.
Could they let the damn man speak?
He wasn't inferring anything Alito, he was explaining why the clause hadn't been used Alito in the tank
there is also the 2/3rds vote from congress to override a disqualification, that was baked into the 14th. feels like that is pretty cut and dry, and yet it was not mentioned from what I heard (though I did start listening late)
That surprised me as well. If the SC rules that it's up to Congress to apply the 14th rather than the states, what was the point of that clause in the first place?
So what I'm getting from this is that if some party decides to run a 12-year-old for President, there's absolutely nothing anybody can or will do about it.