re: Place your bets now for what SCOTUS does with the Colorado Ballot case

quote:

---

This is a fresh Constitutional issue with no real precedents.

---

No shite. Gee, I wonder why.

quote:

---

States do not have the authority to interfere with Federal elections.

---

States have immense authority to regulate elections. The Supreme Court has recently given the states incredible powers in this area. A Presidential election isn't even a "federal" election. Electors who vote for the President are chosen via state election.

quote:

---

One where a POTUS cannot be criminally charged while in office (which I think is the right answer - that’s what impeachments and elections are for - esp given the adage - “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. It makes political targeting reality )

Or do they intentionally leave that door open?

---

We're talking about the Colorado case. None of that will be addressed in the majority opinion.

Now the DC case? They will have to decide a lot of those issues.

Isn't that like 95% of the way decisions come down? With someone different writing the majority opinion.

Two justices will definitely side with Colorado, and they were diversity appointments.

Reversed 8-1, with Affirmative Action Jackson being the dissenter.

The United States Constitution no longer matters to a large number of people.

Power and control are all that do.

The only reason it'll be 9-0 is if 2 or 3 Justices who'd normally go along with it decide that it's so bad, they can't invent a reason to dissent.

Based on past rulings, that's a pretty high bar.

will the supremes sanction the states fracking with the election as was done to about 10 southern states in the '90's. States fracking around should be required to have any voting changes approved prior to implementation

quote:

---

I think it's 7-2 just so that the 2 dissenters can write their opinion. I'm guessing Sontamayor and KBJ.

---

I'm no lawyer, but I agree w/ this on slightly different grounds; KBJ is a Marxist, and Sotomayor is the dumbest jurist to ever sit on the SCOTUS bench.

I think the OP is pretty close, with just a few changes:

The majority opinion will state the clause does not apply to a POTUS who never took oath for a different political office before becoming POTUS.

That finding, though, will leave open the question of the clause's applicability to other political figures, both State and Federal.

Thomas will write a concurring opinion expressly stating the facts of the case do not support finding Trump engaged in insurrection. Alito might join him.

Others will not address the factual finding except to say Trump was not granted sufficient due process.

At that point I think many of you will be surprised by the mix of opinions. This is not really a conservative or liberal issue; it is a question of what exactly the Republican Congress in the 1860s was trying to accomplish.

Some will say that by repealing sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress was ceasing Enforcement of Section 3. Others will fall right in line with the law review article written by the Federalist Society members and leave open the possibility of disqualifying people for lower offices.

There are so many potential issues, I can't see just a blanket ruling that the clause does not apply to a President.