• Light/Dark

Trump on Trial - Episode 6 |OT| The One with the One Weird Trick (UP: only Congress can enforce 14th amendment v federal officers)

Reader mode
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
We've now got a SCOTUS docket for Trump's petition. There's nothing on it for now except the petition and a letter from CRSCC agreeing with it.

So there are definitely - at least for now - two separate and parallel appeals.

All linked in the OP.

Response to the petition is due 5 Feb, so it seems this one at least is not being expidited.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
CREW are not hanging around here. They've already on 4 Jan filed a response to Trump's SCOTUS petition, which wasn't due until 5 Feb!

It is a thorough piece of work. It objects strongly to Trump's framing of the issue, supports the granting of certiorari, points out that the trial delays in Denver that Trump complains are unconstitutional were at Trump's request, and so on.

The questions they propose the court decide are:

1. Whether a challenge to the constitutional qualifications of a candidate for President presents a non-justiciable political question?
2. Whether the Presidency and the President fall within the list of offices and officers to which Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies?
3. Whether states may exclude from the ballot candidates who are ineligible to hold office under Section 3?
4. Whether Congress must first pass legislation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment before a state can enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, even if state law provides a cause of action to enforce it?
5. Whether, by intentionally mobilizing, inciting, and encouraging the violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Trump "engaged in insurrection" against the Constitution for purposes of Section 3?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Version 3.0

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,427
phisheep said:
And Republican Senators have filed an amicus brief in both cases, which makes the interesting and new argument that as Section Three only bars insurrectionists from holding office, and since Congress can at any time remove that disability by a two-thirds majority, it would be unconstitutional to prevent insurrectionists from running for office. That'll put a real spanner in the works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh, by all means, Republicans, get the Supreme Court to let your voters lock Trump in as your nominee while potentially being not even eligible to be President. It was bad enough when their argument was "Constitutional eligibility doesn't apply to a private political party's primary".

I don't understand why they want to field these arguments to punt the decision, and just end up back here in a matter of months anyway. Just move it along; the Supreme Court is probably going to stand on its head and rule in Trump's favor anyway.


5. Whether, by intentionally mobilizing, inciting, and encouraging the violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Trump "engaged in insurrection" against the Constitution for purposes of Section 3?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If the Supreme Court answered this question "no", what would that do to the D.C. case?
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
Version 3.0 said:
If the Supreme Court answered this question "no", what would that do to the D.C. case?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Probably nothing. In the DC case Trump is charged with specific federal felonies, none of which contain the word 'insurrrection'. What counts as an insurrection for the purposes of the 14th amendment is a different thing.
 
Version 3.0

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,427
phisheep said:
Probably nothing. In the DC case Trump is charged with specific federal felonies, none of which contain the word 'insurrrection'. What counts as an insurrection for the purposes of the 14th amendment is a different thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thanks, that's a relief. Because if I were a SC justice, and I wanted to leave Trump on the ballot, but also not look like a clown for dumping all over the clear text and intent of the 14th, and precedent in earlier 14th amendment cases, I think I would pick #5 and just say "technically doesn't qualify as insurrection".
 
Sheepinator

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,180
Lindsay did say they would be destroyed. They've gone from being too chicken to vote him ineligible in the Senate in 2021, to supporting a dictator King who wants full immunity for everything.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
A few more filings in SCOTUS Colorado Republican State Central Committee v Anderson et al (the first of the SCOTUS cases):

CRSCC reply on certiorari - so the petition is now fully briefed. The reply basically just trashes the Anderson brief.

Trump has waived his right to respond.

Two more amicus briefs, of no great interest.

This case at least is now ready for SCOTUS to rule whether to take it. Or both, if the cases get consolidated, as they should be.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
Two more amicus briefs in SCOTUS Trump v Anderson et al (the second SCOTUS case)

5 Jan 2024 - Republican National Committee amicus brief (14th amendment only applies after an election, etc)
5 Jan 2024 - 27 states and the Arizona Legislature amicus brief (return the power to congress where it belongs)

No prizes for guessing which 27 states!
 

Allard

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,952
That decision also guarantees Trump will be on the primary ballot in Colorado, if an in junction is held before January 6th that means the ballot must remain as is with him on it. Its what was expected, what I am curious is what might happen for general election ballot with this decision. They really need to make a decision before too much of the primary season starts up.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
Curious that they've granted Trump v Anderson, but not CRSCC v Anderson. I expected it would be the other way round, or consolidated. I'll have a think about that tomorrow.
 
B-Dubs

B-Dubs

That's some catch, that catch-22
General Manager
Oct 25, 2017
33,314
Allard said:
That decision also guarantees Trump will be on the primary ballot in Colorado, if an in junction is held before January 6th that means the ballot must remain as is with him on it. Its what was expected, what I am curious is what might happen for general election ballot with this decision. They really need to make a decision before too much of the primary season starts up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They're almost certainly going to let him run and say it's because Congress should be deciding this and not the states.
 
RexNovis

RexNovis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,299
Allard said:
That decision also guarantees Trump will be on the primary ballot in Colorado, if an in junction is held before January 6th that means the ballot must remain as is with him on it. Its what was expected, what I am curious is what might happen for general election ballot with this decision. They really need to make a decision before too much of the primary season starts up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The decision will almost assuredly be to let him run it's just a matter of what sort of logical pretzels they will contort themselves into to make it actually happen. They can't be too broad with it or they'd effectively be ruling that presidents are above the law entirely. I'm sure they'll come up with some absurd way as to why their ruling only applies to Trump or this specific situation or something.
 
SteamyPunk

SteamyPunk

Member
Oct 26, 2017
476
B-Dubs said:
They're almost certainly going to let him run and say it's because Congress should be deciding this and not the states.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

How would this ruling work? So they'd say "a person is barred by insurrection only if congress votes that that person has committed insurrection"? I just don't see how that squares with the 14th Amendment, especially since it specifically states that congress can undo the penalty by a 2/3rd vote.

Also, congress did vote that he should be impeached for it, so wouldn't that count as congress deciding it?

I think the only way out for the SC is that they do the "president isn't an officer" technicality. Maybe someone can summarize all the possible avenues the Court has? I wish they would just agree to hear arguments on whether what Trump did is insurrection and then use that as a basis to bar him or allow him for all states.
 

Allard

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,952
SteamyPunk said:
How would this ruling work? So they'd say "a person is barred by insurrection only if congress votes that that person has committed insurrection"? I just don't see how that squares with the 14th Amendment, especially since it specifically states that congress can undo the penalty by a 2/3rd vote.

I think the only way out for the SC is that they do the "president isn't an officer" technicality. Maybe someone can summarize all the possible avenues the Court has? I wish they would just agree to hear arguments on whether what Trump did is insurrection and then use that as a basis to bar him or allow him for all states.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I honestly don't see how they can even say "President isn't an officer" as a technicality because in order to become president he literally takes the "Oath of Office" as part of the ceremony to become president. Like I am tired of hearing people call it a technicality, the technicality is he is an officer full stop, no legal limbo involved.
 
Anoregon

Anoregon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,218
Allard said:
I honestly don't see how they can even say "President isn't an officer" as a technicality because in order to become president he literally takes the "Oath of Office" as part of the ceremony to become president. Like I am tired of hearing people call it a technicality, the technicality is he is an officer full stop, no legal limbo involved.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It really is the dumbest shit. Literally arguing that an insurrectionist is only allowed to be president but no other elected or appointed position. No one seriously believes that.
 
BlackLagoon

BlackLagoon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,806
Allard said:
I honestly don't see how they can even say "President isn't an officer" as a technicality because in order to become president he literally takes the "Oath of Office" as part of the ceremony to become president. Like I am tired of hearing people call it a technicality, the technicality is he is an officer full stop, no legal limbo involved.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"Officer of the United States" is a specific term that has significant legal history behind it, and the current practice takes it to mean someone appointed by the president/executive branch. Which would not include the president. However the argument is that there is evidence the writers of the 14th amendment intended for the president to be included, which, in theory, conservative "originalist" justices should be sympathetic to.
 
lunarworks

lunarworks

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,463
Toronto
Allard said:
I honestly don't see how they can even say "President isn't an officer" as a technicality because in order to become president he literally takes the "Oath of Office" as part of the ceremony to become president. Like I am tired of hearing people call it a technicality, the technicality is he is an officer full stop, no legal limbo involved.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Presidency is "the highest office in the land", as they say.
 

turtle553

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,279
Allard said:
That decision also guarantees Trump will be on the primary ballot in Colorado, if an in junction is held before January 6th that means the ballot must remain as is with him on it. Its what was expected, what I am curious is what might happen for general election ballot with this decision. They really need to make a decision before too much of the primary season starts up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Anyone who votes in states with later primaries will have people on the ballot that have dropped out after early voting has started. Just because he's on the ballot doesn't mean necessarily that votes world count for him.

Roberts could try to restore legitimacy to the court and Gorsich was a pretty standard conservative appointment before the administration went off the rails that doesn't owe anything to Trump.

Others on the court might have benefactors that think Haley has a better chance in the general and want to get Trump out of the way.

Nobody can be sure what's going to happen.
 
AstronaughtE

AstronaughtE

Member
Nov 26, 2017
10,410
Allard said:
I honestly don't see how they can even say "President isn't an officer" as a technicality because in order to become president he literally takes the "Oath of Office" as part of the ceremony to become president. Like I am tired of hearing people call it a technicality, the technicality is he is an officer full stop, no legal limbo involved.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As was cited by Colorado when they removed trump. https://youtu.be/A1Ze5qIYyuY?si=S_838chN6fwGpZ31

It's MSNBC reading an interaction between two senators, one who is questioning why the presidency wasn't included, and the other assuaging his fears by the words of the ammendment.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
So, now that SCOTUS has granted certiorari, what's next?

First of all, the schedule, which is a very fast one
18 Jan 2024 - Trump brief, amicus briefs in support, neutral amicus briefs
31 Jan 2024 - respondents brief, and amicus briefs in support
5 Feb 2024 - Trump reply brief
8 Feb 2024 - oral argument

I think this means that all the briefings so far, both in favour of and against granting cert, can now be ignored, and we start over with briefings on the merits.

Since the court granted cert in Trump v Anderson et al but not (at least not yet, they haven't denied it either) in CRSCC v Anderson et al thay are taking the case with the broadest possible question. The question posed in Trump's petition is simply this:

Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

... which gives the court a whole lot of latitude as to how to approach the issue. Because of that I'm not expecting a straightforward decision, it will likely be one of those super complicated rulings that go something like this:

Justice X delivered the opinion of the court in which justices Y and Z concurred as to parts I, III and V. Justice Q dissented as to parts III and VII and concurred as to part V ...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It'll take a load of negotiation between the justices to even get to that stage, so I'm not expecting the judgment to follow hot on the heels of oral argument. Probably take a month or so.

That said, we can at least speculate as to some of the questions that the court will need to address to reach a decision:

1) Is Section Three still effective?

I think the answer to this must be yes, and by a big majority, if not unanimous. Can't be seen to ignore the Constitution.

2) Were the underlying proceedings in Colorado procedurally correct?

This is something Trump has questioned, but I think the answer must be yes. Purely because it is the Colorado Supreme Court that gets to determine what Colorado law is. State's rights are worth nothing if state supreme courts don't get to apply their own law.

3) Is the Presidential oath an oath to support the constitution?

To claim otherwise would be to take a lawyerly-loophole argument to extremes. I think this must be a yes.

4) Is the Presidency covered by Section Three?

Likely to be contentious, as there will be a real tussle between textualist and originalist and purposivist interpretations. I hope and expect that this will be a yes, but perhaps by a narrow margin.

5) Whether states can exclude candidates from the ballot at all?

Must surely be a clear yes. We can't allow Vladimir Putin to be on the ballot anywhere. To hold otherwise would upend election law in many states.

6) Whether states can exclude candidates from the ballot under Section Three?

This is likely contentious because of the admittedly slim possibility that Congress could overturn a disqualification by a 2/3 majority. But it isn't easy, because if the states can't, then who can? It would be a recipe for disaster for a candidate to win the electoral college and only after that to be disqualified. Who would then be President? This is such a difficult question that I think the court will do all that they can to avoid reaching it, and will try hard to decide the case on other grounds.

7) Whether a criminal conviction is necessary?

Likely contentious. Clearly a relevant criminal conviction (but which ones count?) should be sufficient to exclude a candidate, but I can't see that it must be necessary. Purely because it takes a long time to get a criminal conviction. Tough question.

8) Whether Jan 6 amounted to an insurrection?

Again, likely a contentious point. But probably a narrow yes given the findings of the Jan 6 Committee and the courts below.

9) Whether Trump engaged in insurrection?

I guess they may try to punt this until after the criminal cases.



That's all I can think of for now. But it's also worth bearing in mind that whatever the court decides on the scope of Section Three affects not just the Presidency, but also the Senate, the House, and many state legislatures and offices. That just adds to the pressure on SCOTUS over this decision.
 
RexNovis

RexNovis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,299
phisheep said:
So, now that SCOTUS has granted certiorari, what's next?

First of all, the schedule, which is a very fast one
18 Jan 2024 - Trump brief, amicus briefs in support, neutral amicus briefs
31 Jan 2024 - respondents brief, and amicus briefs in support
5 Feb 2024 - Trump reply brief
8 Feb 2024 - oral argument

I think this means that all the briefings so far, both in favour of and against granting cert, can now be ignored, and we start over with briefings on the merits.

Since the court granted cert in Trump v Anderson et al but not (at least not yet, they haven't denied it either) in CRSCC v Anderson et al thay are taking the case with the broadest possible question. The question posed in Trump's petition is simply this:



... which gives the court a whole lot of latitude as to how to approach the issue. Because of that I'm not expecting a straightforward decision, it will likely be one of those super complicated rulings that go something like this:



It'll take a load of negotiation between the justices to even get to that stage, so I'm not expecting the judgment to follow hot on the heels of oral argument. Probably take a month or so.

That said, we can at least speculate as to some of the questions that the court will need to address to reach a decision:

1) Is Section Three still effective?

I think the answer to this must be yes, and by a big majority, if not unanimous. Can't be seen to ignore the Constitution.

2) Were the underlying proceedings in Colorado procedurally correct?

This is something Trump has questioned, but I think the answer must be yes. Purely because it is the Colorado Supreme Court that gets to determine what Colorado law is. State's rights are worth nothing if state supreme courts don't get to apply their own law.

3) Is the Presidential oath an oath to support the constitution?

To claim otherwise would be to take a lawyerly-loophole argument to extremes. I think this must be a yes.

4) Is the Presidency covered by Section Three?

Likely to be contentious, as there will be a real tussle between textualist and originalist and purposivist interpretations. I hope and expect that this will be a yes, but perhaps by a narrow margin.

5) Whether states can exclude candidates from the ballot at all?

Must surely be a clear yes. We can't allow Vladimir Putin to be on the ballot anywhere. To hold otherwise would upend election law in many states.

6) Whether states can exclude candidates from the ballot under Section Three?

This is likely contentious because of the admittedly slim possibility that Congress could overturn a disqualification by a 2/3 majority. But it isn't easy, because if the states can't, then who can? It would be a recipe for disaster for a candidate to win the electoral college and only after that to be disqualified. Who would then be President? This is such a difficult question that I think the court will do all that they can to avoid reaching it, and will try hard to decide the case on other grounds.

7) Whether a criminal conviction is necessary?

Likely contentious. Clearly a relevant criminal conviction (but which ones count?) should be sufficient to exclude a candidate, but I can't see that it must be necessary. Purely because it takes a long time to get a criminal conviction. Tough question.

8) Whether Jan 6 amounted to an insurrection?

Again, likely a contentious point. But probably a narrow yes given the findings of the Jan 6 Committee and the courts below.

9) Whether Trump engaged in insurrection?

I guess they may try to punt this until after the criminal cases.



That's all I can think of for now. But it's also worth bearing in mind that whatever the court decides on the scope of Section Three affects not just the Presidency, but also the Senate, the House, and many state legislatures and offices. That just adds to the pressure on SCOTUS over this decision.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Appreciate your breakdown with your thoughts and analysis on this. It's still crazy to me just how unpredictable the court has become. It's a testament to how little it actually hinges on the law or even any specific view of the law. The naked politicization of the court has been anxiety inducing to watch unfold. I hate that somehow such a corrupt and valueless man was able to appoint 3 lifetime appointments in the highest court in our country. And that despite everything that has transpired and all the charges brought forth against him there is seemingly no cause to correct this.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
Today is deadline day for Appellant and supporting and neutral briefs in the SCOTUS case. Probably at least some of them will drop just before midnight, so I'll take a look at them tomorrow.

There has also been a small flood of amicus briefs so far. I've linked them all in the OP just in case. Most of them are boringly predictable, but two of them stuck out:

16 Jan 2024 - 'Binkley for President' amicus brief (DC District Court has exclusive jurisdiction under DC Code 16-3051 and 28 USC 2201-02)

This guy, whoever he is, is running for President in 30 states but got chucked off the ballot in one, so he has an axe to grind. And grind it he does. He makes the left-field claim that the only court with the jurisdiction to hear Section Three claims is the District Court in DC under a quo warranto action, and that the Supreme Court has upheld this. Seems to me a bit bonkers, but it is at least earnestly argued.

18 Jan 2024 - Akril & Vikram Amar amicus brief (fascinating historical replay from 1860!) (worth reading)

These guys are historians, and approach the whole thing through the perspective of the first insurrection of 1860 - not the Civil War, but the one immediately before that trying to stop Lincoln's inauguration. It is a fascinating read, culminating in a "Twenty Questions" section relating things to the present action. It is also very concisely written, for example it dismisses the claim that the Presidential Oath is not one to 'support' the constitution in a single paragraph:

It is silly to say that the president's Oath is not covered by the sweeping and generic language of Section Three. This is like saying that the Fifth Amendment prohibits double but not triple jeopardy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The whole thing is a delight to read, and I rather hope that SCOTUS pats attention to it.
 
Slash

Slash

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Sep 12, 2018
9,859
Fnor

Fnor

Member
Nov 7, 2023
501
"Ah, but since there is no double jeopardy, you could not even get to triple jeopardy! This was exactly what the founding fathers thought, because I said so."

-- The Federalist Society, probably
 
Sobriquet

Sobriquet

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,053
Wilmington, NC
That Binkley guy came in fourth in the Iowas Caucuses, ahead of Asa Hutchinson. Saw this morning that he's on my state's primary ballot, along with David "TrimeTaveler" Dunlap.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
Slash said:

View: https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1748038837106798696?s=20
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


That's not a badly argued brief, in the main. And so far as I can see it doesn't directly cast doubt on Trump's responsibility for the Capitol violence. Where it goes off the rails is in Section B, arguing that any number of things could be classed as insurrections and that Trump could equally credibly accuse Biden of insurrection, which is just nuts.

Otherwise it is a fairly routine "President isn't an officer and Congress hasn't legislated" brief, like many others.
 
Lightning Count

Lightning Count

Member
Jan 27, 2019
16,087
Fuck off
phisheep said:
That's not a badly argued brief, in the main. And so far as I can see it doesn't directly cast doubt on Trump's responsibility for the Capitol violence. Where it goes off the rails is in Section B, arguing that any number of things could be classed as insurrections and that Trump could equally credibly accuse Biden of insurrection, which is just nuts.

Otherwise it is a fairly routine "President isn't an officer and Congress hasn't legislated" brief, like many others.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can just imagine every red state immediately jumping on that and going ham to try and remove Biden from the ballot in retaliation If they go with this interpretation.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
Oh dear. There's another 16 amicus briefs dropped on the docket. And still 7 hours until the deadline. Got lots of reading to do tomorrow.
 
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
Right. Here's the full list of briefs and amicus briefs in support of Trump and of neither party that have been filed by the deadline.

I've briefly summarised each one and marked with an asterisk those that claim to be neutral. The rest are explicitly in support of Trump.

The two green highlights are the ones that SCOTUS must consider. The three yellow highlights are those that I find both novel and interesting that I think SCOTUS should consider. The rest mostly just reiterate the same arguments over and over, so are not worth reading. There's a lot of junk here.

We'll get the briefs for the other side by 31 Jan.


9 Jan 2024 - Prof Seth Tillman amicus brief (supports Griffin's case, Pres not an officer) (Pres not subject to emoluments clause too!)
11 Jan 2024 - Landmark Legal Foundation amicus brief (states can't decide, no private cause of action, Trump didn't insurrect)
11 Jan 2024 - Vivek Ramaswamy amicus brief (antidemocratic, not an officer, Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes)
15 Jan 2024 - David Weisberg amicus brief (presidency was deliberately omitted from Section Three)
16 Jan 2024 - Prof Kurt Lash amicus brief (Section Three ambiguous, reasonable to exclude presidency, guarded by electoral college)
16 Jan 2024 - William Jones amicus brief (it needs enabling legislation, there was none)
16 Jan 2024 * 'Binkley for President' amicus brief (DC District Court has exclusive jurisdiction under DC Code 16-3051 and 28 USC 2201-02!!)
16 Jan 2024 - Public Interest Legal Foundation amicus brief (Section Three no longer viable, doesn't apply to Trump, besides he was acquitted)
17 Jan 2024 - Colorado Republican State Central Committee brief (not an officer, not self-executing, holding office not seeking it, 1st amendment)
17 Jan 2024 - 102 Republican voters amicus brief (Colorado election law, not an officer, Amnesty Acts)
17 Jan 2024 - Pearl Madrial amicus brief (vote dilution, 12th amendment) (at least it is brief!)
17 Jan 2024 * Jack Coben amicus brief (disqualifies from holding office, not from running)
17 Jan 2024 - Devin & Charles Watkins amicus brief (not an officer, not an insurrection, not self-executing)
17 Jan 2024 - League for Sportsmen amicus brief (not an officer)
17 Jan 2024 * Childrens' Rights Lawyers amicus brief (a plea to decide the case for posterity, not just for now)
17 Jan 2024 - Claremont Institute amicus brief (not an officer, needs implementing legislation, no cause of action)
18 Jan 2024 - Peter Meier amicus brief (non-justiciable political question)
18 Jan 2024 * Akril & Vikram Amar amicus brief (fascinating historical replay from 1860!)
18 Jan 2024 - Judicial Watch amicus brief (due process, voters' rights and future dangers)
18 Jan 2024 - Condemned USA amicus brief (Trump tried to *stop* an insurrection, surejan.gif)
18 Jan 2024 - James Madison Center for Free Speech amicus brief (speech inciting insurrection is not 'engaging in', Ellipse speech is protected)
18 Jan 2024 * Foley, Ginsburg, Hansen amicus brief (states may resolve this, perilous situation that SCOTUS must resolve on merits)
18 Jan 2024 - Kansas GOP & 32 others amicus brief (Colorado was wrong, and it's not ripe anyway)
18 Jan 2024 - Ted Cruz & 178 others amicus brief (This is Congress' business, and it doesn't apply to Trump anyway, plus look how we could weaponise this)
18 Jan 2024 - Larry Kidd amicus brief (can only be enforced as directed by Congress)
18 Jan 2024 * Prof Derek Muller amicus brief (States have the power, but no obligation, other electoral law issues)
18 Jan 2024 * NY Bar Association amicus brief (needs uniform national merits decision, and fast)
18 Jan 2024 - Prof James Lindgren amicus brief (not an officer)
18 Jan 2024 * Brennan Center for Justice et al amicus brief (this is a matter for the States, Moore v Harper)
18 Jan 2024 - Sen Steve Daines & NRSC amicus brief (Colorado modified the qualifications, also 1st amendment)
18 Jan 2024 - RNC & NRCC amicus brief (not for the courts, 1st amendment, doesn't apply to Presidents)
18 Jan 2024 - Former US Attorneys amicus brief (Colorado messed up their own rules of evidence in using the Jan 6 Cttee Report)
18 Jan 2024 - Indiana & 24 others, plus AZ/NC legislatures amicus brief (Congress has to act first, and the courts can't decide what an insurrection is)
18 Jan 2024 * US Term Limits amicus brief (don't apply the Thornton case because it is wrong)
18 Jan 2024 * 11 Secretaries of State amicus brief (we don't want the power to do this!)
18 Jan 2024 * Michigan SoS amicus brief (SCOTUS must resolve fully and on the merits to avoid confusion)
18 Jan 2024 - America's Future et al amicus brief (does not apply to Trump, and there was no insurrection)
18 Jan 2024 - State of Kansas amicus brief (Needs strict construction, does not apply to Trump)
18 Jan 2024 - Christian Family Coalition amicus brief (for Congress alone)
18 Jan 2024 - Gavin Wax/NY Young Republicans et al amicus brief (Trump didn't 'engage' in insurrection)
18 Jan 2024 * NAACP amicus brief (SCOTUS, do your duty and do not mess up again like you did before)
18 Jan 2024 - Former Attorneys General amicus brief (does not apply to President, requires legislation)
18 Jan 2024 - Donald J Trump brief (I was not an officer and I didn't do it, honest)
18 Jan 2024 - Tore Maras et al amicus brief (Colorado decision violates 9th and 10th amendments, and Trump didn't insurrect)
18 Jan 2024 - Wyoming SoS amicus brief (Trump not an officer and didn't do it either)
18 Jan 2024 * David Boyle amicus brief (the strange case of Chuckie Peanut. A rubbish brief but a fun read!)
 
Lightning Count

Lightning Count

Member
Jan 27, 2019
16,087
Fuck off
I have zero faith in the Supreme Court to do the right thing and I fully expect every red state to try and remove Biden from the ballot in response to this.
 
Sheepinator

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,180
phisheep said:
18 Jan 2024 * Akril & Vikram Amar amicus brief (fascinating historical replay from 1860!)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thanks for the summaries.

I read that one based on your note, and yes it was very interesting. I was not familiar with Secession Winter, not really surprising considering I didn't grow up in the US. There are certainly some parallels there.

The repeated use of "Professor Mousehole" seemed rather odd though. Is that sort of language normal in these things?

The explanation of why there's a 35 years limit for the Presidency was also new to me. I had always just accepted it as a thing, without considering why. And apparently that's another thing, like lifetime SC term limits, which should have been updated due to "inflation" over the years. I read elsewhere that the life expectancy of a 20-year old back then was about 38, hence that article would prevent a dynasty. Of course now, a President could have a son and grandson old enough to meet that test.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
phisheep

phisheep

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,961
Sheepinator said:
Thanks for the summaries.

I read that one based on your note, and yes it was very interesting. I was not familiar with Secession Winter, not really surprising considering I didn't grow up in the US. There are certainly some parallels there.

The repeated use of "Professor Mousehole" seemed rather odd though. Is that sort of language normal in these things?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It is, I think, an allusion to a line in the Whitman v American Trucking Association case "Congress ... does not hide elephants in mouseholes", which is also referenced in Vivek Ramaswamy's brief.
 
mf.luder

mf.luder

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,680
So, if trump has immunity because the president can do no wrong why can't Joe Biden cancel the upcoming election and just nominate a successor? Or does that "cross the line"?
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.