The live arguments are happening now. The questions, including from the liberal members of the court, tend to question the authority of a state to decide a national question, under federal law.
2 Likes
Sounded like the idiot from Colorado was extremely short on answers, and many times was basically like, “well that’s what we need you (Supremes) to figure out.”
What a waste of time and money lawyers inflict on people.
3 Likes
Sounds like Colorado is not having a good day.
5 Likes
I think that the most telling part was when the subject was brought up that one state’s decision could sway other states and therefore impact (disenfranchise) the voters. IMHO it will be a 9-0 decision against Colorado.
1 Like
As it should be…
4 Likes
The justices seemed pretty much in unison on their skepticism of any individual state having this power in a national election. All of them seemed very measured, and non-partisan, in their questions. I found the newest justice’s observation that in the presence of ambiguity, why should the court rule against democracy, very refreshing.
5 Likes
Personally, I would accept that the Constitutional prohibition against an insurrectionist could apply to a presidential candidate. I don’t like the hair-splitting that the Trump team is trying to use on that.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume it DOES apply. If Trump actually had participated in insurrection, he should not be allowed to run again. The question you highlight begs the next question: if states cannot enforce the provision, are we saying it should be enforced at the federal level?
As far as I am concerned, this is all focusing on the wrong stuff.
I say that nobody should be penalized for insurrection if he hasn’t been found guilty of insurrection. Period.
Colorado is putting the cart before the horse.
Trump hasn’t even been found guilty of participating (or inciting) the riot. And nowhere has the rioting been ruled (my the justice system) as insurrection, even if Trump were convicted of being involved in the riot.
4 Likes
Please Supreme Court, ignore the obvious intent behind your last ruling in this area and just let Trump be on all the ballots.
I’m serious too. You guys don’t get an asterisk to make believe about. Trump loses decisively with his name on all fifty ballots.
1 Like
insurrection against CO is a state matter, insurrection against the US is a federal matter.
2 Likes
…and if that happens, what does that say about the legal competency of the Colorado Supreme Court? Their rulings are their feeeeeeeeeelings?
1 Like
How can a state supreme court be so wrong???
I’m going with…TDS? 
2 Likes
oh they’re not worried about right or wrong….
their only mission is political outcome. this is a hallmark of leftism. they feel anything is justified.
5 Likes
I live here.
This state has veered so woke that most people here don’t care that their courts are so politicized.
For those of us living in small remnants of what used to be a nice conservative state, we constantly are swimming upstream. It’s a tough slog.
5 Likes
what a shame….
the disease of leftism eventually infects all aspects of society
2 Likes
It’s because for many libs in power the rule of equal justice of the law is completely irrelevant. Many libs that are in power are fascists and ideologues.
5 Likes
…and when the common man can no longer trust the judicial system, where are “we” going as a united country?
6 Likes
Yes. Remember Whitmer lockdowns in 2020?
Although “ARMED” no one arrested or charged with anything except two dummies outside fistfighting.
LOL
But it was a Dem state 
2 Likes
It’s not just Colorado.
Of course, Slate is giddy about it. Idiot libs don’t surprise me.
