[llamaimperative]

The decision to ban Colorado from making its own decisions for its own election with regard to what "engaged in insurrection" means and therefore disqualifies someone from their own state's ballots.

Purely political. The law says clearly that states run their own elections and it says clearly that insurrection is disqualifying. Would've been politically inconvenient though (for either side of the spectrum, and especially inconvenient for one side).

[ApolloFortyNine]

That's actually one of the ones that shows how the supreme court isn't always party lines. That was an 9-0 opinion to block Colorado from stopping Trump from running for office there.

Also the constitution clearly gives the federal government the ability to conduct federal elections, not states, and that's exactly what they called out in their brief.

[llamaimperative]

The question wasn't about party lines. It's about the distinction between political judgment and legal judgment.

That has nothing to do with partisanship.

> Also the constitution clearly gives the federal government the ability to conduct federal elections

This is literally not true. Please tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is given this authority. You won't find it, which is why all the contortions around federal authority are political in nature and not legal.

The states run 100% of 100% of the elections within their states, including the elections of the electors in the Electoral College who ultimately elect the President.

The entire opinion (and the misconception that it produces, and you relay here) is a handwavy way to say: it sure would be politically inconvenient if the legal structure actually produced this outcome. If it were a legal decision, the political considerations would be irrelevant: the law says what the law says.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>This is literally not true. Please tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is given this authority. You won't find it, which is why all the contortions around federal authority are political in nature and not legal.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...

Section 5 gives congress the power, not the state, to enforce section 3.

If you want to say you were right that it's an amendment, ok.

[llamaimperative]

Whoa whoa, what you said is "the constitution clearly gives the federal government the ability to conduct federal elections, not states." This is blatantly false. I presume you discovered that when you looked it up and now you're switching gears.

Now you're mounting a totally different argument which is that Congress has the power to enforce Section 3. This is true, but that does not strip states of power to run their own elections how they see fit. This merely grants power to Congress to enforce Section 3.

You just misunderstand how the Constitution works.

Here's proof: The Constitution does not give states the power to pass laws. It does give Congress the power to pass laws. It giving Congress the power to pass laws obviously does not strip states of their power to pass their own laws.

[emmelaich]

OK I'll have a read of "23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024)"

[llamaimperative]

Cool! Be sure to pay attention to this part:

> "Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns... state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer"

That's a political consideration, not a legal one.

> "In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up."

That's a political consideration, not a legal one.

[emmelaich]

Good points. Reading the whole thing is more involved than I expected though! Not surprisingly really.

You might like this commentary: https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-c...

[llamaimperative]

Yes that is an excellent endorsement of Colorado’s Supreme Court decision to remove Trump from the ballot. Essentially all the incredible things about CO’s decision (as the author says, even if you disagree with their conclusion) are notably absent from SCOTUS’s.

For example, SCOTUS took literally every escape hatch possible NOT to decide the case on its merits, which they transparently say is because it would be politically undesirable.

That’s an excellent read though, thank you for sharing.