SCOTUS Colorado

[BradStevens]

So the words below only mean these rights exist if congress says so? if the VRA were repealed, it would be legal to block groups from voting and there is no recourse to this amendment?

All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is recourse.

Look up the oral arguments for Devellier v. Texas. Court is now considering whether the Takings Clause is self executing.

 

[BradStevens]

So the words below only mean these rights exist if congress says so? if the VRA were repealed, it would be legal to block groups from voting and there is no recourse to this amendment?

All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Mark Milton]

Luttig’s reaction:

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/Judge Luttig reacts to Supreme Court Colorado decision

He’s dead wrong that the courts decision means no one could ever be disqualified. There is a federal insurrection statute on the books, passed by Congress, that disqualifies those found guilty under it from holding office.

There is indeed an old federal statute on insurrection. In recent (80 years ago) memory, there were two senators and a member of the House of Representatives that were collaborating with the Nazis in late 30s' and leading up to us being engaged in WW2. These fine men were selling their congressional franking privileges to the Nazis so that the Nazis could disseminate millions of pieces of mail replete with Nazi propaganda to US citizens. These fine congressmen also got the pleasure of having their speeches in Congress written by Goebbels and his crew....All with the blessings of Michigan's favorite catholic priest, Father Coughlin, and Charles Lindbergh.

 

[Mark Milton]

The assortment of pundits and professors who criticize this decision have the luxury of advancing their arguments with no real world consequences. The Supreme Court does not enjoy that luxury.

Most of the criticism here is based upon a Trump - centric analysis. That goes for the concurring justices who argued in favor of limited scope. The Majority got it right. They took a wholeistic view of the 14th Amendment w/o really getting into the Trump weeds. A big tell for me is that they could have ruled that Trump’s J6 conduct was not an insurrection, but didn’t. The could have ruled that POTUS is not intended to be covered, but didn’t. They hit the long ball as they should have.

Now on to the thorny immunity questions. This case is a clear indication that they will also not take a Trump-centric view of this question as did the CA.

The decision the Supreme Court made was correct. The concurring opinions were an absolute shit show that did nothing but muck things up even more.

I don't believe the Supreme Court will permit immunity.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There is recourse.

Look up the oral arguments for Devellier v. Texas. Court is now considering whether the Takings Clause is self executing.

Right, but the Fifth doesn't have the "it is up to congress" clause. Don't we routinely find freedom of press, or religion, or gathering, based on self-executing? I know we find the 2nd that way. But the 14th? We don't have a right to vote enshrined in the Constitution, we have the right of Congress to decide who votes. That isn't a rah rah slogan for me.

 

[BradStevens]

Luttig championed his theory. He's a Never Trumper, I would guess, and wants to defeat Trump.

I don't recall seeing him pre-attack justices. I also think he focused on the insurrection argument (whether J6 counts), not who decides it (which is what I've been harping about since hearing about the Co decision and which the Court also is skeptical of).

But if Luttig does attack the legitimacy of the Court based on a rejection of his argument, then yes, he is helping put our system of government into a risk that the public thinks of it as illegitimate, and that is a dangerous game to play. I don't think Luttig has a clear goal of overturning the current Court makeup or its decisions, though, so I wouldn't call him cynical.

Luttig is a narcissist, pissed his theory wasn’t accepted. This is unacceptable (and wrong):

Former federal judge: Supreme Court ‘dangerously betrayed’ democracy with Trump disqualification decision

Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig issued a searing rebuke of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that Colorado could not disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14…

thehill.com