@Teri_Kanefield@StephanieJones Essentially, States can’t supersede Federal? That makes sense. But I’m wondering how the 14th, S.3 would ever be enforced. Who would be in charge of that? What mechanism would enforce this? Please tell me you have a blog post on this!
The RW hacks argued in bad faith a lot of time, but one thing that has been bothering me (and which imo SCOTUS was correct to bring up) was retaliatory BS from red states who could use an affirming SCOTUS decision to throw Democrats (and, especially, Biden) off their state ballots.
@Teri_Kanefield@CaseyL@StephanieJones Not that I disagree with leaving him on a primary ballot given everything, but it does leave open the question of what happens if someone clearly ineligible runs and wins. Let’s say someone like Arnold Swarzenegger — clearly ineligible for Prez since he doesn’t have birthright citizenship — runs anyway, and wins the majority of EVs. (1/2)
It’s then up to the incoming Congress to refuse to accept the states’ electors? … and then what next? The question all this begs is what legal circuit breakers exist at all to protect the nation, who has the power to trip them, and when? This makes my head hurt. (2/2)
@Teri_Kanefield@CaseyL@StephanieJones It makes sense except the states always control ballot access. Why can a state keep someone off the ballot for reasons not enumerated in the Constitution (number of signatures, percentage of party vote in previous election, etc…), but not for something actually in the Constitution? Logically this should mean anyone and everyone who wants should be on our ballots. What standing does a state have to keep my 10 year old off the ballot?
As Stevenson argued, the states have always determined the manner of appointment of their electors and some states have laws that require qualification in order to appear on the ballot.
I understand the temporal element at question, but Congress could easily hold a vote tomorrow to remove the former president's disability. If they don't, that's on them, not on secretaries of state executing their state's law.
What "broad" definition of insurrection could include Biden?
When Murray replied to Robert's question on this using the word "frivolous" he was spot on. Robert's stopping him made it clear how weak the argument is.
Murray and Stevenson clearly and directly addressed this; the courts will do what they have always done, adjudicate contested ballot access decisions.
That should be a slap to people like Larry Tribe, who have been out there saying this is a slam dunk.
Part of what a good lawyer does is predict what a court might do. It can save your client a lot of money. If the liberal justices come out against this, it really is a bit of a slap. (It wouldn't surprise me.)
It also wouldn't surprise me if the conservatives come out against immunity
Add comment