The dispute comes from Colorado — but it could have national implications for Trump and his political fate.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Jonathan Mitchell, one of Trump’s attorneys, is currently trying to argue the whole “president isn’t an officer” garbage.

    Edit: Mitchell is giving a master class on how to split inconsequential hairs.

    Edit 2: Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have been asking some surprisingly good (and pointed) questions of Mitchell that make me wonder what their actual positions will ultimately be.

    Edit 3: KJB picking at Trump’s legal team’s arguments pretty effectively.

    Edit 4: Trump’s team is done for now. Now the real lawyers are up.

    Edit 5: Thomas asking for examples of national candidates being disqualified at the state level.

    Edit 6: Thomas is such a gas bag when he deigns to speak.

    Edit 7: Roberts clearly signals that he wants to punt this to Congress.

    Edit 8: Multiple justices questioning whether this is a state-level decision.

    Edit 9: Roberts bringing up the possibility of retaliatory attempts to remove candidates if Trump is removed. Seems awfully specious, but it’s more signaling that he really doesn’t want to make a decision on this.

    Edit 10: Conservatives on the court spent the last five minutes or so arguing from a position that if Trump is held to be an insurrectionist, anyone can be held to be an insurrectionist.

    Edit 11: Honestly, I think Jason Murray (lawyer for Colorado) is doing an absolutely phenomenal job with some extremely hostile - and ridiculous - questioning.

    Final edit: That’s it for live-blogging this, I have shit to do. But applause for Murray, he’s rocked it.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      8 months ago

      The Congressional angle I don’t understand.

      The 14th states that Congress can CLEAR a candidate who would otherwise be barred, but that still means he would be barred otherwise.

      • kescusay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s patently nonsensical. Not even Trump’s own appointees seem to take that one seriously.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s what he’s telling Gorsuch right now, the disqualification exists now and can only be removed by Congress.

    • june@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      8 months ago

      A Supreme Court justice making a slippery slope argument is wild to me.