Context:
Will they take it on: /DanMan314/will-scotus-grant-cert-take-on-the
Resolves YES if SCOTUS rules that Trump cannot be barred from the Republican primary ballot under the insurrection clause by the general election next year. This includes a ruling that is not a full reversal of the lower court's decision, so long as the effect is Trump being on the ballot in Colorado.
Resolves NO otherwise (including if they do not take on the case).
This market is about the Colorado court decision about the Republican primary, and will resolve to SCOTUS’s judgement on that. The general election close date is just the latest possible date I would expect it to happen.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ3,149 | |
| 2 | Ṁ2,562 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,275 | |
| 4 | Ṁ498 | |
| 5 | Ṁ467 |
@f At the same time though, you can envision a future where this is a bad future too. So now Article II of the Constitution Supersedes States' Rights, even in the case that was called out by Amendment 14.3, Insurrection. So now in some dystopian future like 1997 the movie, "The Postman," when a bunch of States based out west, Washington, Utah are trying to prevent a warlord like General Bethlehem out in Oregon from being on their ballots for President by saying, "clearly this guy is just actively genociding people, and just wants to gain followers," ... doesn't matter, you need approval from the new Federal Congress in Minneapolis to be taken off the vote! General Bethleham hasn't been convicted yet! Who is to say that Kevin Costner's character is in the right? It's all about the will of the people, got to keep Bethleham on there.
@MP No, that's an oversimplification of what I'm hearing. I think a better summary is, "States Rights being paramount, with a few exceptions, this being one of them."
That seems to be what the court agrees upon, based upon the questioning I'm hearing.
So this means that Section 3 still could be used to prevent someone from seeking Federal Office, including Trump, but just not in this way (e.g. a State deciding on its own, using Article II as a justification).
Also, FYI ... "impeach," means something specific, it doesn't apply here.
@PatrickDelaney if it was other qualifier of president, like say age or not having served already two terms, could a state like Colorado block this person? Or that too also be bad?
For example, if Barack Obama or Taylor Swift decided to run for the Democrat primaries. Could a state say this person can't be elected?
@PatrickDelaney States rights have nothing to do with this. This isn't a state choosing to bar a candidate from the ballot because that's what they want. This is a state keeping the candidate off the ballot because that is what the federal constitution says must happen.
Colorado was simply doing what the constitution requires all states to do.
@MichaelMcMullen Do you want me to talk you through this or would you prefer I just link to another conversation I have had on Manifold below? I disagree but I am wary of continuing the conversation because I had this same conversation with someone else and they just ghosted me after a few back and forth.
@SemioticRivalry Well that first tweet is a mischaracterization, they have touched on the history of what Section 3 is all about...and most SCOTUS hearings that I have ever listened to are extremely technical and floppy, hard to understand, go really deep...so...and?
That being said, I sold all my shares because I have heard enough, Kagen, Jackson and Sotamayor seem extremely skeptical of Tillman, in hindsight it makes sense because they don't buy those Federalist arguments to begin with. I did like how Tillman made the same point I was trying to make below about how the court is very pro-States rights, and Gorsch shut him down on that point asking, "yeah but what do you think?" and everyone laughed. Ah ha ha! I didn't know we were going to be listening to a comedy show! Ah ha ha ha! 💀
Overall, the Federalists and Originalists can be super idealistic, much any political ideology taken to its extreme. I may have characterize SCOTUS judges as being Federalists, but they are not, "as Federalist," like Tillman, they are more pragmatic. Now let's watch me lose my mana and have to eat my words here since I have switched sides.
@Noah1 Posting this here, because I presume transcript will be posted here. I think it will interesting (though not predictive) to feed this into various LLM's to see what they think will happen. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2023
I created a market based on the reply brief summited by Trump's legal team on Feb 5th.
I find this interesting:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-1257
In 2020, the conservative wing of the SCOTUS (all the same people in there as today) in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, ruled essentially that Arizona can make their own voting laws with respect to the 15th Amendment, and that if their laws line up with the 15th Amendment, then there is no harm, no foul.
Now in 2024 with Trump v Anderson,...can Colorado do the same, make their own voting laws and abide by them, as long as it lines up with the Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment, Section 3? One would think based upon prior logic used in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, we're in the clear for a NO bet on this market (e.g. not overturning SCOCO). But as I've said, I am merely gambling here and using this as a way to track the case, learn more about SCOTUS in general, have no special knowledge.
@PatrickDelaney I feel like this is different because Colorado didn't pass a law that caused Trump to be barred from a ballot - they removed him on the basis of the 14th Amendment. So maybe Colorado would be allowed to make a law that said something like, "No candidate who is judged by a Colorado court to have engaged in insurrection may be on a ballot, nor may electors be awarded to them," but since they didn't make any such law, SCOTUS still has the final word on whether the insurrection clause would prevent Trump from being on the Colorado ballot.
If the court did use this reasoning, it would lead to a situation where states can decide for themselves whether to allow Trump on the ballot. I think they likely want to avoid that situation because of the chaos it would cause. It would be better to have a consistent policy for all states so that voters know whether or not they'll be able to vote for the candidate they want, or if that candidate will be off the ballot in their state. Plus, in the "each state decides" scenario, we would have entire states where people are only allowed to vote for one of the major party nominees in the general election. This would feel a lot more undemocratic than either of the alternatives (Trump stays on the ballot in all states, or Trump is eliminated from all states, making Haley the nominee, and she stays on the ballot in all states).
@PatrickDelaney The first problem is that even if the Court were inclined to rule that way in theory, the current facts of the case do not include such a state statute. The Colorado Supreme Court did not cite a Colorado statute as the root of his prohibition from the ballot, but just the Fourteenth Amendment. It is entirely established by the text of the Constitution, by ratification-era documentation, and by U.S. Supreme Court precedents dating to the early 19th century that final interpretation of the meaning of a US constitutional provision lies with the U.S. Supreme Court, whatever a state might find to the contrary. The last debates about that finality were retired with the Civil War. Even the proposed States Rights Amendments of 1962 didn't try to revive the idea about sovereign compacting states as final interpreters, but proposed creating a unified federal Court of the Union (composed of the fifty state chief justices) able to overrule the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it is allowing the states to individually interpret the 14th Amendment, instead of imposing a uniform understanding, is an unlikelihood on the order of "And then all nine Justices participated in a public orgy in the courtroom in front of the spectators"; there isn't anything in physics preventing it, but.
There's a much weaker second problem, in that even if such a Colorado law existed, it would take some distinguishing to reconcile it with U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), which establishes that states cannot adopt their own qualifications for Federal offices, even as mere ballot-access measures (allowing write-ins for disqualified candidates). Such distinguishing is of course possible, as would be a reversal of that 5-4 ruling, but the odds would be against it. Particularly since disparity between states in the qualifications for members of Congress (the direct point of U.S. Term Limits) has far fewer interstate ramifications than such disparity for the Presidency.
Colorado didn't pass a law that caused Trump to be barred from a ballot
Can one of you please you tell me what it says on Page 5 of the SCOTUS Trump v. Anderson writ of certiorari... (3rd paragraph, Page 14 of the PDF)?
@PatrickDelaney It says that Colorado has a law allowing people to challenge the decisions of state election officials. And then the text of the statute referenced is then included in the footnote marked 8. Neither that paragraph nor the statute it references says anything at all about Presidential eligibility for either office or the ballot.
To get back to the basics here, the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling was quite literally, to quote its first page, that "A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot."
The rest of the decision, of course, elaborates on this. The key element here is that the Colorado statutes do not list qualifications for the office of President, they simply use the words "qualified candidate". The Colorado Supreme Court interprets this to include the US Constitution's qualifications for office, which it rules he has not met, while stating that Donald Trump has, in fact, otherwise qualified for the ballot under Colorado law.
The Colorado Supreme Court has accordingly made it impossible for the US Supreme Court to "defer" to Colorado state law on ballot eligibility, because the Colorado Supreme Court itself has made the issue of Trump's ballot eligibility entirely one of his qualification for the office of President under US constitutional law.
Neither that paragraph nor the statute it references says anything at all about Presidential eligibility for either office or the ballot.
can you tell me what section 4 of the CO statute in question says?
@PatrickDelaney When you are pointing out a section of the statute, it would come off different if you phrased it as a statement instead of a question. That might be what you're going for though, or I might not be noticing subtext that makes the condescension feel earned.
Or I might just be interpreting it atypically! That's all just like, my opinion, man
@Tumbles sorry, no, I would like to hear what SEE says and then go from there. I think I could learn more by having others evaluate based upon important facts rather than bloviating, I am not going to summarize it myself and try to create a flame war. let’s get a full read on things before we discuss. If we can’t agree on points of fact, no point in discussing, no hard feelings.
@PatrickDelaney, for what it's worth, your tone doesn't read as condescending or passive aggressive to me because you ended your first comment stating you "have no special knowledge" on the subject and you have been cordial.
I can see where you're coming from though, @Tumbles. It's unfortunately easy for intended tone to be lost between keyboards.
The exchange between the two of you is refreshingly polite for the internet. Thank you both for being even-tempered! 😄