On what grounds does the US Supreme Court overturn Colorado on Trump’s candidacy?
41
430
2K
resolved Mar 5
Resolved
YES
Section Three is not self-executing
Resolved
NO
It doesn’t—Trump is off the ballot
Resolved
NO
Jan 6 was not an insurrection
Resolved
NO
President is not an Officer
Resolved
NO
Due process concerns
Resolved
NO
First Amendment protections
Resolved
NO
Other (moot, standing, etc.)

Based only on the majority opinion. This will require some amount of judgment, but the idea is to capture the core/primary/central reason(s), not everything which is discussed.

Get Ṁ200 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ246
2Ṁ176
3Ṁ94
4Ṁ53
5Ṁ52
Sort by:

The core of the decision is pretty clearly that section 13 is not self-executing. (Which, as @Najawin says, is a joke...but that's not relevant to resolving this.)

bought Ṁ250 President is not an ... NO

Okay so as far as I understand it, the majority opinio can be summarized as thus:

  • States don't have the authority to decide on the application of this clause

  • The power to decide on the application rests with congress

That's it, there are no more conclusions.

Since power rests with congress, I believe it means it's not self-executing. I also think that saying that states don't have the authority means the Colorado court didn't have standing, and other should also resolve as true, but I am not a lawyer so maybe I misunderstood something.

@Shump Standing means that Trump's team wouldn't have the ability to bring the case. This is self executing.

(Which, you know, is a joke, because if you read article 3 it's clearly, obviously, self executing. But it was always going to be the way they tossed this case.)

bought Ṁ10 of Other (moot, standin... YES

"Jan 6 was an insurrection but Trump wasn't culpable" would fit into Other, right?

@B yes

If there is no single rationale which commands a majority, does this resolve "other", "NA", to the controlling opinion under the Marks rule (to the extent that can be determined), to the plurality?

@MattLashofSullivan ideally, the Marks Rule, as that seems to best capture the spirit of the market, acknowledging that that might be hard to determine. If there is no clear common denominator or narrowest opinion...that's a hard one. My first instinct is to treat every concurring vote as a vote for the grounds the concurrence relies on, and see which grounds reach the most votes, and mark as yes all the tied-for-top-vote-getters. But I'm open to arguments (soon!) that a different approach would be better.

@josharian On further thought, that’s too complicated. Decision: Marks Rule if possible, plurality if not.

More related questions