Your prediction of SC reaction to the CO disqualifying Trump ruling?

[Dan the Roman]

If that happens, Republican voters would sue RNC for nominating unqualified presidential candidates and deprived votes the right to vote. The will prevail in SC, and force RNC to install DeSantis instead.

Would be shocked if "Republican voters" are allowed to sue anyone for anything after the Supreme Court is done here.

Pretty sure the court is going to gut Section III going forward.

They cannot have state courts reaching decisions on this, and they also cannot allow trials to be conducted against prospective national party nominees in Federal district court with all the potential for venue shopping that brings.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they also weigh in on standing and say not only can state courts not hear this but only the AG can bring actions under it. They love standing decisions and saying the random group of "Republican voters" never had standing in the first place fully voids Colorado and with some twisting they can argue it also invalidates Maine's process.

But Trump is vastly more likely to survive this than Section III is

[Donerail]

Not sure how the Supreme Court could resolve this on standing. Article III is not a barrier to standing in state court and the Constitution, of course, still applies there.

[Dan the Roman]

Not sure how the Supreme Court could resolve this on standing. Article III is not a barrier to standing in state court and the Constitution, of course, still applies there.

Unsure how any "Republican voter" is harmed by the decision of the RNC to run any candidate. Bascially there is a reason they had "Republican voters" file this suit.

But yes this would be two part

1. State Courts can't do this at all
2. Only the Attorney General(or a specific set off officials) can bring enforcement action - otherwise the proper forum is the same for ruling individuals ineligible for Congress. Congress

The Supreme Court cannot allow this to ever happen again. I am almost certain their number one priority will be killing Section III, not anything to do with Donald Trump. What is going on right now is an existential threat to the court system and it is obvious from the behavior of the 5th Circuit and everyone's favorite Texas district judge that the claims "its self evident this only applies to 1961 AND Jan 6th, 2021" will not stop the court from having to kill it later if not now.

Seriously, if Trump's disqualification stands what about any senior officials who took part in efforts to overturn the election? What about Senators who voted for the challenges? Mike Lee who was in discussions?

Is the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, ineligible?

There is no way to restrict this to Donald Trump and therefore any ruling pretty much has to ensure no court will try to disqualify anyone under Section III going forward for Jan 6th.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not sure how the Supreme Court could resolve this on standing. Article III is not a barrier to standing in state court and the Constitution, of course, still applies there.

Unsure how any "Republican voter" is harmed by the decision of the RNC to run any candidate. Bascially there is a reason they had "Republican voters" file this suit.

But yes this would be two part

1. State Courts can't do this at all
2. Only the Attorney General(or a specific set off officials) can bring enforcement action - otherwise the proper forum is the same for ruling individuals ineligible for Congress. Congress

The Supreme Court cannot allow this to ever happen again. I am almost certain their number one priority will be killing Section III, not anything to do with Donald Trump. What is going on right now is an existential threat to the court system and it is obvious from the behavior of the 5th Circuit and everyone's favorite Texas district judge that the claims "its self evident this only applies to 1961 AND Jan 6th, 2021" will not stop the court from having to kill it later if not now.

Seriously, if Trump's disqualification stands what about any senior officials who took part in efforts to overturn the election? What about Senators who voted for the challenges? Mike Lee who was in discussions?

Is the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, ineligible?

There is no way to restrict this to Donald Trump and therefore any ruling pretty much has to ensure no court will try to disqualify anyone under Section III going forward for Jan 6th.

There's a pretty easy way for the court to handle this sort of thing without gutting Section III completely.

Congress has already defined "insurrection" under 18 USC § 2383. One of the penalties even outlined in this statute is disqualification from office.

So the court can simply rule that if someone is convicted under 18 USC § 2383, they are disqualified for public office. If they are not, then it doesn't apply. Pretty simple and binary.

[Dan the Roman]

Not sure how the Supreme Court could resolve this on standing. Article III is not a barrier to standing in state court and the Constitution, of course, still applies there.

Unsure how any "Republican voter" is harmed by the decision of the RNC to run any candidate. Bascially there is a reason they had "Republican voters" file this suit.

But yes this would be two part

1. State Courts can't do this at all
2. Only the Attorney General(or a specific set off officials) can bring enforcement action - otherwise the proper forum is the same for ruling individuals ineligible for Congress. Congress

The Supreme Court cannot allow this to ever happen again. I am almost certain their number one priority will be killing Section III, not anything to do with Donald Trump. What is going on right now is an existential threat to the court system and it is obvious from the behavior of the 5th Circuit and everyone's favorite Texas district judge that the claims "its self evident this only applies to 1961 AND Jan 6th, 2021" will not stop the court from having to kill it later if not now.

Seriously, if Trump's disqualification stands what about any senior officials who took part in efforts to overturn the election? What about Senators who voted for the challenges? Mike Lee who was in discussions?

Is the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, ineligible?

There is no way to restrict this to Donald Trump and therefore any ruling pretty much has to ensure no court will try to disqualify anyone under Section III going forward for Jan 6th.

There's a pretty easy way for the court to handle this sort of thing without gutting Section III completely.

Congress has already defined "insurrection" under 18 USC § 2383. One of the penalties even outlined in this statute is disqualification from office.

So the court can simply rule that if someone is convicted under 18 USC § 2383, they are disqualified for public office. If they are not, then it doesn't apply. Pretty simple and binary.

That could work.

One thing I feel is being understated is that Roberts at least no longer trusts the lower courts. SCOTUS has lost total control of its docket, meaning that rather than working cooperatively both lower Federal Courts(especially in the 5th Circuit) and state courts are deliberately trying to force SCOTUS' hand. As they do not trust the courts right now not to abuse their power for partisan ends, I think Roberts in particular will be extremely reluctant to provide them with any new toys.

[politicallefty]

If SCOTUS wants to rule on the case, they'll find a way to reach standing. They'll make it up if they have to. That may sound cynical and tantamount to making a mockery of the system, but that is the Roberts Court for you. There is not much logic at all in this Court's jurisprudence on standing.

[Donerail]

If SCOTUS wants to rule on the case, they'll find a way to reach standing. They'll make it up if they have to. That may sound cynical and tantamount to making a mockery of the system, but that is the Roberts Court for you. There is not much logic at all in this Court's jurisprudence on standing.

Again: Standing is not at issue. The plaintiffs brought suit in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court does not make the standing rules for Colorado courts.

[Dan the Roman]

If SCOTUS wants to rule on the case, they'll find a way to reach standing. They'll make it up if they have to. That may sound cynical and tantamount to making a mockery of the system, but that is the Roberts Court for you. There is not much logic at all in this Court's jurisprudence on standing.

Again: Standing is not at issue. The plaintiffs brought suit in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court does not make the standing rules for Colorado courts.

It would be a two-part thing.

1. Rule that 18 USC § 2383. exclusively covers it
2. Rule that the DOJ and/or Congress through impeachment reserves the exclusive right to charge under it.

What this would mean is absent the DOJ filing charges against Trump no court anywhere can make a factual claim he is ineligible under the 14th Amendment. It does not mean Colorado voters don't have standing to challenge ineligible candidates, but it means they have no case whatsoever to claim Trump is ineligible absent a conviction in federal court on charges brought by the Attorney General(or a Federal Prosecutor), and therefore de facto all of these cases are dead. 

[SteveRogers]

Not sure how the Supreme Court could resolve this on standing. Article III is not a barrier to standing in state court and the Constitution, of course, still applies there.

Unsure how any "Republican voter" is harmed by the decision of the RNC to run any candidate. Bascially there is a reason they had "Republican voters" file this suit.

But yes this would be two part

1. State Courts can't do this at all
2. Only the Attorney General(or a specific set off officials) can bring enforcement action - otherwise the proper forum is the same for ruling individuals ineligible for Congress. Congress

The Supreme Court cannot allow this to ever happen again. I am almost certain their number one priority will be killing Section III, not anything to do with Donald Trump. What is going on right now is an existential threat to the court system and it is obvious from the behavior of the 5th Circuit and everyone's favorite Texas district judge that the claims "its self evident this only applies to 1961 AND Jan 6th, 2021" will not stop the court from having to kill it later if not now.

Seriously, if Trump's disqualification stands what about any senior officials who took part in efforts to overturn the election? What about Senators who voted for the challenges? Mike Lee who was in discussions?

Is the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, ineligible?

There is no way to restrict this to Donald Trump and therefore any ruling pretty much has to ensure no court will try to disqualify anyone under Section III going forward for Jan 6th.

There's a pretty easy way for the court to handle this sort of thing without gutting Section III completely.

Congress has already defined "insurrection" under 18 USC § 2383. One of the penalties even outlined in this statute is disqualification from office.

So the court can simply rule that if someone is convicted under 18 USC § 2383, they are disqualified for public office. If they are not, then it doesn't apply. Pretty simple and binary.

Well except that if you read 18 USC  § 2383 it attaches a specific criminal penalty to “insurrection” but doesn’t actually do anything to define that term. So even if a candidate was convicted by a jury of that statute, we’d still end up back at SCOTUS on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge where SCOTUS would have to tell us what the elements of the offense of “Insurrection” are.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not sure how the Supreme Court could resolve this on standing. Article III is not a barrier to standing in state court and the Constitution, of course, still applies there.

Unsure how any "Republican voter" is harmed by the decision of the RNC to run any candidate. Bascially there is a reason they had "Republican voters" file this suit.

But yes this would be two part

1. State Courts can't do this at all
2. Only the Attorney General(or a specific set off officials) can bring enforcement action - otherwise the proper forum is the same for ruling individuals ineligible for Congress. Congress

The Supreme Court cannot allow this to ever happen again. I am almost certain their number one priority will be killing Section III, not anything to do with Donald Trump. What is going on right now is an existential threat to the court system and it is obvious from the behavior of the 5th Circuit and everyone's favorite Texas district judge that the claims "its self evident this only applies to 1961 AND Jan 6th, 2021" will not stop the court from having to kill it later if not now.

Seriously, if Trump's disqualification stands what about any senior officials who took part in efforts to overturn the election? What about Senators who voted for the challenges? Mike Lee who was in discussions?

Is the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, ineligible?

There is no way to restrict this to Donald Trump and therefore any ruling pretty much has to ensure no court will try to disqualify anyone under Section III going forward for Jan 6th.

There's a pretty easy way for the court to handle this sort of thing without gutting Section III completely.

Congress has already defined "insurrection" under 18 USC § 2383. One of the penalties even outlined in this statute is disqualification from office.

So the court can simply rule that if someone is convicted under 18 USC § 2383, they are disqualified for public office. If they are not, then it doesn't apply. Pretty simple and binary.

Well except that if you read 18 USC  § 2383 it attaches a specific criminal penalty to “insurrection” but doesn’t actually do anything to define that term. So even if a candidate was convicted by a jury of that statute, we’d still end up back at SCOTUS on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge where SCOTUS would have to tell us what the elements of the offense of “Insurrection” are.

Perhaps, but it's still an easy way to punt on the question for the time being which is probably enough for them.

[politicallefty]

If SCOTUS wants to rule on the case, they'll find a way to reach standing. They'll make it up if they have to. That may sound cynical and tantamount to making a mockery of the system, but that is the Roberts Court for you. There is not much logic at all in this Court's jurisprudence on standing.

Again: Standing is not at issue. The plaintiffs brought suit in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court does not make the standing rules for Colorado courts.

Sorry, my response wasn't to you directly. It was just generally responding to those that bring up standing. My point was that while some judges may adhere to standing principles, SCOTUS will rule on whatever it wants. It can ignore standing altogether when it makes some rulings or create an issue of standing where none was brought up and kick the issue back to the lower courts for a couple years (or possibly much longer).