IANAL
But, I like to think I have common sense. I also like to think I’m decently observant. Along those lines, let me say. Forest and trees. Forest and trees. And then there are groves. SCOTUS stands in its very own grove.
I did not listen to all of the oral arguments(I had other places I had to be) in the Colorado/14th Amendment ballot qualification hearing Thursday morning. However, I read or listened to several takes on what was said or not said. Many things bothered me about the hearing, but I’ll not get into all of those. I’ll just bring up one. Why one? Because I think it was the frame from which all their other questions and commentary were couched. Chief Justice Roberts was the one I heard explicitly say it. I’m not going to quote it or summarize it, but kind of paraphrase it. I think he was addressing the lawyer for the Colorado voters who brought the original case. He more or less asked;
“How can we let this stand? Because if we do, we may end up with a 50 state patchwork of standards for a Presidential candidate to get on the ballot?” Really!? That’s what you’re worried about? I notice there was no Supreme Court hearing on why DJT wasn’t on the Nevada Primary ballot. Why is that? Simple, Nevada didn’t call DJT an insurrectionist. But they did say he didn’t meet one of their other ballot access requirements. Filing the paperwork to be a candidate in a timely manner. Besides not being a lawyer I’m also not an expert in the election laws of all 50 states. That said, it’s my understanding it’s harder to get on the ballot in California and New York than most other states. Has anyone bothered to explain this to Chief Justice Roberts? If Chief Justice Roberts wants uniformity of access for all candidates across all 50 states, is he prepared to address the complaint every third party has had since whenever?
Or? Or, was he intentionally being discriminating and only including The Democratic and Republican parties in his example? What’s going to be his take in 2028 when the conservatives who aren’t Trumpsters organize a new conservative party and leave the carcass of the GOP behind? His position on bringing up Democratic states and Republican states blocking candidate access will seem quaint.
I’m hoping there are some lawyers who see this and give us an answer or clarification, because from this layman’s view, all the Ivy League lawyers on SCOTUS and on many others discussing Thursday’s hearing missed an obvious flaw in what’s shaping up.
Additional discussion can be seen in Busta Cretin’s post To one of the few "Supreme Court" justices I used to respect:
Also to my legal colleagues & friends in the media. There’s more at stake here than DJT and whether SCOTUS is trading off with the immunity case. The 14th amendment is the most important constitutional provision for our hope of democracy in this country. The betrayal of its provisions by the SCOTUS has always meant catastrophe for our democracy (see e.g., U.S. v. Cruikshank, Civil Rts Cases, Plessy, Giles, Brown II).
and
Once I heard the lack of seriousness in the questioning at yesterday’s argument it affirmed my sense that the majority of the justices on this Court are simply unprepared to meet the moment. These are not deep thinkers, intellectuals with vision, students of history, original thinkers, or “states-people”. We keep asking them to do big things. But they are not….big.