Colorado is NOT "deciding the election for the nation"

[HelpImSurrounded]

I can NOT believe MSNBC is giving this line of thought as much play as it is and not answering the question.

Colorado is making decision for Colorado. Every state has a right to appoint its electors however it chooses. It's only been the last 150 years that that has been done by popular vote. So Colorado can set up its ballot however it wants.

If Colorado IS "deciding the election for the nation" then the first-in-time primaries need to come to an end. They have far more influence on the election than Colorado will have with this one decision.

And yes Justice Kavanaugh and Alito, it COULD result in each of the states making their own decisions. It's called States' rights and this is a clearly defined state right. I thought you guys were all for that?

[cilla4progress]

1. I KNOW!!!

This is such BS!

ALL states have ballot access regulations. They are only saying that in CO, an insurrectionist can't be on the ballot.

Many legal scholars - including J. Luttig - agree.

This is, unsurprisingly, a clusterfuck..from this beknighted court... SMDH

[TwilightZone]

2. In the context of the discussion, it's probably true.

The context being today's hearing and the 14th Amendment. I think the Colorado case probably effectively ended the 14th discussion at the state level, so from that perspective, the assessment is correct, but only on the issue of 14th Amendment eligibility for individual states.

I don't think they meant it in a general sense, as in Colorado decided all factors of the election. I think they just meant it in the context of the conversation they were having, which was in regards to today's hearing.

It remains to be seen if the case can be approached at the federal level, i.e. a lawsuit challenging Trump's eligibility nationally as a Constitutional issue.

[Redleg]

8. I was thinking that it would limit the 14th Amendment

to elected offices that are determined only by people of that particular state. This would include US Reps and Senators and state officials but not the President. It actually makes sense to me to do it that way. I can only image the kind of fuckery the Repubs would engage in to prevent a Democrat from being on the ballot for president.

[TwilightZone]

10. It's probably better this way.

I always figured that this was a long, long shot, and it certainly would have been nice to take Trump out of the equation with one court ruling, but I think the only way to really kill Trumpism is for him to lose big in November. If he loses decisively, there's no way that the Republicans will allow him to continue being viable for, say, 2028, and I think it will be the beginning of the end for the cult. They'll go kicking and screaming, of course, but I think the influence will wane.

Of course, we still have to make that happen, but then, I think that was always going to be the most likely solution anyway.

[Redleg]

11. I concur

Another Trump electoral loss will be his end but I fear he and his followers will do more mischief with the "stolen election" bullshit.

[TwilightZone]

12. Agreed.

Best-case scenario is that Biden wins with a large enough margin in the electoral college that it makes any questioning of the results irrelevant. That would make it much harder for his followers and the pro-Trump members of Congress to claim impropriety. Not that they won't try anyway, but it'll be difficult for them to get anyone to take them seriously.

[Redleg]

13. Now you had to bring up the Electoral College

This is the kind of crap that keeps me awake at night.

[Think. Again.]

3. Corporate media....

....is probably not the best place to get important information from.

[BannonsLiver]

6. You're right

People should be getting their news from Facebook and their astrologers.

[Think. Again.]

7. Ha! That would be silly!....

....I tend to get important information from the source. For example, for news on what happened in today's Supreme Court hearing, I will go to the Supreme Court's website and read the pertinent documents.

If I am trying to decide which dish soap smells most like lemons, I will watch corporate media.

[global1]

4. States Rights Seems To Be Only Mentioned & Used When It Benefits The Repugs......

In this case - I agree that Colorado was making the decision for Colorado.

The way I see it - Colorado had the courage to take on this issue and decided for their State.

With Tr**p off the ballot in Colorado - he would have no chance to gain any electoral votes for that State. He still could amass the number of electoral votes in the other States to win the presidency. So Colorado was 'not deciding the election for the nation'. Only for Colorado.

Now if other States had followed through and made the same decision as Colorado to not allow Tr**p on the ballot - they too would be making the decision only for their respective State.

Now if - and only if - enough States joined in and did not allow Tr**p on the ballot - it is only then when it could reach the point where it would be impossible for Tr**p to win enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

But - yes each State would be making a decision for their respective State - States Rights again here in play - however, in my opinion - when it reaches the point in the process where a candidate can't amass the required number of electoral votes to win - as a group - they are now speaking for the majority of the American People that such a candidate shouldn't be elected president.

Now - if SCOTUS votes against Colorado - in fact - they are inhibiting other States to - if the State wanted to - invoke their States Right to eliminate a candidate from the ballot on their State. Kinda like cutting them off at the pass.

Bottom line - SCOTUS is inhibiting the possibility of enough States to speak for the American People.

I hope you could follow my logic here. This is how I'm interpreting this whole matter.

[Sympthsical]

5. Justice Kagan is the origin of the quote

From this morning's arguments. Kagan to Murray: "The question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be President of the United States."

They discussed Article Two, electors, and the whole shebang during arguments.

But I think you're missing the nuance of Justice Kagan's question. Rephrased, it can read, "Why should single states have the power to make a determination of who is an insurrectionist for the sake of filling a national office?"

It's a federalism problem, and the liberal justices also recognized it. In fact, I'd argue the liberal justices had a bigger problem with it. Justice Jackson went to absolute town on the question.

[wiggs]

9. when a state suppresses certain votes, limits number of voting machines in certain areas,

limits mail in voting, limits voting days...are they not skewing the national election?