Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump ballot access case - 2/8 (FULL LIVE STREAM)

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case determining whether former president Donald Trump’s name can appear on primary ballots in 2024. As the court weighs his eligibility to appear on the ballot, it also contends with a politically fraught question: whether Trump engaged in insurrection before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Colorado, the first state to use a post-Civil War 14th Amendment provision that bars insurrectionists from holding office, found the current GOP front-runner ineligible to serve as president. Trump faces 91 charges across four cases, two of which deal directly with his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Follow us:

[unpopularopinionpodcast]

I loved listening to smart people debate. Then came to the comments and was reminded that most people are stupid.

[rishg]

Every time Murray is asked how to avoid chaos if SCOTUS makes a decision among much certainty, his answer is basically “Do it, and no one can question you or your authority.” Says a lot about his side’s approach

[jsauce]

Thank God that SCOTUS was united on this. There is hope for America. And that is a very good thing.

[stevenshook]

Colorado's attorney seemed woefully unprepared to answer justices' questions that were undoubtedly going to be asked. I would suspect an 9-0 or 8-1 vote in favor of Trump, with the possibility of Sotomayor voting in favor of Anderson.

[curtworkman]

It is fascinating to listen to. This side, that side...doesn't matter. It is really great that we were able to listen to this.

[JC-sguo]

This Jonathan Mitchell, attorney for the President, knows his stuff.

[gilbertgonzalez]

Democrats need to cut their losses and move on....maybe they can charge him with the Kenedy assassination as the second gunman on the grassy knoll!

[primmy]

Never charged with insurrection, never convicted of insurrection...can't be an insurrectionist otherwise you would've charged him with it by now!!!
9-0 in favour of Trump

[heatherhall]

Just listened to the tape of the oral arguments. SCOTUS shredded Colorado's case in a dozen ways. Even the liberal justices. Clearly going to be a 9-0 outcome.

[JDFIII]

CO just made a fool of themselves, and got punished here. Sent home and told you don’t get to unilaterally decide insurrection without fed legislation. The amendment is not interpreted that way, stay in your lane.

[mamiller]

The fact that we don’t get to see the people who make up such an important role in our government is bullshit. We should be able to see and hear these cases.

[pben]

They need to fix Jason’s title to “Lawyer for SOME Colorado voters” just that title is insulting

[riazmorshed]

I learned so many things from this oral argument

[rover]

The hook is that the clause of insurrection is not self evident, even though it was probably considered to be when written. Multiple states could all come up with different answers. So how is it to be adjudicated? Federal criminal court?
Their concern that a state could pick and choose candidates politically still would require their meeting the criteria of insurrection.
The criteria of insurrection needs to be defined.
There is a danger of say a president deciding to run for life if they can get a congressional waiver. We would then essentially be a dictatorship not a republic.
It used to be that the electoral college was intended to be a second line of defense. But it's apparent anyone can be bought off.
If Trump was guilty of insurrection and by inference sedition, does that also mean that the members of Congress who supported his claim are also guilty? But at the higher bar of treason? I noticed that the trump side slipped in "Congress" along with the presidency when discussing scope. But potentially all of the congressman who supported his insurrection claim would then also be ineligible for reelection.
Quite a sticky wicket.. it would be humorous if it wasn't so serious.

[sewj]

That Trump lawyer was an absolute legal monster. I felt the justices struggle to engage him in his legal aptitude.

[housetv]

Let the people decide. Don't be scurrred Craig. Trump 2024 😎

[PhotographerPhilosophy]

You can just hear the difference between the intellect between jonathan mitchell and the state of colorado's defense. The people defending colorado supreme court sounded stupid in comparison!

[adamlaubi]

Case summed up quite perfectly at 2:58:18 by Justice Brown-Jackson when she asks 'why didn't they put the word President in the very enumerated list?'

[plutoidrepublic]

im 18, the only time i TRULY FOLLOWED a election was 2020, it was sad

but I'm only just now getting "politically educated" first time EVER HEARING A scotus oral argument, its crazy..

[vancouverrealestate]

At 2:32:00Murrey admitted that only congress can remove a president through impeachment.