This deserves a longer write up than I can give it right now, but Biden would be much better off arguing that Trump isn’t a valid candidate than arguing that we should pick him over Trump. He’s avoided it because he thinks Trump is his only argument, but he needs more if we’re gonna win this.
Trump v Anderson is much more vulnerable than it appears at first blush, and if I were a blue state AG, I would consider announcing that I won’t print ballots with his name because the Supreme Court says he’s disqualified. Invite Congress to intervene if they want to compel me to change.
Trump v Anderson. The Court’s sinister supermajority affirmed all six points of Trump’s disqualification, and skipped to the question: Did CO err in ordering Trump off of the ballot? That’s what their whole decision is based on. They said he was disqualified, but Congress had to enforce that.
No, this is false. The Court recounted the Colorado Supreme Court's decision that Trump was disqualified, but in no way did the Court claim any agreement (or disagreement) with this holding.
If they don’t challenge the holding, doesn’t it leave it standing? Or does it simply wipe it clear? Because if he’s not disqualified, then why does enforcement of Section 3 matter? They could just say there’s nothing to enforce, right?
No. When a court says "we don't need to review this part because it's irrelevant" it doesn't adopt that holding - it says "even if you're right it wouldn't impact the outcome so we're not wasting our time deciding whether it's right or wrong"
Cool! Thank you for explaining that to me. So if someone argued that they won’t let him have ballot access because SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on his disqualification, and Colorado is the only rule they have, would that force a suit to put Trump on the ballot?
