Jarvis Profile picture
Dec 20, 2023 12 tweets 4 min read Read on X
I forgot I have an actual job so this will have to be fast. Thread:

There are five judicial opinions out of Colorado on this Trump ballot thing: the trial court opinion, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and three Supreme Court dissenting opinions.

None of the opinions agree with each other (except maybe the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Boatright and Justice Berkenkotter).
The most compelling and - in my view - correct decision was the dissent from Justice Samour.

Justice Samour reached holdings that none of the other four groups did.

He examined the issues with the depth and close examination of the case law that is most like how SCOTUS does it.

I think SCOTUS will reverse the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, and will largely follow the dissent of Justice Samour. I think the SCOTUS decision will be either 9-0 or 7-2.

When the SCOTUS does so, I will remind of you this tweet and gloat. There will be no dealing with me after that.
Before we get to Justice Samour, first some background on the Colorado Supreme Court. It is not typically a deeply divided or partisan Court. They are all Democrats, and they were all appointed by Democrat governors with similar liberal/libertarian leanings.

We get a lot of unanimous opinions. Divisions when they occur are typically respectful and intellectually honest. No vitriol.

I was surprised that this case was a 4-3 opinion, and even more surprised at how sloppy the majority opinion was. Knowing that SCOTUS absolutely has to take this case, I figured they would write something stronger. Ah well.
One more tweet about Justice Samour before we get to the law stuff -- he was born and raised in El Salvador, but fled the country at the age of 13 due to the risk of civil war.

Not necessarily relevant but . . . maybe it is.

Ok, onto the law stuff.
This case is about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, Section 3 says that insurrectionists can't hold certain offices.

The trial court held that Section 3 did not apply to the President, and the trial court might be right. Justice Samour did not need to resolve that issue, though . . .Image
Because of Section FIVE of the 14th Amendment. That section says hey -- you know the whole insurrection thing we just talked about?

How is this supposed to work? Who gets to decide who engaged in an insurrection? What sort of standard of proof applies? Is it a civil trial or a criminal trial? Is it a judge or a jury or someone else who decides that a particular person engaged in insurrection and therefore disqualified? What if they're already appointed - do they still get paid while the proceedings are going on?

The 14th amendment doesn't answer any of these questions. Instead, Section 5 says that Congress gets to pass legislation to give enforcement power to carry out Section 3.Image
And Congress did just that! Justice Samour points out that in 1870, Congress passed a law that allowed for both civil and criminal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

This law was when repealed and replaced in 1948. Image
1948: Congress replaced the 1870 statute with a criminal insurrection law, 18 U.S.C. § 2383.

If convicted under that statute -- with full criminal due process afforded the defendant -- one of the punishments is to be banned from holding office in the United States.

Trump has not been charged under this statute.Image
So. Congress -- and only Congress -- gets to pass legislation enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Congress did so, and it chose to enact a criminal statute that bars anyone convicted under it from holding any office in the U.S.

Trump has not been charged or convicted under that statute.

Therefore, Trump can appear on the ballot.
That's pretty much it.

There is case law backing up all of this analysis. Justice Samour engaged in a lengthy discussion of Griffin's Case, but I'll let you read that for yourself. I predict that SCOTUS will heavily cite Griffin's Case in its decision reversing Colorado.Image
This analysis renders a lot of the other questions irrelevant. Did Trump engage in an insurrection? Does Section 3 apply to the President? Should Trump be off the ballot nationwide or just in states like Colorado that found that he engaged in an insurrection?

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that Congress followed the 14th Amendment and established a procedure for barring someone from office for engaging in an insurrection, and that procedure was not followed here.
Alright. Back to pornography.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jarvis

Jarvis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jarvis_best

Mar 30

A lot of people are upset with Biden for declaring Easter to be Trans Day of Visibility, but to be fair, the date of was selected only because the LGBCalendar was already rather full.

The Trans Day of Visibility is March 31. Do not confuse this with the Trans Day of Remembrance, which is November 20.
We must also take care to honor Transgender Parent Day (Nov 6) Trans Awareness Week (Nov 13-19) and International Pronoun Day (Oct 20).

Trans is distinct from drag. International Drag Day is July 16.
But not everyone even HAS a gender to trans. Agender Pride Day is May 19. Intersex Awareness Day is Oct 26.

You can come out as any of these on National Coming Out Day, which is October 11.
Read 12 tweets
Mar 14
As a reminder Jarvis and a 9-0 SCOTUS were correct and Dumbass George Conway - who is a dumbass - and Dumbass J Michael Luttig - who is also a dumbass - were wrong.

But sure let’s just pretend Sonia Sotomayor is MAGA so we don’t have to concede how smart and handsome Jarvis is.
Oh and ANYONE co-authoring or promoting Tribe on ANYTHING is deranged or acting in bad faith. Guy hasn’t been lucid in years. That’s just a medical fact. They’re literally trotting out a senile lunatic to advance their narrative.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 18
Back in April 2023 when Trump was indicted for the first time in the victimless New York false records indictment, I said he was going to get convicted despite the fact that the charge was dumb. The overwhelming majority of my fellow legal commentators disagreed with me, saying mean things to me like “you fat dumbass” and “fat.”

But the reason I stuck to my guns was that once the charge is handed down, there are limited off-ramps to get rid of it no matter how lame it is.

The combination of intensely partisan judges and juries in these districts and the less than ideal attorneys and clients on the Trump side would make it hard to get a good outcome for Trump.Image
Now that Trump is Ofer infinity in court cases in the lib districts, does anyone want to change their mind on this one?
Again, not saying the charge wasn’t dumb. But you know what else was dumb? The financial disclosure case (verdict against Trump, huge damages) and the Jean Carroll case (verdict against Trump, huge damages).

Why is this one different?
Read 6 tweets
Feb 8
Damn dude this is madness. I thought Matt was joking, but no -- the Department of Justice actually concluded that Biden was too old and feebleminded to commit a crime.
Oh my god. Oh my god.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 19
Mini-thread: Trump's Supreme Court brief on the Colorado ballot case makes 5 arguments:

1. The president is not an "officer of the United States"
2. Trump did not "engage in insurrection"
3. Section 3 can be enforced only through Congress's chosen methods
4. Section 3 cannot be used to deny President Trump access to the ballot
5. Colorado violated the Electors Clause and the Colorado Election Code
Argument 2: Trump did not engage in insurrection.

This is exactly the sort of fact-based argument that SCOTUS likes to avoid. SCOTUS tends to prefer to rule on legal principles as opposed to debatable questions of fact.

I don't think they touch this argument.
Argument 5: Colorado violated the Electors Clause and the Colorado Election Code

I've read this portion of the brief a few times and I'm not even sure I understand it. From what I can understand, it seems wrong. Not seeing this as a big winner.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!