Supreme Court will take up Trump’s eligibility to run for president
The justices set an accelerated timetable to hear the extraordinary election dispute.
But that district court judge, Sarah Wallace, ultimately ruled that Trump could remain on the ballot because she said it was not clear that the drafters or ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended to cover the presidency in the insurrection clause.
This part really pissed me off. The 14th amendment is pretty clear that it refers to any and all people. Is it just me, or is judge Wallace implying that it isn’t clear that the founders believed the president is a person?
It does apply to the President. Colorado's judge erred here because they did not have access to Federal documents.
We have the minutes from the 39th Congress that literally indicates that it applies to the President.
Why did you omit to exclude them [The office of the President and Vice President]?
— Sen. Reverdy Johnson (D-MD)
Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States'
— Sen. Lot Morrill (R-MA)
It was a very specific question that was answered by the Senate while they were discussing it. So Judge Wallace's determination is incorrect on the merits. Judges can be wrong sometimes, that's why we have appeals.
I thought the insurrection clause was a hard reach, but it feels really buttoned up when you take into account the discussions. Like I don't even see any maneuvering room. Which kinda sucks because I had emotionally accepted he was going to be the nominee and now I have hope.
What's really interesting is, what if he stays off the ballot in CO but wins the race? He's be the President of the US but ineligible to be President in CO. Seems like an actual constitutional crisis unless the SCOTUS ruling automatically removes him from every state.
Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee were some of the few that were barred from holding office until like, the 70's, when it was reversed posthumously. As with all things Trump, entertaining the question to begin with is pretty fucking stupid.
The supreme Court reversed saying as much, however even with all Democrat judges the decision was 4-3. Dissenting judges were concerned about the lack of due process, basically Trump hasn't been convicted. This is despite the fact that Trump's legal representation did defend against the plaintiffs claims.
Wallace's decision was brilliant legal maneuvering. Having found Trump factually guilty of insurrection, higher courts cannot re-adjudicate or dismiss that fact. It is now written in stone.
Given that this case was going to be appealed, no matter what, her decision basically dropped an anvil on Trump's head. Now SCOTUS cannot disregard the fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. They're stuck with that, that's how our law works. Bet Trump's defense is pissed off.
Only way out now is some serious legal acrobatics to say that 14th does not apply to POTUS. LOL, he's fucked.
And remember, this court is conservative, not partisan. These judges owe neither the GOP nor Trump a damned thing. I'd bet you a crisp $20 bill that, like the GOP leadership, every one of them loathes the man. And unlike the GOP leadership, they no longer have to worry about votes.
They've already declined to hear one Trump case (maybe two?), thereby kicking his loss back to the lower court. Where, ya know, he already lost. They also told Alabama to go fuck themselves on their redistricting shenanigans.
tl;dr: Wallace ruled this way on purpose to fuck Trump.
Everything you say would also be the case if she hadn't come up with the bullshit about not applying to the presidency. That was simply about keeping the maga crosshairs off of her.
Clarence Thomas seems to like Trump just fine; he and his wife were being very shady after the 2020 election.
The idea that this court is "not partisan" is frankly one of the most naïve things I've heard in a long time.
what has confused me about people saying this is, well, what exactly stops the supreme court from overriding him being declared factually guilty of that? Im guessing theres some sort of law to the effect that decisions like that arent what higher courts are trying to answer, but the supreme court also has no higher court to appeal a ruling to, so if they just decided to declare that this finding was incorrect anyway, what would happen?
Yeah, they are pretty GD partisan. By virtue of being conservative.
This is not a smart take. It’s basically conspiracy thinking.
Otherwise, the Supreme Court is clearly partisan, because Alito and Thomas unashamedly contort into any position needed to face the MAGA base, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett will typically tend to do so in any issue involving civil rights or business interests.
The GOP is the body that executes the will of whatever conservatism is at any moment; they are inseparable at the executional level. The doctrinal vehicle the GOP uses to get where it’s going is originalism, but the great thing about justices playing professional-amateur historians is that they can cherry-pick history to suit party-doctrinal needs.
I think what's important here is that the judge ruled that the orange cheeto comitted insurrection. I hope the supreme court does not strike down this part. If they don't, then they may proceed with judging the case based solely on that.
the president is an office inhabited by a person for four years at most twice.
that was the intent.
never again "I am the State."
That sounds a lot like Canadian (and also British) constitutional theory. The King is powerless himself. He just wears the crown, the Crown has all the power. The King wears the crown, and parliament controls it.
This is going to backfire on them royally. A left-wing person is going to be convicted of trying to overthrow the government, but then be able to run for president if that becomes the precedent. Be careful what you wish for, conservatives.
They're going to find some way to let him run. They'll overturn the trial judge in it being insurrection, they'll say the amendment needs legislation to back it up, they'll say say the word "the" doesn't really mean "the" like it did in 1492 or some such nonsense. It'll be 5-4 or 6-3, because the fascist right has the judiciary captured.
America entered the legal phase of fascism during Trumps presidency, and Biden and the democrats weren't able to correct it during this last best chance to do so. In my humble, ignorant, foreign opinion, this is it, this will be the next step in the long coming codification of fascist rule in America.
Good luck, hope I'm wrong.
'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States'
well see, the thing is, the presidency is both civil and military... it doesn't say "and/or" so clearly it's an exclusive 'or' (aka xor) and exempt...
- the super ream court
( ╯︵╰)
Garland tried his best to bury it but the J6 Committee forced his hand.
Honestly the J6 Committee is one of the very few recent examples of thy government actually functioning.
I think Trump is useful to the conservative movement either way, but it's probably better for them if he's a martyr.
The sad reality is it all comes down to whether their owners want Trump or someone they can control better.
Nope, America entered the fascist era with Obama. No, no, I'm still talking about the GOP!!
Fuckers shut down the government TWICE just because they didn't like a black man as a president. And do you remember this one time when Obama was giving a speech and some Republican idiot shouted "you lie!"?
Those were omens for things to come.
My only hope is that, somehow, they have verifiable already ruled against Trump before in other cases and filings.
And also that maybe ruling for him with Biden still in office now would set precedent to potentially backfire on Republicans somehow.
Both are stretches.
So, how do you think the Court will justify keeping Trump on the ballot?
Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection.
I keep seeing this one... Am I missing something, or didn't Colorado convict him of insurrection as part of their case? I thought that was the whole point.
But maybe I'm just trying to rationalize a group of people not acting rationally.
to me this is where it gets interesting. that the constitution left it to the states to 'remove the burden' of being labeled an insurrectionist to congress implies maybe they also decide who is an insurrectionist ... ie, maybe it only takes one state court to declare it, but congress to remove it?
in other words, the SC could say, 'colorados ruling stands becasue they have that right, if you dont like it speak to the congress who can remove the burden'
It's a matter of legal jargon. When people say "convicted" they mean has there been a criminal trial in which trump was found guilty of insurrection.
This hasn't happened. But the Colorado supreme court, a court that routinely makes decisions about criminal cases, has decided he committed insurrection.
The convicted thing is just an excuse to let him off.
The insurrectionist ban is only for people who participated in the civil war
My guess is this one or close to it. It's going to be an originalist interpretation of something like the definition of "insurrectionist" or "armed" and include a phrase like "the founding fathers didn't envision...". The reasoning might be some bad esoteric case law from the 1800's that defines insurrectionists as carrying literal muskets and pitchforks therefore Trump is not one.
That and they may just stall for time until after the election and claim they couldn't interrupt the democratic process term limits. Either way, Trump's chosen judges are about to have their decisive moment.
My hope is that they just ban him because he no longer has leverage after appointing them, but I am not sure if that would be an even worse indictment of their suitability as Supreme Court judges...
It would be possibly the most egregious thing SCOTUS has done (and they've done some shit) if they use this argument. We have the records of the adoption of the 14th, its original wording specified only members of the Confederacy were barred, but they explicitly changed it to cover any act of insurrection. We also know that they considered the language of "any officer" to cover the presidency because someone asked that question, and it's in the minutes.
I do think that banning him is the correct legal outcome.
However, while I think banning him is better for the country than any scenario in which he wins the election (or tries to dispute/steal it again), I think the best possible scenario in the long term would be for Trump to stay in the race, only to lose in a landslide and drag the entire Republican party down with him. The more the donors and power brokers see MAGA losing, the more they will want to shift the party away from the lunatic fringe and back to more mainstream, traditional candidates.
And as a bonus, if the Court doesn't neuter section 3, I'm sure we'll see some bullshit challenges filed against Democrats, and at least in a few jurisdictions I'm sure they may even be able to score a token victory.
I think the most sound legal reasoning would be to say he hasn't actually been convicted of any charge that constitutes "insurrection". Conviction is how the government asserts and proves that something happened, and to skip this step opens our legal system for a whole lot of abuse. They're going to say that, if and when he is convicted, then he can be barred, but not before.
When they release their final decision, it is just gonna be a picture of Clarence Thomas' anus.
I don't think they can argue #1, because a lower court found that he had done insurrection, and my understanding is that they cannot overrule that finding. #2 won't stand because it never required conviction historically.
I really don't know how they're going to justify it, but I'm sure they'll find a way. Maybe it's on your list.
Edit: I have consulted a legal expert, and they said that the supreme Court can overrule "facts" determined in other courts, but it is generally only for egregious things and is generally frowned upon.
But what about the most likely one?
"LaLaLa the law doesn't matter were unaccountable to anyone for any reason because you couldn't get 2/3rds of the house to agree that puppies are cute or shit stinks."
I honestly believe that conservatives on the supreme court are going to look for a way not to rule on it. The legal case for insurrection is straightforward, and they're going to want to just make it someone else's problem.
Section 3 says he can't hold office, doesn't say he can't get elected to it
Trump being impeached but acquitted after the insurrection means he can't be punished for it due to double jeopardy
So are they suggesting that to also get him out of Jack Smith’s Jan 6 case?
But that district court judge, Sarah Wallace, ultimately ruled that Trump could remain on the ballot because she said it was not clear that the drafters or ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended to cover the presidency in the insurrection clause.
If you participate in insurrection, you are not allowed to hold any office in the United States… except the highest apparently.
Clearly what they intended. /s
It was such a ridiculous ruling. We even have the literal discussions from congress when it passed. Someone asked what about president, and another senator replied hey look we said all offices, how much more clear could it be.
From the congressional record at that time:
"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson. [in reference to president and vice president]
Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.
"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.
Actually, you totally can. It's just if you've sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and then used the benefits of the position that required that commitment to try to overthrow the government...Then you are not allowed. Any of those J6 morons that hadn't sworn such an oath are still allowed to hold office.
Are you just learning this piece of old news? Really?
This is why Trump won. Complacency.
I wonder what our overly conservative, and therefore, illegitimate, "supreme" court will decide?
My guess is that they'll rule he doesn't qualify for being kicked off the ballot due to the 14th Amendment, but then they'll "balance" that ruling out by ruling against Trump in his "Presidents are criminally immune no matter what they do" case. As if they'd ever rule in favor of that theory with a Democrat in the White House.
I worry about this scenario:
The right wing justices on the court owe Trump nothing, and can look forward to using their lifetime positions to continue to ruin the country for decades. He was just a useful tool for getting them onto the court. They want Trump to stop bugging them and let them get on with it.
The three Trump justices and Thomas could recuse themselves, citing some previously hidden sense of ethics (and Habba specifically asking them for a quid pro quo).
Then a majority of the remainder would then remove Trump from the ballot.
This achieves 3 things:
The only problem with their scenario (for the Republicans and those that control them) is that Trump would freak out and might tell all his followers to storm the Supreme Court anyway.
≥storm the Supreme Court anyway.
I wonder how that would go down? Would there be someone trying to gum up the response like last time?
Lemme guess. It's gonna take 18 months?
I don’t know whether to be excited or worried.
Worried is a safe bet
what do you mean, clearly the US judicial system is fair and impartial /s
unfortunately, yeah.
Worried. Definitely
They aren't hearing the case until 2/8 but the deadline for ballot finalization is 1/5, today.
So, regardless of how they rule, Trump will be on the ballot for the 3/5 Republican primary.
And if they rule against him, any votes that were cast will be ineligible and won’t be counted. The same as if I had written in someone who was born outside the US, or was under 35 years old. My write-in vote would simply be discarded, because it isn’t for a valid candidate.
Yes. But, should they rule against trump there's no reason that Colorado's Secretary of State has to count any votes he gets.
They wouldn't take it up if they were going to rule against him.
Can’t we all chip in a bribe Clarence Thomas? Apparently it’s totally legal and has zero repercussions.
On what grounds would they even look at this case? There is no federally constituted right to be on ballots to begin with.
Because they wanna. They don't care about standing anymore.
And there's no need for them to address most of it because it already comes with a remedy for the accused, appeal to congress who can vote on forgiving them.
They can rule on the interpretation of the law i believe.
It's a little late for that approach, since Judge Sarah Wallace already attempted to say the 38th congress didn't intend for the law to apply to the President but it was overturned in appeals court when documents proved they did actually discuss exactly that topic on the day and made no exclusions. So, they have no grounds to even review this case.
"We the SCOTUS rule that Trump gets 3 more terms, and Joe Biden goes to jail because he's a poopy head." - Clarence Thomas probably
I'm sure the most accomplished legal minds in the country will judge this fairly, without bias, and entirely on the merits of the case itself
civil is guaranteed right now. it's pretty obvious the basis for denying trump eligibility to join the ballot will not be accepted by the Court. The Article on Insurrection arose out of a civil war, and nothing short of a civil war can give rise to the same basis.
Does it say that somewhere?
The Supreme Court that is comprised mostly of conservatives half of which he put there? I'm sure it'll be a fair ruling....
I hope whatever their decision is leads to term limits.
I don't care for old out of touch motherfuckers who have the power to control aspects of our life given a lifelong position.
Ugh, term limits again. What will that do, exactly?
Also, right about the time we get life extension is when someone finally pushes their blessed term limits through, so it will be another antique, outmoded thing to deal with and hard to remove (like the EC).