The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot
The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot
Surprise!!
In what warped reality is the President of the United States not "an officer of the US"? The amendment was literally made for this exact situation.
It makes less than zero sense that the drafters and ratifiers of the amendment meant to leave the highest office in the nation out of the purview of the amendment. Absolute horseshit.
Pretty disappointing to see the comments from some of the more liberal justices...
Not only is what you're saying obviously correct, but THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THE FUCKING AMENDMENT was asked about this exact lack of the word "president", and pointed to the officer line, and said that clearly included the president.
It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?
"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.
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.
presidential office is both, its listed twice
It sounds to me like they are going to weasel out of it by saying the Colorado Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to make that decision for everyone.
Which they didn't.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified and cannot appear on the Colorado ballots. The Colorado Supreme Court does have that authority, because the Colorado state legislature gave it to them and nothing in federal law says they don't. Colorado had previously disqualified another candidate, and the judge who determined they could was Neil Gorsuch.
There is no question as to whether the President is an officer of the United States. There is no question as to whether his oath to uphold and defend the constitution is also an oath to support the constitution. There is no question as to whether the actions on January 6th were an insurrection, as several participants have already been convicted of seditious conspiracy. There is no question as to whether Trump supported them, because he live tweeted his support to the world in real time. There is no question as to whether Trump needs to be convicted, because the amendment never mentions conviction, and none of the other people previously disqualified under this amendment from office were convicted of anything.
None of these arguments holds even the faintest hint of water. They are bad faith arguments made by political hacks with a predetermined agenda to support Trump. The court is illegitimate, and we have no functional justice system.
None of these arguments holds even the faintest hint of water.
And guess how much they care for this? They are not neutral, they don't follow the law, they just "interpret" it to follow their political agenda. Just compare their deposits and transcripts before they were voted into the office, and their deeds afterwards. The three judges called by Trump are a disgrace to the office if there ever was one.
Just the notion that people label them as "conservative" or "republican" judges shows that they are lacking keys requirement for the job: objectivity and neutrality.
Colorado had previously disqualified another candidate.
Who was the other candidate? My understanding is that this case is unique in that it pertains to the President. The President is the only official elected by all Americans so this is what separates them from other officials, congressional candidates, presidential electors, etc. If someone is running for president, they should be accessible to vote for by all Americans.
If someone is illegible for President, is it proper for individual states to make the determination to keep them off the ballot? Or should it be a decision made by congress, SCOTUS, the presidential electors, or the political party? This part isn't mentioned in the constitution. And uhhh, as we know, the constitution says whatever isn't in the constitution is left to the states. Still, that's a tricky corner to be stuck in when you're talking about 50 states voting for President.
They could be taking an absurdly and ultimately pointless stance that primaries aren't covered by the constitution and his presence is meaningless on the ballot of a private group. It would allow Trump on the primary ballot and still give the option for blocking him in the general election, or more likely the electors ballot.
They could go so far as to say being elected is fine, but he would be disqualified from taking the oath and becoming president, so in a Trump victory the vice president is the real winner.
While you're correct, SCOTUS will most likely rule on the basis of this being "too politicized" and write some vague motions to support it. "Officer of the US" is just one of the many avenues they can take. It's not the first time they've skirted controversial rulings this way.
Tbf it's also worked in reverse to uphold lower court rulings affirming civil rights, etc in the past too. Right or wrong, it's a "how the sausage is made" moment for the Judiciary Branch.
To be clear: I personally believe not upholding the Colorado/Maine, etc rulings to be a failure of our systems of checks and balances. Just pointing out the mechanism behind the court's choices.
In what warped reality is the President of the United States not “an officer of the US”?
The one where POTUS is the only "officer" not mentioned in section 3 of the 14th amendment. This was brought up in the case today at 1:57:10 https://www.youtube.com/live/6VpJKUscNaM?si=r1DuX5F82so1XaTB&t=7032
Justice Jackson asks,
Then why didn't they put the word President in the very enumerated list in section 3? They were listing people that were barred and president is not there.
Murray (representing Colorado Voters) answered this referring to the debates in congress that occurred over section 3.
Johnson said why haven't you included president in the language? Moore responds, we have. Look at the language any office under the United States...
Jackson cuts in,
doesn't that at least suggest ambiguity?
This part was very satisfying to hear...
Murray goes on to argue (1:59:03) that those listed in the section three (presidential electors and senators and representatives) do not hold offices while the constitution does say the presidency does hold an office (though he didn't indicate where is says this).
Jackson moves on from this after saying she appreciated the argument.
I felt this was a very important and convincing exchange. So, fingers crossed.
Reference https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So that would mean insurrection would be legal in America. If Biden loses to Trump, I will feel empowered to riot in the same way. Time to get a gun I guess.
Anything resembling a more left leaning insurrection will get a very different response than the last one. You will be murdered by the state on the spot. The feds bombed a civilian neighborhood in the 80s for less than that.
Questions of Legality aren't being heard here. This is only about eligibility for being on a presidential ballot and the ability of an individual state to determine eligibility and remove the candidate from the ballot.
No. The questions posed by the Supreme Court centered around whether there was merit in allowing any single state, which may have arbitrary criteria and or processes, to effectively eliminate a candidate from the ballot, and if so, under what constraints. Ours a valid question. Where is the line? If you allow this precedent, how might it be abused by others?
States rights only matter when it oppresses women, not when it's constitutionally legal and valid!
It's not allowing a single court to decide, the Supreme Court of the land is be reviewing that decision right now. They're not just going to do that on their own. It has to start somewhere.
It may mean that someone found guilty of insurrection may not be voted by state electors to be president.
You're now on a list.
Funny how no one claims states rights here.
That only seems to be a Republican talking point.
Because it is not a state's right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.
Colorado isn't interpreting it, merely following it. He's been found guilty in a Colorado Court for a crime that disqualifies him to appear on the ballot of that state.
To argue otherwise is to argue that states can't remove teenagers from the ballot even though they're too young to hold office.
"Supreme court seems poised to reject efforts to kick insurrectionist Donald Trump off the ballot over the January 6th insurrection, despite the law saying no insurrectionists can be on the ballot"
"top constitutional court ready to rule entire constitutional amendment unconstitutional"
wouldn't be the first time. the 9th in particular seems to mystify our corporate evangelicals in the court.
as is half the second. it's wild, there isn't even a punctuation mark between the part that just doesn't count for anything and the part that's incontrovertible word of God
This is why voting matters. The SCOTUS is basically an apparatus of the conservatives now, and will be for most of the rest of our lives.
I agree with everything here other than "This".
This case has been brought to the Supreme Court by of the Colorado republicans who wanted Trump off the ballot.
If you had read the first sentence of the article, you'd see that most of the judges are in agreement.
with conservative and liberal justices in apparent agreement in a case that puts them at the heart of a presidential election.
I do not understand the US judiciary nullifying a portion of the "sacred" constitution. Seems like the beginning of the end, to an outside observer. Thanks for all the fish!!
No, no, don't worry, the Supreme Court ruling that the plain language of the Constitution must be interpreted in ever-narrower ways (except when it helps the right-wing) is totally not troubling at all.
No way man, this is the middle of the end. The beginning of the end was when they introduced legal bribery after dumbing down the general populace for a couple decades.
Can we just get to the end? I’m tired of all this.
States that believe he should not be on the ballot should keep him off the ballot regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Fuck them and their corrupt shit.
SCOTUS rules that they can overturn amendments.
SCOTUS rules it can choose the next president.
SCOTUS rules it can execute people without a trial.
Any bets on where Clarence Thomas will get to spend his next luxury vacation?
Definitely not Colorado
Tldr:
Their excuse is he wasn't personally there.
So it's not saying an insurrection is ok, they're saying trump hasn't been proven to have participated yet.
Which is why not holding presidents accountable while in office is bullshit. This shit takes so long thru the courts, a lot can change.
We can't take a decade to prosecute an insurrection
Except it's been proven by the courts already.
I wouldn't count this as over just yet. it makes sense that the judges would reserve their harshest questioning for the side that feels they must upend an election. Even the Liberal justices were wary of that.
They spent very little time on the topic of whether Trump was engaged in insurrection. To me, that means their minds are made up on that, one way or the other. You would think if they were going to let him off the hook based on that, though, they would ask more questions.
I think they will rule that individual states can't use the amendment to keep candidates off of primary ballots. That much is clear. I wonder if they rule that Trump must remain on the ballot, but cannot serve if he wins -- unless waived by Congress. It would make the discussion of Trump's VP much more interesting.
I hope you're correct in your analysis.
To me the argument was leaning more into the idea that it would be a violation of Stinky's rights to prevent him from being in the ballot. I think it's nuts to say, allow a traitor to run and be elected, then they can attempt to have their disability removed by Congress.
If they rule to overturn Colorado's decision, they will have essentially nullified section 3.
I don't think the reconstructionists ever imagined that a large number of people would look at someone who pointed a cannon at the Constitution and say that person should definitely hold office. If section 3 is not self-executing I struggle to see how it could be effectively used in any scenario.
To me the argument was leaning more into the idea that it would be a violation of Stinky's rights to prevent him from being in the ballot.
Which is an absolute horseshit argument. Is it a violation of the rights of a 33 year old person to say he's constitutionally ineligible to be President?
No, because that's literally one of the conditions for office the Constitution requires.
There is no due process violation because there's no process at all- if you try to overthrow the government that is a prima facie disqualifier for being President. You don't have to be convicted, the same way you don't get convicted of being under 35 or convicted of not spending 14 years in the US.
To say otherwise means there's a lot of dead Confederates the US government owes an apology to.
.
Their only opening is on the eligibility question, which is a simple yes or no.
It can't be a simple yes or no, though, because the eligibility restriction can be waived. And the amendment says "No person shall ... hold any office", which says nothing about running for office. There's nothing that says that waiver has to come before declaring any candidacy.
I would not put it past them to say something like "He is currently ineligible. If he runs anyway, then Congress can wait to decide to waive it until after the election". Kicking the can as far down the road as possible, in the hopes that Trump loses and none of this is necessary.
The nuance you're missing is that Congress by 2/3rds majority can vote to essentially nullify ineligibility part of the 14th amendment. So he could theoretically get elected and Congress could vote that he could still serve despite leading an insurrection.
Would Congress ever vote on that? Not a chance. But it still leaves open eligibility, which is the issue. If he could be eligible to be president, can he really be kept off the ballot?
There is a near 0 chance SCOTUS will rule beyond what is in front of them. And in this case that is the question if the states have the right to keep candidates off the ballots for the federal election based on article 14 section 3 as this is the justification that was chosen by colorado.
The subjects that will not be touched in this case:
It is an interesting question, as this asks if the states have the right to determine the answers to the 3 questions above for themselves.
And this is what the main questions today seemed to be about. Because a "yes, states can define this themselves' would lead to potentially different answers based on the states.. and that seems to be an undesired outcome.
The probable outcome is "no states cannot decide" I doubt they will even a sweet "if not states then who" but probably congress. But then..if congress decides.. why can they decide to overrule with 2/3 majority?
And how would this then have worked during the post civil war era? As I said.. interesting.. I'm curious how SCOTUS will answer.. especially the motivation.
And this also allows the conservative judges to leave the 3 questions unanswered for another day....
I mean, yeah it’s disappointing but hopefully a legal case can prove he in incited an insurrection and then states can remove him from the ballot. Then the SCOTUS would have to quite literally just nullify a a part of the Constitution, which would be… not out of the realm of possibilities at this point
The legal case in Colorado already determined he met the definitions of insurrection as known by the authors of the 14th.
Based on a summary of their questions and statements, I suspect SCOTUS will rule that only via a procedure defined by Congress can someone be determined to be ineligible for the Presidency based on the 14th. And only at the federal level.
There was such a procedure defined by law following the Civil War but it was revoked by Congress in the 1940s.
I mean, yeah it’s disappointing but hopefully a legal case can prove he in incited an insurrection and then states can remove him from the ballot.
"Trial was too close to an election. Political. Overruled."
Fast forward to 2025: Defendant Donald Trump in the Insurrection Case given a Presidential Pardon by President Donald Trump. Matter settled.
Bruh, it's already been proven he's an insurrectionist by the courts. Gotta love how SCOTUS thinks it can overrule an amendment.
Looks like 248 years is the cutoff for a democratic United States. We'll soon see if the Christians can contain their collective erection for destroying societies for 2 years so we can at least say 250.
I'm all for democracy in the US, but the electoral college was put in specifically to avoid being a democracy. Also representative democracy is just a fancy word for oligarchy. Plus legislation hasn't represented public opinion since the at least the 80s, based on research from Princeton.
So we've never been designed as democracy, they are checks against democracy, and we're not functionally democratic.
What christians and fascists are destroying at the moment is the rule of law.
but the electoral college was put in specifically to avoid being a democracy.
This interpretation ignores well know historical events. The electoral college was created as part of a series of compromises. It was not created to prevent democracy. The flaws in our democracy are being exploited to achieve minority rule. However, they are flaws that can be fixed, not the defining qualities of our democracy.
https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
Also representative democracy is just a fancy word for oligarchy.
This is factually incorrect. Even a causal review of definitions of the word representative democracy demonstrate this has no basis in reality.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/representative-democracy
representative democracy, political system in which citizens of a country or other political entity vote for representatives to handle legislation and otherwise rule that entity on their behalf.
Plus legislation hasn’t represented public opinion since the at least the 80s, based on research from Princeton.
The constitution has been in effect since 1789. Recent neoliberalism aside, we have always been a democracy. We are in danger of becoming a christofascist dictatorship, in no small part because of neoliberalism, if we do not vote in record numbers in the 2024 election.
What christians and fascists are destroying at the moment is the rule of law.
The Republican party is destroying is our democracy. It's why they focus so heavily on subverting our elections and reducing voter turn out. They will happily see that laws are enforced once they are in power. It's "rules for thee not for me".
It's actually an extremely long run for a persistent Constitution. So yes, I would bet against it
The US has barely ever been a democracy. Women didnt get the right to vote until 1920 and Black people were barely allowed to vote until the 1960s. The US has been an apartheid state and then a plutocracy
I don't disagree with you, but I think my point still stands; every time the Christians make a power grab, shit hits the fan.
There's a reason the puritans got kicked out of Europe.
They didn't come here to escape "religious persecution," they came here to continue persecuting people who weren't their religion. Look what they've done to every group that isn't them, just from a historical perspective.
Is that what we're gonna sit here and watch happen yet again?
dEmOcaRY
👏 We did it guys! We called it! 👏
"The 14th Amendment wasn't in the original Constitution so it's not valid" - The Supreme Court, probably
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Conservative and liberal justices alike questioned during arguments Thursday whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, ending with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president.
Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”
Trump, speaking to reporters after the proceedings, called the Supreme Court argument “a beautiful thing to watch in many respects,” even as he complained about the case being brought in the first place.
They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.
The original article contains 1,087 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Having "democratic" or " Republican" labelled judges just means your system is broken and shit.
💯
Listen to prosecuting Donald trump podcast, helpful to understand why this won't work from a legal perspective. Don't worry, this one is just noise
It's...the supreme court. They are the law.
texas already ignored a supreme court ruling, colorado or whoever can too. Its not like they can personally go there and fix it themselves.
The disconnect is that this case isnt determining whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. There is already a case going on to determine that. And it's just common sense that it goes in that order, he has to be found guilty of insurrection before he can legally be labeled as an insurrectionist.
Okay but that already happened. There's another case determining the part about whether he goes to jail for it, but that he is an insurrectionist per the amendment is already resolved.
Good. Let him lose again, trying to litigate him off the ballot will create a WAY bigger problem.
The problem already exists. It's time we face it. If we have 1/3rd of the nation lining up as racist traitors that don't like the freedoms the nation provides then its time to stamp them out. If what makes them rear their ugly head is removing Trump from the ballot then so be it. Really I don't know why Trump isn't in prison for Jan 6th.
Did anyone think for even a moment that this illegitimate "supreme" court would rule in good faith? This court serves only conservatives and billionaires.
This court is a conservative roach motel. It should be tossed into the deepest part of the garbage.
While listening to the hearing this morning, I was taken by the overall consensus and impartiality of ALL the justices (though Barrett does sound like a child who's in way over her head). I was surprised most by Jackson's line of questioning which seemed more opposed to the ballot removal than anyone else.
This isn't about conservatives - conservatives are the one's suing to keep him off the ballot. It's about the Constitution and state rights.
If you're interested in the actual legality of it all, rather than the "politics", I would encourage you to keep away from biased media opinions, click/rage-bait headlines, and (it should go without saying) social media. It's actually an extremely interesting case and this article you are commenting on without reading is a great place to start.
A lot of it appeared super obvious to me over the past few months but the justices and lawyers are bringing up some interesting perspectives I would never have thought of.
You and I and the internet can argue all we want about whether he should be permitted on every sate ballot (I presume we're in agreement of the preferred outcome) but, I'll assume, neither of us are lawyers, state counsels, or constitutional scholars. And it seems that there's a discussion about 'being on a ballot' and 'being inaugurated as president' are the same or not. Perhaps he's on the ballot and wins the election only to find the electors can't vote for him. Yeah - it's weird AF.
Kagans reasoning is so fucking stupid. No one has the right to run for president and kicking one person off doesn't "decide who is president" it means they're not qualified. If I was 34 and tried to run they would say I'm not qualified...not that the state was deciding I couldn't be president.
Not arguing anything other than that the aftermath of him being on the ballot, winning, and then being told he can’t take office would shatter this country
There should be a ruling on what constitutes an insurrection, but this trial is not about that.
And I think that a ruling on that is a long way off.
A single state didn't decide who gets to be President. A single state decided who qualifies to appear on their ballots under state law, as all states are entitled to do.
Bad faith slippery slope argument. Colorado passed a law and took the case to court where the State Supreme Court made a ruling. If there's another state where the State Supreme Court has both the authority and the audacity to disqualify a candidate for partisan reasons, those justices should be charged with treason against America.
Then should a small federal subcommittee screen all candidates on the state's behalf before they're placed on the ballot?
I think finding ourselves in the position where a candidate won the popular vote but the electors are unable to vote for him, that would be a blunder as a country at best, cause an uprising among all the disenfranchised voters at worst.
Also one of their arguments that you left out is whether or not the POTUS is an officer of the United States... Which I think is an obvious YES! He is the commanding officer of the military, and as a veteran, I was trained that the POTUS was an officer.
Let's burn this mother down, pookie!
I wonder who else decided that rioting was a good response to not getting your way….
Hmmm….
It's also not only too conservative, it's too religious.
Illegitimate is exactly right.