It seems to me that this is a dangerous game being played here. There is no ruling here that will lead to an overall positive outcome or be seen as legitimate by broad swaths of the country. I see any ruling creating more trouble than it solves.
To be clear, defeating Trump one last time in an election also isn’t going to solve anything, given how far gone the GOP is at this point. But it’ll be a damn sight better than the kind of political games that will start popping up if this works and better than giving Republicans a way to claim Trump was found not guilty of insurrection in court if it doesn’t.
I understand the 14th doesn’t require a conviction. But the SC ruling that Trump does not need to be removed from the ballot sure would look an awful lot like a ruling of “not guilty of insurrection” to a sizable segment of the population.
And the SC ruling that Trump should be removed from the ballot (1) will begin an absolute shitstorm and (2) opens up plenty of other candidates and politicians to shitty political games around this. How strongly can you criticize the actions of the federal or state governments with regards to LGBT rights, abortion, etc before you’re “providing aid or comfort to the enemies [of the US]”?
And any ruling is going to entrench everyone further into their view of “activist judges” that are part of a “politically-motivated” court.
I know that “half the country is insane” isn’t a great reason to avoid this, but honestly applying a hastily passed and vaguely written post Civil War provision to this current situation in our current society seems like it will do more harm than good.
much as I'd love to see them kick him out, I'm pretty sure all of them are aware that their lives could quite literally be on the line here. they're gonna figure out ahead of time who's voting what way, so they can have may be a 6-3 split while still ensuring that they don't risk actually letting it pass.
The Constitution only says participation in an insurrection is disqualifying, not conviction of a crime related to insurrection. That’s a huge difference in the eyes of lawyers & Constitutional scholars.
I really wish the idea that the SCOTUS is a body of pure, detached law would die. It is and always has been an overtly political institution dedicated to legislating from the bench. It has never been otherwise.
They aren't going to kick Trump off the ballot. There are actual reasonable legal arguments for why that would be wrong. And they don't even need them. Bullshit is adequate. He's their good boy.
Not that I really know anything about this but isn't this a state's rights issue? Don't states determine their own ballets? Anyway, this will be interesting to watch. I'd like to think we can't be sure of the results.
No matter how it goes, I think this will be damaging to the GOP which is fine by me. They married the criminal and I am sure there are those who wish to cut him loose and those who can't give him up.
Participation in an insurrection is disqualifying under the US Constitution, so it very much is not a states' rights issue. The question is what standard of evidence is required.
Even a convicted murder can be on the ballot; there are very few things that can forcibly bar one from the ballot. This doesn’t have a chance in hell of working.
It's fun to consider. What's absolutely wild is anyone who sincerely thinks there's even the most remote chance of the SCOTUS disqualifying their special boy. Even if the law were totally unambiguous and clear.
It's trivially easy for them to say "you didn't participate if you weren't convicted". That is certainly the least they will do. This court is likely to just say the entire thing about disqualification is totally moot in some way or another, at least when it comes to Trump
I don't really see how that changes anything. This is so far beyond an "I'll eat my hat" kind of thing. There is just no universe in which this SCOTUS will stop Trump from running even if someone is actually convicted that he "gave comfort" to before the case is seen.
oh, I don't disagree in the slightest. but whole people might be able to say that he wasn't part of the insurrection because he wasn't actually among those storming the capitol, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that he gave comfort to those who undeniably were.
it's 100% not gonna be enough, even though it's am absolutely open and shut case, legally.
I don't even think it is open and shut. There's a distinct lack of due process in this simple interpretation of "gave comfort", plus the phrasing is at least somewhat ambiguous. The clause, for example, disqualifies someone who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". That's a clear opportunity for a textualist to say that the insurrectionists/rebels are being treated separately from enemies of the state. It's bullshit, but bullshit is welcome to anyone who adheres to textualism.
And what even is "aid and comfort"? Is incitement material aid, or does that not meet the threshold? And absent a conviction of someone he aided/comforted on a charge of insurrection and a conviction of Trump on said incitement, can we truly say he has given aid or comfort? I think a true advocate for civil rights would be right to say you cannot put the punishment before the trial, even if it's not the outcome that matches my own preferences.
On top of this, the SCOTUS has an even easier and less cagy out -- they simply say disqualification isn't up to the courts, but is in fact up to the Congress. The 14th amendment says exactly this in section 5 -- that it is up to Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions. Congress has not passed any appropriate legislation to disqualify Trump, therefore lol he isn't. SUPER easy out for the court.
Don't forget that section 4 of the 14th definitely makes the debt ceiling illegal yet we do that dance annually.
Given the lack of a conviction on charges of insurrection, that is a very, very unlikely avenue to work. If such offenses cannot be proven in a court of law, why do you think a court of law will buy such offenses were committed?
They aren’t going to bar someone just on your accusation, you still have to convince the court of law the offense occurred. This is something they have utterly failed to prove thus far to any court of law. Why do you expect this time to be any different?
No one else has been provocateur #1 for the January 6th riots. No one has been convicted as the primary instigator of what could be considered a treasonous event.
Donald Trump seems to be the most likely candidate for those accusations, should they evidentiarily exist. The cases against the former president need to be watertight, should they exist. That means they take time to establish.
Message me in 3 years whether or not either or us is correct.
They’re politically motivated by regressive, theocratic principles. They’re not trump’s lackeys, they’ve ruled against him in the past on significant issues.
I don’t know. I think there’s a possibility. Remember, they’re politically beholden to the GOP, not necessarily Trump. The wealthy donors might not like his plans either. Which is perfect, because Thomas was thinking about a cruise in south America anyway.
Given the extremely barebones wording of the law and the lack of any conviction, I will be surprised if any resulting opinion were anything but unanimous or per curiam without dissent.
I agree. And I honestly believe the opinion will indicate that Trump hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime. Things may change, yet at the most he could be charged with insurrection prior to the court hearing the case. Regardless, I guarantee the court would grant Trump Due Process.
Add comment