Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot
Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot
Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.
Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
One of those things is insurrection, though. So ... I don't think this is absolutely wild to consider.
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 believe it says even someone who gave comfort to a person involved in an insurrection is disqualified.
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.
Also "being under the age of 35" in the context of the office of President.
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?
You don't have to be convicted, just participate.
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.