How the Supreme Court May Rule on Trump’s Presidential Run - The New York Times
How the Supreme Court May Rule on Trump’s Presidential Run - The New York Times
The legal issues are novel and tangled, experts said, and the justices may be wary of knocking a leading presidential candidate off the ballot.
TL;DR NY Times predicts trump will remain on the ballet and the ruling will likely have a very narrow basis in hopes of achieving unanimous consensus from the court.
In what way did he not do an insurrection? They're just trying to get laws and rulings to apply to Democrats but not Republicans now?
You're making the classic mistake of acting as though they are operating in good faith.
They are fascists who do not care about the rule of law. They will do whatever benefits them, whenever it benefits them. In the same sentence they will appeal to your ethics or morality while preaching the polar opposite, with total disregard for logical consistency.
I don't expect them to argue against him inciting an insurrection. I think they will argue that the office of the president isn't a civil office of the United States as laid out in the constitution, as has been a common legal argument brought forth as of late. So they will probably have to argue that the rattifiers of the ammendment were so worried about insurrectionists taking over government that they wanted to prevent it, but not enough they thought the presidency should be barred to insurrectionists.
So they will probably have to argue that the ratifiers of the amendment were so worried about insurrectionists taking over government that they wanted to prevent it, but not enough they thought the presidency should be barred to insurrectionists
Except we have the record for for their debate saying that the 39th Congress who passed the 14th Amendment knew that the Office of the President was indeed an office to be guarded. The reason they enumerated the others in Clause 3 was because multiple people wanted to ensure that those folks too were covered.
But even if the President isn't enumerated Trump has this problem.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
— US Constitution, 10th Amendment
So it not being specified by the Constitution nor being codified by Congress as law, how States want to look at the 14th is up to them. So even if SCOTUS wants to play the "The President is not listed" card. It's not explicitly denied. The tenth amendment indicates that if it's not denied, States get to run with it.
What SCOTUS can rule upon is "due process" which is asserted by the 14th clause 1. SCOTUS could indicate that the process by which Colorado took doesn't meet this bar. But then, SCOTUS would kind of be on the hook for indicating "well what is the official process?" And if they say "Well Congress has to make it up" then we fall back into the "if Congress doesn't say anything, States get to run with it" problem that the 10th amendment grants.
See Colorado isn't trying to impose their will unto everyone, which means this squarely falls into a "State's rights" kind of thing. And that's going to get tricky for the Conservatives to word salad themselves out of that corner they've painted. That's not to say they won't, but it's going to be an interesting read to say the least on how they rule.
I can understand their hesitancy to rule with Colorado because then it'll open a floodgate that we all know that particular states will attempt to abuse. But boy oh boy have they been so strong on States should get to do what they want so hard that this kind of thing was just waiting to come back and bite them on the ass.
Which is some rank fucking bullshit, no way that should be unanimous.
I'm sure they're gonna abandon all pretense of the principled "states decide" position that they used to gut the Voting Rights Act, but that should be a party line vote.
Obviously they will find some way to force him on the ballot; they are crooked hacks, after all.
I submit that the Presidency is an office (quotes like "I serve the office, not the man") and the person holding that office is an officer. I get that sometimes the constitution can be unclear, but that one doesn't seem like rocket science no matter how folks want to split words.
No my take is they will find he is being denied without due process. Which is arguable. Has he even been formally accused of insurrection? I mean I know we all saw it with our own eyes, but do we want to open the door to denying someone their right to run for office based on an opinion that what he did could be considered insurrection? Think about how many people trump would accuse of insurrection. Everyone that fought against him in what he would call his legitimate reelection.
So this tool needs to be used very cautiously because it could be turned to serve evil.
Can't scotus just stall, for example say that they will take up the case in idk 2026 and call it a day? I mean I would not like it and a lot of people wouldn't but at this point they don't even pretend to be unbiased, right?
The SC is a partisan institution. I haven't seen a convincing argument otherwise.
It’s up to them whether they take a case and when. I’m sure they can and have stalled on cases to not change the results of an ongoing process, but have also taken some more quickly when they think timeliness is important.
A non-partisan SCotUS would pay attention to critical timing and try to minimize the impact
However a partisan court has a bias to take the case and rule according to their preferences
Probably will be on the ballot, they’re just gonna say that they’ll have to revisit the issue if he makes it to the national. Republican Party is free to nominate anyone they choose so it’s not soctus’ place yet or some fucking bullshit. This was always going to happen
They’re desperate to not look more biased than they are, especially since Trump is forcing them to show their hand with the immunity pleas
And what if Colorado/Maine tells the SC to go piss up a rope after the ruling?
I'm no expert, but I would guess a constitutional crisis and then bad stuff (i.e. nobody knows, it's not supposed to happen).
Conceivably there could be military intervention; the national guard was called to intervene after many schools refused to comply with the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education.
Well, all the teabaggers that cry about "states rights" will surely support Colorado/Maine, right?
Right?
what if Colorado/Maine tells the SC to go piss up a rope after the ruling?
Who would care? The MAGA court has lost legitimacy.
The Court issues orders requiring compliance with the holding. If the state officials remain in defiance, then US Marshals arrest the noncompliant state officials, if necessary the President will order the federalizing of the National Guard to provide security to sites and personnel and to ensure compliance with federal law, and so on. Basically the full authority of the federal government being used to bring a rebellious state government to heel.
Why would you expect that? SC overrides lower courts all the time and it doesn’t turn into insurrection.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will doubtless seek consensus or, at least, try to avoid a partisan split of the six Republican appointees against the three Democratic ones.
Among them: The justices could rule that congressional action is needed before courts can intervene, that the constitutional provision at issue does not apply to the presidency or that Mr. Trump’s statements were protected by the First Amendment.
“I expect the court to take advantage of one of the many available routes to avoid holding that Trump is an insurrectionist who therefore can’t be president again,” said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard.
“For the sake of the country, we need resolution of this issue as soon as possible,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Mr. Trump was disqualified in Colorado and Maine based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars officials who have taken an oath to support the Constitution from holding office if they then engage in an insurrection.
On the other hand, leading conservative law professors who have examined the original meaning of Section 3, which was adopted after the Civil War, have recently concluded that it plainly applies to Mr. Trump and bars him from another term.
The original article contains 1,214 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I just had an image of donnie walking on his tip toes.