That’s the way Donald Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court reads as his team of expert lawyers attempts to take on Colorado’s ban of Trump from the state’s presidential ballot based on the 14th Amendment. I mean, the word surreal will not suffice. Under Trump’s reading of the Constitution, the 14
Some candidates have said the people should decide. I would submit that the people did decide when the majority of the state legislatures passed the 14th amendment.
And they also decided in 2020 and will again in 2024. It appears the wannabe king is too desperate to recognize that fact. And Melanoma 2.0 with the duck lips is certainly doing nothing that pierces his bubble of ignorance.
“Let the people decide.” That was the putrid phrase — putrid because of its malodorous use and intent at the time— that Mitch McConnell, that most slimy and calculating of political snakes, repeated ad nauseam as his transparently political rationale for refusing to hold Senate hearings for the scholarly and eminently qualified Merrick Garland. I’d love to see it resurrected at some point in support of an issue that McConnell would hate and fight against. Like, for example, doing away with the electoral college. Let the people decide. Right, Mitch?
"The people" who decided were 100% male and overwhelmingly (maybe 100%) white. Also noteworthy: "Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation." (That's from the U.S. Senate's webpage on the subject.) Good arguments can be made in favor of the argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits insurrectionists from voting, but "the people decided" is not one of them.
"The amendment was written after the Civil War to ban former Confederates from holding elective office, not just in the Federal government, but 'under any state' in the words of the amendment. Now, I guess you could make an argument that the Constitution is overstepping its powers in that demand."
That argument would hold no water. The Constitution is the final word. There is no higher law that limits it. We can argue about what it means, but we can't argue that what it means is invalid.
Exactly, the remedy is amending the Amendment - passing a relevant constitutional amendment that explicitly recasts or otherwise changes the force of 14 (3).
How surrealistic indeed, exactly as LKTIV has explained it, that we can possibly be facing the very real prospect the dubious right-wing dogmatist contingent on the SCOTUS will wriggle, writhe, gyrate, shimmy like Lady Justice on really bad drugs and vomit up a preposterous decision that leaves Trump on Colorado's ballot.
"SoTiredofWinning" got here to post the Alice-in-Wonderland references, here's a link for a free download of "The philosopher's favorite books":
That's Through the Looking-Glass, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and The Tenniel Illustrations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by John Tenniel.
Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (also known as Alice Through the Looking-Glass or simply Through the Looking-Glass) is a novel published on 27 December 1871 (though indicated as 1872)[1] by Lewis Carroll, a mathematics lecturer at Christ Church, University of Oxford, and the sequel to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865). Alice again enters a fantastical world, this time by climbing through a mirror into the world that she can see beyond it. There she finds that, just like a reflection, everything is reversed, including logic (for example, running helps one remain stationary, walking away from something brings one towards it, chessmen are alive, nursery rhyme characters exist, and so on).
Through the Looking-Glass includes such verses as "Jabberwocky" and "The Walrus and the Carpenter", and the episode involving Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The mirror above the fireplace that is displayed at Hetton Lawn in Charlton Kings, Gloucestershire (a house that was owned by Alice Liddell's grandparents, and was regularly visited by Alice and Lewis Carroll) resembles the one drawn by John Tenniel and is cited as a possible inspiration for Carroll.[2] It prompted a newfound appreciation for its predecessor when it was published.[3]
I don't know what amending section 3 would accomplish. It clearly applies to Trump. If we made it even clearer by, for example, having it explicitly state that it applies to the president and that it disqualifies an insurrectionist not only from holding office but from running for office, people could still come up with frivolous arguments why it doesn't apply, and a court that acts in bad faith could still accept such arguments.
Exactly. At some point, the words have to be read and applied with simple common sense, fairly and intelligently, by fair and intelligent people.
On the other hand, the FF knew their elegant written legacy could not possibly anticipate everything, and our great Operating Manual has been amended 27 times.
Admittedly, if we made the two amendments I suggest, it would make it more difficult for lawyers to come up with frivolous arguments and would require even greater bad faith on the part of judges. Perhaps Republican judges have a limit to their bad faith.
Whew! "Shimmy like Lady Justice on really bad drugs." Where are Bunuel and Dali (collaborators on 1929 silent surrealist film, "Andalusian Dog,") when we need them?
We live in a world turned upside down, with the judges tRump appointed, now ruling against established laws, against common sense, so Lucian, we really do not know how this SCOTUS will rule. Yes, in the past the silliness would not have even been considered, but that was before Mitch allowed the SCOTUS to be packed with MAGA people. And we now have so called "conservatives" and so called "libertarians" turning our world upside down on their heads, "spitting silver nickels" as the old saying goes. Or was it "wooden nickels?" Hence Rand Paul, the shining "libertarian" has lost his hold on sanity. “President Obama is not above the law and has no right to issue executive amnesty,” he said in 2014. “His actions blatantly ignore the separations of powers and the principles our country was founded on. I will not sit idly by and let the president bypass Congress and our Constitution.”
But when asked this week whether he thought a president should have blanket immunity to any and all crimes, he responded, “It’s a very specific legal argument and I’m afraid I’m just not up on it enough to be able to comment.” [from Goldberg article]
OMG. Have we no former Republicans, now MAGA minions, with back bone. I remember my grandfather, born in 1887 who lived to be a 100, had a horse and buggy for transportation then saw us land on the moon, saying "We are going to hell in a hand basket" as he watched Reagan. Well, Grandpa, ya ain't seen nothin yet.
Jan 20·edited Jan 20Liked by Lucian K. Truscott IV
So now Donald Trump gets excused from being ineligible to run due to his participation in an insurrection?A kind of Section 3 14th Amendment reprieve just for himself. How many privileges does this one man get that no one else does? It is beyond ridiculous and keeps getter worse.He is trying to wear out the legal system by an array of tactics-delay, obstruct, threaten, insult, and more and now his tailor made SCOTUS has their hands on it and what happens now is anyone’s guess.
Unfortunately the odds are against them deciding the case on its merits alone, and based on what judicial rules they should follow - that would first see Clarence T recused, and an 8-0 slapdown decision issued after less than 48 hours, instead of the crazed gibberish we can expect, following in the disgraceful tradition of the Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions, reversed as soon as we "pack the Court."
I also cited Dred Scott. This coming decision may rank right up there… or down there… with that vilest and most unseemly of rulings. And to think: at one time Roberts voiced great concern about his legacy and the reputation of the court he would lead.
If they don't decide on the merits and don't decide on the law, what else is there? I mean you could be absolutely right but I'm interested in what justification they would use. It's not even up to them legally to determine if Trump is an insurrectionist. That decision is vested in the states. Could they throw out the entire election process and decide it should be run by the federal government with 10 months to go? I don't think so. I'm at a total loss here. If there is a way to do it though I'm sure some of those brilliant legal minds appointed by GOP presidents will find it.
LOL, how did courts decide wrongly before in notorious cases already reversed, or which ought to be reversed? THAT is what they will do, and paraphrasing Tolstoy somewhat - "Every sound legal decision is sound in the same way, while every unsound legal decision has its own wild-eyed unsoundness disguised in measured legalese."
It should be really, really entertaining, speaking from a "view from Nowhere" with nothing at stake, that is.
EDIT: "See also" -
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Primary Holding
Later overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), this decision embraced the now-discredited idea that “separate but equal” treatment for whites and African-Americans is permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts
Homer Plessy, a free man who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth of African descent, agreed to participate in a test case to challenge a Louisiana law known as the Separate Car Act. This law required that railroads provide separate cars and other accommodations for whites and African-Americans. The Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) was a group of New Orleans residents from a variety of ethnic backgrounds that sought to repeal this law. They asked Plessy, who was technically African-American under Louisiana law, to sit in a whites-only car. He bought a first-class ticket and boarded the whites-only car of the East Louisiana Railroad in a train for Covington.
The railroad cooperated in the test case because it viewed the law as imposing unnecessary additional
costs through the purchase of more railroad cars. It knew about the intention to challenge the law, and the Committee of Citizens also enlisted a private detective to detain Plessy on the train so that he could be charged under the Separate Car Act. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car and sit in the African-American car, he refused and was arrested by the detective. The train was stopped so that he could be removed, and a trial proceeded.
Plessy's lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their theory failed, and the judge found that Louisiana could enforce this law insofar as it affected railroads within its boundaries. Plessy was convicted and fined.
Attorneys
Albion W. Tourgee (plaintiff)
Samuel F. Phillips (plaintiff)
Milton Joseph Cunningham (defendant)
Opinions
Majority
Henry Billings Brown (Author)
Melville Weston Fuller
Stephen Johnson Field
Horace Gray
George Shiras, Jr.
Byron Raymond White
Rufus Wheeler Peckham
Finding nothing discriminatory about the Louisiana law, Brown stated that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African-Americans but merely was a matter of state policy. He suggested that African-Americans were responsible for interpreting the law as connoting inferiority, and he pointed out that there was not a meaningful difference in quality between whites-only and African-American railway cars. (This was somewhat true regarding railway cars, but it was much less true in other types of segregated facilities.)
Dissent
John Marshall Harlan (Author)
In a dissent that ultimately became more influential than the majority opinion, Harlan likened the decision to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). He argued that the constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights. Some parts of Harlan's opinion were less progressive, such as racist language directed toward Asians.
Recused
David Josiah Brewer (Author)
A family illness prevented Brewer from considering the case.
Case Commentary
The separate-but-equal reasoning was thoroughly discredited even before it was officially overruled by Brown v. Board. Justice Harlan's dissent is the most notable element of Plessy, although its rhetoric is less progressive upon closer analysis than some suggest.
EDIT #2 - Dive IN, read it all, and look at the cases the SCOTUS cited and then almost ignored, too!
"We also said:
"The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race -- the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored -- exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, Lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race."
It was, consequently, adjudged that a state law that excluded citizens of the colored race from juries, because of their race and however well qualified in other respects to discharge the duties of jurymen, was repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306, 100 U. S. 307; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 103 U. S. 386; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110, 107 U. S. 116. At the present term, referring to the previous adjudications, this court declared that
"underlying all of those decisions is the principle that the Constitution of the United States, in its present form, forbids, so far as civil and political rights are concerned, discrimination by the General Government or the States against any citizen because of his race. All citizens are equal before the law."
***** But it's 1896 - now I think E.L. Doctorow's "Ragtime" and practically anything by St. Paul Minnesota's own August Wilson is relevant reading, too. Culture for better or worse overrides everything else and democracies are supposed to help "mitigate the reasonably foreseeable carnage"
of letting that run rampant, not enable it as the Trump neo-fascist cult is hell bent on doing.
I imagine that they will trash the constitution and allow the orange thing on the ballot. States rights be damned. Horrible, horrible people are the supremes.
It is such a shame that Justices Ketanji Jackson Brown,Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are serving on the most corrupt SCOTUS(imo) as they are brilliant and do not deserve to be lumped together with this whole tainted and unscrupulous group.
"So, Donald Trump is telling the court that the 14th Amendment demands that a person who has committed insurrection must be elected to office before he can be disqualified."
So are hisself and his lawyers arguing that on Jan 6 2021 Der Drumpf DID NOT hold the office of President? Well then there goes the whole "stolen election" BS right? He's admitting to the Supreme Court he lost? This needs to be on every front page and news feed world wide lol!
On January 6, 2021, Trump still held the office that the Electoral College awarded him on January 20, 2017. Biden took office on January 20, 2021. Trump's false claim is that he should have remained president on January 20, 2021.
Trump's argument that a person who has committed insurrection must be elected to office before he can be disqualified is based on an overly literal reading of section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Section 3 provides that no insurrectionist may "hold" any federal or state office. It does not say that he may not run for such an office. But what would be the point of running for an office you can't hold? Trump's argument would mean that a 25-year-old could run for president; he just couldn't take office if he won.
Right. But by arguing that he can't be held responsible for Jan 6th because he didn't "hold" the office isn't he defacto admitting that he lost the 2020 election? Or is he saying he have to run and win the 2024 election for the 14th Amendment to apply?
He's not arguing that he can't be held responsible for January 6 because he didn't hold office then. He is arguing that he is not subject to section 3 of the 14th Amendment because he doesn't hold office now. So that could be construed as an admission that he lost the 2020 election. But maybe he's admitting only that he's not in office even though he won the 2020 election. It doesn't matter because whether he won the 2020 election is not a question that is before any court right not. Legally, the question has been settled. Trump filed and lost 62 lawsuits claiming that he'd won the 2020 election. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election
But he WAS president until Jan 20 of that year! He watched the Jan 6th proceedings from the White House. If he wasn’t the President, then why the hell did they allow him to throw ketchup on the walls?
Jan 20·edited Jan 20Liked by Lucian K. Truscott IV
It will be very interesting to see whom the Justice Department chooses, to argue in favor of the obvious truth that OF COURSE the 14th Amendment applies precisely and clearly to Donald Trump. I hope the counsel for Justice is in the final stages, with a select team of ace constitutional scholars and experts, of crafting a crushingly effective refutation of every single one of Dump’s teams’ specious, fatuous, jejune, and oxymoronical arguments that it does not disqualify him.
Agree with your lucid comment. You realize, of course, that the law is whatever Clarence Thomas wants it to be. This deeply, deeply angry black man harbors grudges and bile beyond measure… at liberals and Democrats because of the many who voted (wisely) against his confirmation. Race is not an issue here—- he is simply unfit. Alito is a haughty and arrogant doctrinaire reactionary who votes largely as his Catholic religion whispers in his ear to do (apologies to any Catholics). Neither of these men should ever have been elevated to the SCOTUS bench.
I agree completely. And Trump's two stolen-seat justices -- Neil Gorsuch, who should have been Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, and Amy Coney Barrett, who should have been a Biden nominee worthy of replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- should not be on the bench, either.
Oh certainly, the Court's conservative super majority may well allow Drumpf to stay on the Colorado ballot and therefore, all other states'. I was not making any prediction against such a ruling. But I want the Justice department's counsel to present clear, obvious, legally rock-solid arguments--which will be publicly available--that will demolish Trump's claims about the 14th Amendment, and reveal any pro-Trump ruling the Court majority as the toadying caving it will be.
I went to the Colorado Secretary of State's Facebook page right after her announcement. The vile and angry response to Jena Griswold were frightening, threatening and mostly ignorant! I spent an hour or so rebutting the falsehoods and general hate, knowing she would probably be the latest victim of swatting. That doesn't seem to have happened.
We have traveled from the ridiculous, to the ludicrous, to the absurd so many times that we need a new word. It’s just (insert new word here) that this is even being treated as a debate worth having. At the same time, and with the same amount of (insert new word here), Republicans are willing to sacrifice the citizens and sovereignty of an entire democratic country (Ukraine) for political points that are, well, pointless. Shit show is a compliment.
Jan 20·edited Jan 20Liked by Lucian K. Truscott IV
Suspect (without any evidence other than the Court's history) they will find Colorado overstepped by invoking the Supremacy Clause which allows SCOTUS to overrule state courts on US Constitutional matters as is #14A and its interpretation.
The decision is likely to be applied broadly to any and all states. The logic behind it is sound. If a state can officially disqualify any candidate for Federal office for their own reasons (that which are beyond what is enshrined in the Constitution) there is no telling where it would lead.
By doing so they would avoid any argument on the questions of the meaning of the #14A, definition of an insurrection, insurrectionist, who decides who is a insurrectionists, the conflicting language of the various Oaths, and whether a President is a federal officer. If they had to decide all those questions any decision would likely take to the end of the term in October.
As it is they know two cases will also make their way to the Supreme Court and one is already there. The two are SC-DC case and the FL case. The other was brought by a convicted 6Jan dude on some of the charges he was convicted of, including one or two the SC charged Trump. If memory serves correct charge involving obstruction an official Federal proceeding. With the operative word being how the obstruction law was applied and if it applies at all.
Since I do wager, my money is on SCOTUS ruling 9-0 against the authority of any state official or court disqualifying any candidate for Federal office prior to being charged under the US Code (and suspect convicted)by the USG finding by Congress (via US Code) and/or by the Federal Courts the person is disqualified and won't touch the particulars of the case. Expect a quick and short decision.
Maybe, but the 14th Amendment (3) language is still in play, they would just be pretending state courts shouldn't pay attention to the plain language of the US Constitution IF the current Congress might want to weigh in, or should wait until some court in some other state acts to find Trump is in fact disqualified.
This could cause a lot of unintentional side effects the SCOTUS may not have planned on dealing with! Trump's gift for chaos-at-a-distance, striking again?
Lots of ways to look at the CO. case and from many perspectives. All have merit.
Simply saying most Supreme Courts do search for something that can be unanimous including in the most complex cases. Am glad most do. The Supremacy Clause does offer a hook and Bush-Gore is the precedent. Suspect they will take it.
Doing so would free the originalists/textualists from confronting their long held position of geez, it's right there in the plain language. If they don't choose the easy way, the next will be to strike it down based on only Congress or the Federal Courts can define an insurrection (since it is a Federal crime) and everything that flows from it. Hard to disagree with that. And there is Due Process questions since only 1 state judge heard the matter w/o the accused notified and present on what is a Federal criminal charge.
Have no opinion on the specifics of #14A other than it doesn't empower any state court or official to interpret or apply. Had C) had such a statute then maybe. SCOTUS would rule on its compliance w/#14(3) but it doesn't.
The stronger cases against Trump are the DC and FL matters. The cases in state courts simply don't have anywhere near the effect those cases have other than they can't be pardoned out. At the same time if Trump was elected no way would SCOTUS or USSS hand over a sitting President to a state. In that matter he would need to first be impeached and convicted.
Yes, Trump is chaos and carnage. And getting worse. No way all 9Justices on SCOTUS are not aware of national news coverage of his speeches and Truth Social posts. They know they will have to tackle at least the DC case ASAP. It's that case that while not charging insurrection is the place to clarify and define insurrection, remedies, not in a state case.
Is in direct contravention to the U.S. Constitution, states that the president must:
-Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
-Be at least 35 years old
-Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
That's all a candidate must meet. So, would not have survived a challenge any more than if a state disqualified on race, gender, disability or sexual preference or an age beyond 35.
I think you have a point. As far as I know, it wasn’t challenged but, as you say, it could have been. But not having engaged in an insurrection is another qualification, and a state can apply it to keep Trump off its ballot.
Rarely do I weigh in on how any legal case is likely to be decided for a mymarid of reasons. As my original post plainly stated, my position is predicated n the long history of the Court.
(1) Closely guarding and protecting its role as the supreme law of the land (and must add for better or worse).
(2) As divided as this Court is makes it more, not less likely for it to remind all states of just that and nothing more. Keep in mind Trump has not been charged and tried in any state or Federal court w/insurrection therefore never found guilty under 18 U.S. Code 2383 , Rebellion or Insurrection, not on CO very specific statue on rebelling against CO. Had it included language that included rebellion/insurrection against the US, then it would on paper have some grounds to disqualify a candidate. CO does have a law permitting voters to petition to remove a candidate. My position is based on SCOTUS deeming it unconstitutional rather than taking up the meatier matters in the CO Supreme Court decision. If they strike that statute, then all else goes with it. That's there easy and would argue smart out.
(3) Am unaware if DOJ and/or SC joined in the matter on the side of CO. Am too lazy to check. If they didn't, then they didn't see it as meeting constitutional muster. If they did, then they would go all in with it because that could result with SCOTUS finding Trump is an insurrectionist therefore disqualified from all presidential ballots and their 2 Federal cases being unencumbered by the Election.
I emailed a history professor I know, and he informed me that Lincoln could not have sued to get on the ballot in the Southern states, "because state officials/governments didn't print the ballots in the Civil War era, the parties did. If Lincoln wanted to be on the ballot then he needed Republicans in the various locales to print and distribute them. It always drives me nuts when historians say 'Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in the South.' It's a complete misrepresentation of how it worked back then. There was no 'the ballot' back then."
My nod to you, Henry for running this down and for not taking anything for granted. Much respect for instinctively knowing something was off, then taking it on. We're all better for it.
No, thank you for not accepting something that was passed down and passed off without its correct context. History cries out for precision since it could only happen one way, i.e. the way it did.
Being ~indigenous~ we take great pride in storytell and it must be passed on, then retold exactly the way it was received.
Be proud. Henry Cohen. And am grateful for our exchanges.
The 14th Amendment allows the states to do just that and does not require any qualifications. Ironically, it was the GOP that insisted that elections be run by individual states and now they don't like it? Maybe the SC will find a way but I very much doubt it will be unanimous and I still have no idea what that way will be.
My wooden nickel is on SCOTUS deeming the CO statue allowing voters to petition for the removal of a candidate (disenfranchise) to be unconstitutional. (CO voters already have their say as to who is on the ballot and who is not via the vote. CO gives them 2bites of the same apple. To mix metaphors, comes off as sour grapes. Is dubious at best) or any reason to get themselves off the hook, for the time being that is.
Lots of legal minds inside those walls. If they want to find an out, then they will. And theirs is the final word even if the decision is WTF was that. And when an out is the goal it is more likely than not to be 9-0 especially knowing 2 others USG-DOJ-SC cases are in the hopper.
As an editor and writer, I'm most blown away by the Trump team's argument that Trump never swore to "support" the Constitution, only to “preserve, protect, and defend" it. I can admire hair-splitting when it's cleverly done, but this smacks of breathtaking ignorance and/or extreme desperation.
lol, Seems to be nothing more or less than an argument of linguistic linguine.
Including the signatories there are 4500+ words in the original text. Makes me wonder how many different people contributed and how many errors escaped its many edits. Am sure someone knows. The many times I read it sure seemed if each Article contained tells of different contributing authors based on similar yet different syntax.
What frosts me is when Rs/con cherry-pick the document much like they do holy books, and other people's word product. As bad as that is, the originalists on SCOTUS claim to channel the very dead Framers without speaking in the same way they did. Cracks me up.
The 14th amendment has an important clause that is being overlooked. “. . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.“
His “aid and comfort”, and offers to pardon those convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in January 6 would seem to satisfy the intent of the amendment.
(1) Future hypothetical/rhetorical crimes do not exist in American jurisprudence.
(2) Niithah DOJ nor the Special Counsel have charged Trump with Insurrection, including aiding and abetting.
How do so many folk think and believe SCOTUS is a trial court with the power to convict anyone of a crime the person was NOT charged with (to date).
How is it academics, scholars, attys, and ret. Judges find themselves to be in possession of facts and evidence DOJ and the SC overlooked, dismissed or doesn't have?
When in history has any Supreme Court said we don't need no fucking trial, no presentation of fucking facts, no fucking evidence cuz trials are for suckers and losers. We can do it all by simply interpreting the Constitution, full stop.
While all agree no one should be above the law, shortcutting and jumping over established processes including standing, seems to be putting a person far below the law. Trump needs to be charged and convicted the same way all others do when they violate Federal Criminal Law (US Code).
This case is probably driving Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh crazy. Possibly also Barrett and Roberts. They are just aching to tilt their decision to Trump’s advantage in any way they can, law and precedent be damned. But if they do, it will be a tortured and controversial decision without peer. Or perhaps on a par with Dred Scott, which has long reigned as one of the most vile decisions any U. S. Supreme Court has made.
I cited Dred Scott and Korematsu a few minutes ago on here for comparison purposes - but as horrible as Korematsu was, there was at least Pearl Harbor and a World War scaring the bejeezus and (for a while) common sense of fairness to Japanese-Americans clean out of the majority of Americans, who had also seen German-American citizens organizing support for Hitler in the 1930s and right up to around Pearl Harbor. They may have very sloppily just assumed the Japanese-Americans in the US mainland were simply more sly, but every bit as likely to be plotting to help Imperial Japan. Unfair, illogical, morally wrong, bad law - but in some ways not as horrible in purely abstract legal terms, as far as the legal reasoning, to "invent" some cockamamie reading of 14 (3) that lets Trump have special treatment.
It's a real sign something is rotten and corrupt as can be when a case like Korematsu has any possible advantage over what this Supreme Court might well invent out of desperation.
It would be on a par with Bush v. Gore. The lesson that the Republican politicians on the Court took from that case and the justified outrage it provoked was not to be more restrained in the future. It was that, if they can get away with choosing the president with no basis in law, then they can get away with anything. And they have: overturning a 50-year-old precedent that established a constitutional right, inventing the "major question" doctrine to enable them to strike down whatever federal regulations they dislike, and soon overturning Chevron, which will enable them to substitute their judgments for those of federal agencies that Congress has authorized to use their expertise to act on its behalf. At least, if the Republican politicians on the Court refuse to apply section 3, they won't directly make Trump president, as they did Bush, but will merely give the Electoral College the chance to do so.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.” —Chapter 12, Alice’s Evidence, “Alice in Wonderland”
Balls cried Trump. I get to be king.
Or, mushrooms!
Some candidates have said the people should decide. I would submit that the people did decide when the majority of the state legislatures passed the 14th amendment.
And they also decided in 2020 and will again in 2024. It appears the wannabe king is too desperate to recognize that fact. And Melanoma 2.0 with the duck lips is certainly doing nothing that pierces his bubble of ignorance.
Melanoma exists with him in his bubble of ignorance. She knows nothing.
“Let the people decide.” That was the putrid phrase — putrid because of its malodorous use and intent at the time— that Mitch McConnell, that most slimy and calculating of political snakes, repeated ad nauseam as his transparently political rationale for refusing to hold Senate hearings for the scholarly and eminently qualified Merrick Garland. I’d love to see it resurrected at some point in support of an issue that McConnell would hate and fight against. Like, for example, doing away with the electoral college. Let the people decide. Right, Mitch?
"The people" who decided were 100% male and overwhelmingly (maybe 100%) white. Also noteworthy: "Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation." (That's from the U.S. Senate's webpage on the subject.) Good arguments can be made in favor of the argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits insurrectionists from voting, but "the people decided" is not one of them.
Thank you, Lucien.
This level of absurdity is remarkable.
"The amendment was written after the Civil War to ban former Confederates from holding elective office, not just in the Federal government, but 'under any state' in the words of the amendment. Now, I guess you could make an argument that the Constitution is overstepping its powers in that demand."
That argument would hold no water. The Constitution is the final word. There is no higher law that limits it. We can argue about what it means, but we can't argue that what it means is invalid.
Exactly, the remedy is amending the Amendment - passing a relevant constitutional amendment that explicitly recasts or otherwise changes the force of 14 (3).
How surrealistic indeed, exactly as LKTIV has explained it, that we can possibly be facing the very real prospect the dubious right-wing dogmatist contingent on the SCOTUS will wriggle, writhe, gyrate, shimmy like Lady Justice on really bad drugs and vomit up a preposterous decision that leaves Trump on Colorado's ballot.
"SoTiredofWinning" got here to post the Alice-in-Wonderland references, here's a link for a free download of "The philosopher's favorite books":
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/114
That's Through the Looking-Glass, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and The Tenniel Illustrations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by John Tenniel.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass
Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (also known as Alice Through the Looking-Glass or simply Through the Looking-Glass) is a novel published on 27 December 1871 (though indicated as 1872)[1] by Lewis Carroll, a mathematics lecturer at Christ Church, University of Oxford, and the sequel to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865). Alice again enters a fantastical world, this time by climbing through a mirror into the world that she can see beyond it. There she finds that, just like a reflection, everything is reversed, including logic (for example, running helps one remain stationary, walking away from something brings one towards it, chessmen are alive, nursery rhyme characters exist, and so on).
Through the Looking-Glass includes such verses as "Jabberwocky" and "The Walrus and the Carpenter", and the episode involving Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The mirror above the fireplace that is displayed at Hetton Lawn in Charlton Kings, Gloucestershire (a house that was owned by Alice Liddell's grandparents, and was regularly visited by Alice and Lewis Carroll) resembles the one drawn by John Tenniel and is cited as a possible inspiration for Carroll.[2] It prompted a newfound appreciation for its predecessor when it was published.[3]
*******
I don't know what amending section 3 would accomplish. It clearly applies to Trump. If we made it even clearer by, for example, having it explicitly state that it applies to the president and that it disqualifies an insurrectionist not only from holding office but from running for office, people could still come up with frivolous arguments why it doesn't apply, and a court that acts in bad faith could still accept such arguments.
Exactly. At some point, the words have to be read and applied with simple common sense, fairly and intelligently, by fair and intelligent people.
On the other hand, the FF knew their elegant written legacy could not possibly anticipate everything, and our great Operating Manual has been amended 27 times.
And that is the wondrous thing about our Constitution. The FF’s left us room to file Amendments to fit the future years and to improve it’s language.
Admittedly, if we made the two amendments I suggest, it would make it more difficult for lawyers to come up with frivolous arguments and would require even greater bad faith on the part of judges. Perhaps Republican judges have a limit to their bad faith.
Reply to last sentence--Nope!
Re your last sentence: I doubt it.
Whew! "Shimmy like Lady Justice on really bad drugs." Where are Bunuel and Dali (collaborators on 1929 silent surrealist film, "Andalusian Dog,") when we need them?
just curious, LKTIV:
did you select this image because it had 6 props supporting an orange-faced creature?
We live in a world turned upside down, with the judges tRump appointed, now ruling against established laws, against common sense, so Lucian, we really do not know how this SCOTUS will rule. Yes, in the past the silliness would not have even been considered, but that was before Mitch allowed the SCOTUS to be packed with MAGA people. And we now have so called "conservatives" and so called "libertarians" turning our world upside down on their heads, "spitting silver nickels" as the old saying goes. Or was it "wooden nickels?" Hence Rand Paul, the shining "libertarian" has lost his hold on sanity. “President Obama is not above the law and has no right to issue executive amnesty,” he said in 2014. “His actions blatantly ignore the separations of powers and the principles our country was founded on. I will not sit idly by and let the president bypass Congress and our Constitution.”
But when asked this week whether he thought a president should have blanket immunity to any and all crimes, he responded, “It’s a very specific legal argument and I’m afraid I’m just not up on it enough to be able to comment.” [from Goldberg article]
OMG. Have we no former Republicans, now MAGA minions, with back bone. I remember my grandfather, born in 1887 who lived to be a 100, had a horse and buggy for transportation then saw us land on the moon, saying "We are going to hell in a hand basket" as he watched Reagan. Well, Grandpa, ya ain't seen nothin yet.
While the Court has ruled with Trump on policy matters, they have ruled against him on Trump matters every time.
So now Donald Trump gets excused from being ineligible to run due to his participation in an insurrection?A kind of Section 3 14th Amendment reprieve just for himself. How many privileges does this one man get that no one else does? It is beyond ridiculous and keeps getter worse.He is trying to wear out the legal system by an array of tactics-delay, obstruct, threaten, insult, and more and now his tailor made SCOTUS has their hands on it and what happens now is anyone’s guess.
Unfortunately the odds are against them deciding the case on its merits alone, and based on what judicial rules they should follow - that would first see Clarence T recused, and an 8-0 slapdown decision issued after less than 48 hours, instead of the crazed gibberish we can expect, following in the disgraceful tradition of the Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions, reversed as soon as we "pack the Court."
I also cited Dred Scott. This coming decision may rank right up there… or down there… with that vilest and most unseemly of rulings. And to think: at one time Roberts voiced great concern about his legacy and the reputation of the court he would lead.
If they don't decide on the merits and don't decide on the law, what else is there? I mean you could be absolutely right but I'm interested in what justification they would use. It's not even up to them legally to determine if Trump is an insurrectionist. That decision is vested in the states. Could they throw out the entire election process and decide it should be run by the federal government with 10 months to go? I don't think so. I'm at a total loss here. If there is a way to do it though I'm sure some of those brilliant legal minds appointed by GOP presidents will find it.
LOL, how did courts decide wrongly before in notorious cases already reversed, or which ought to be reversed? THAT is what they will do, and paraphrasing Tolstoy somewhat - "Every sound legal decision is sound in the same way, while every unsound legal decision has its own wild-eyed unsoundness disguised in measured legalese."
It should be really, really entertaining, speaking from a "view from Nowhere" with nothing at stake, that is.
EDIT: "See also" -
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Primary Holding
Later overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), this decision embraced the now-discredited idea that “separate but equal” treatment for whites and African-Americans is permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts
Homer Plessy, a free man who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth of African descent, agreed to participate in a test case to challenge a Louisiana law known as the Separate Car Act. This law required that railroads provide separate cars and other accommodations for whites and African-Americans. The Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) was a group of New Orleans residents from a variety of ethnic backgrounds that sought to repeal this law. They asked Plessy, who was technically African-American under Louisiana law, to sit in a whites-only car. He bought a first-class ticket and boarded the whites-only car of the East Louisiana Railroad in a train for Covington.
The railroad cooperated in the test case because it viewed the law as imposing unnecessary additional
costs through the purchase of more railroad cars. It knew about the intention to challenge the law, and the Committee of Citizens also enlisted a private detective to detain Plessy on the train so that he could be charged under the Separate Car Act. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car and sit in the African-American car, he refused and was arrested by the detective. The train was stopped so that he could be removed, and a trial proceeded.
Plessy's lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their theory failed, and the judge found that Louisiana could enforce this law insofar as it affected railroads within its boundaries. Plessy was convicted and fined.
Attorneys
Albion W. Tourgee (plaintiff)
Samuel F. Phillips (plaintiff)
Milton Joseph Cunningham (defendant)
Opinions
Majority
Henry Billings Brown (Author)
Melville Weston Fuller
Stephen Johnson Field
Horace Gray
George Shiras, Jr.
Byron Raymond White
Rufus Wheeler Peckham
Finding nothing discriminatory about the Louisiana law, Brown stated that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African-Americans but merely was a matter of state policy. He suggested that African-Americans were responsible for interpreting the law as connoting inferiority, and he pointed out that there was not a meaningful difference in quality between whites-only and African-American railway cars. (This was somewhat true regarding railway cars, but it was much less true in other types of segregated facilities.)
Dissent
John Marshall Harlan (Author)
In a dissent that ultimately became more influential than the majority opinion, Harlan likened the decision to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). He argued that the constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights. Some parts of Harlan's opinion were less progressive, such as racist language directed toward Asians.
Recused
David Josiah Brewer (Author)
A family illness prevented Brewer from considering the case.
Case Commentary
The separate-but-equal reasoning was thoroughly discredited even before it was officially overruled by Brown v. Board. Justice Harlan's dissent is the most notable element of Plessy, although its rhetoric is less progressive upon closer analysis than some suggest.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/
EDIT #2 - Dive IN, read it all, and look at the cases the SCOTUS cited and then almost ignored, too!
"We also said:
"The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race -- the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored -- exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, Lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race."
It was, consequently, adjudged that a state law that excluded citizens of the colored race from juries, because of their race and however well qualified in other respects to discharge the duties of jurymen, was repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306, 100 U. S. 307; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 103 U. S. 386; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110, 107 U. S. 116. At the present term, referring to the previous adjudications, this court declared that
"underlying all of those decisions is the principle that the Constitution of the United States, in its present form, forbids, so far as civil and political rights are concerned, discrimination by the General Government or the States against any citizen because of his race. All citizens are equal before the law."
***** But it's 1896 - now I think E.L. Doctorow's "Ragtime" and practically anything by St. Paul Minnesota's own August Wilson is relevant reading, too. Culture for better or worse overrides everything else and democracies are supposed to help "mitigate the reasonably foreseeable carnage"
of letting that run rampant, not enable it as the Trump neo-fascist cult is hell bent on doing.
Superb and educational comment.
I imagine that they will trash the constitution and allow the orange thing on the ballot. States rights be damned. Horrible, horrible people are the supremes.
It is such a shame that Justices Ketanji Jackson Brown,Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are serving on the most corrupt SCOTUS(imo) as they are brilliant and do not deserve to be lumped together with this whole tainted and unscrupulous group.
As I have previously mentioned, the last decent Supremes sang with Dianna Ross.
"So, Donald Trump is telling the court that the 14th Amendment demands that a person who has committed insurrection must be elected to office before he can be disqualified."
So are hisself and his lawyers arguing that on Jan 6 2021 Der Drumpf DID NOT hold the office of President? Well then there goes the whole "stolen election" BS right? He's admitting to the Supreme Court he lost? This needs to be on every front page and news feed world wide lol!
On January 6, 2021, Trump still held the office that the Electoral College awarded him on January 20, 2017. Biden took office on January 20, 2021. Trump's false claim is that he should have remained president on January 20, 2021.
Then his filing really doesn't make sense!
Trump's argument that a person who has committed insurrection must be elected to office before he can be disqualified is based on an overly literal reading of section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Section 3 provides that no insurrectionist may "hold" any federal or state office. It does not say that he may not run for such an office. But what would be the point of running for an office you can't hold? Trump's argument would mean that a 25-year-old could run for president; he just couldn't take office if he won.
Right. But by arguing that he can't be held responsible for Jan 6th because he didn't "hold" the office isn't he defacto admitting that he lost the 2020 election? Or is he saying he have to run and win the 2024 election for the 14th Amendment to apply?
He's not arguing that he can't be held responsible for January 6 because he didn't hold office then. He is arguing that he is not subject to section 3 of the 14th Amendment because he doesn't hold office now. So that could be construed as an admission that he lost the 2020 election. But maybe he's admitting only that he's not in office even though he won the 2020 election. It doesn't matter because whether he won the 2020 election is not a question that is before any court right not. Legally, the question has been settled. Trump filed and lost 62 lawsuits claiming that he'd won the 2020 election. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election
Thank you
"Heads I win, tails you lose."
His one and only policy platform!
What else is new
But he WAS president until Jan 20 of that year! He watched the Jan 6th proceedings from the White House. If he wasn’t the President, then why the hell did they allow him to throw ketchup on the walls?
Yes it's confusing to say the least.
Hard to accept that someone who has ketchup tantrums is in any position of authority
It will be very interesting to see whom the Justice Department chooses, to argue in favor of the obvious truth that OF COURSE the 14th Amendment applies precisely and clearly to Donald Trump. I hope the counsel for Justice is in the final stages, with a select team of ace constitutional scholars and experts, of crafting a crushingly effective refutation of every single one of Dump’s teams’ specious, fatuous, jejune, and oxymoronical arguments that it does not disqualify him.
Agree with your lucid comment. You realize, of course, that the law is whatever Clarence Thomas wants it to be. This deeply, deeply angry black man harbors grudges and bile beyond measure… at liberals and Democrats because of the many who voted (wisely) against his confirmation. Race is not an issue here—- he is simply unfit. Alito is a haughty and arrogant doctrinaire reactionary who votes largely as his Catholic religion whispers in his ear to do (apologies to any Catholics). Neither of these men should ever have been elevated to the SCOTUS bench.
I agree completely. And Trump's two stolen-seat justices -- Neil Gorsuch, who should have been Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, and Amy Coney Barrett, who should have been a Biden nominee worthy of replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- should not be on the bench, either.
Nah, they will twist and turn and writhe and magically find a way that he can stay on the ballot. Believe me. You will see. Sadly.
Oh certainly, the Court's conservative super majority may well allow Drumpf to stay on the Colorado ballot and therefore, all other states'. I was not making any prediction against such a ruling. But I want the Justice department's counsel to present clear, obvious, legally rock-solid arguments--which will be publicly available--that will demolish Trump's claims about the 14th Amendment, and reveal any pro-Trump ruling the Court majority as the toadying caving it will be.
I went to the Colorado Secretary of State's Facebook page right after her announcement. The vile and angry response to Jena Griswold were frightening, threatening and mostly ignorant! I spent an hour or so rebutting the falsehoods and general hate, knowing she would probably be the latest victim of swatting. That doesn't seem to have happened.
I can't wait to see what that reason will be because I have emptied my mind to find one legal argument to justify that and have come up with nothing.
"Because We say so." (And this is not to be considered a precedent. See Bush v. Gore).
I don't think at this point they really want to go with that.
We have traveled from the ridiculous, to the ludicrous, to the absurd so many times that we need a new word. It’s just (insert new word here) that this is even being treated as a debate worth having. At the same time, and with the same amount of (insert new word here), Republicans are willing to sacrifice the citizens and sovereignty of an entire democratic country (Ukraine) for political points that are, well, pointless. Shit show is a compliment.
"If Salvador Dali painted a Supreme Court appeal" !!! What a singular cross pollination of concepts. The idea will not soon leave me.
Suspect (without any evidence other than the Court's history) they will find Colorado overstepped by invoking the Supremacy Clause which allows SCOTUS to overrule state courts on US Constitutional matters as is #14A and its interpretation.
The decision is likely to be applied broadly to any and all states. The logic behind it is sound. If a state can officially disqualify any candidate for Federal office for their own reasons (that which are beyond what is enshrined in the Constitution) there is no telling where it would lead.
By doing so they would avoid any argument on the questions of the meaning of the #14A, definition of an insurrection, insurrectionist, who decides who is a insurrectionists, the conflicting language of the various Oaths, and whether a President is a federal officer. If they had to decide all those questions any decision would likely take to the end of the term in October.
As it is they know two cases will also make their way to the Supreme Court and one is already there. The two are SC-DC case and the FL case. The other was brought by a convicted 6Jan dude on some of the charges he was convicted of, including one or two the SC charged Trump. If memory serves correct charge involving obstruction an official Federal proceeding. With the operative word being how the obstruction law was applied and if it applies at all.
Since I do wager, my money is on SCOTUS ruling 9-0 against the authority of any state official or court disqualifying any candidate for Federal office prior to being charged under the US Code (and suspect convicted)by the USG finding by Congress (via US Code) and/or by the Federal Courts the person is disqualified and won't touch the particulars of the case. Expect a quick and short decision.
Maybe, but the 14th Amendment (3) language is still in play, they would just be pretending state courts shouldn't pay attention to the plain language of the US Constitution IF the current Congress might want to weigh in, or should wait until some court in some other state acts to find Trump is in fact disqualified.
This could cause a lot of unintentional side effects the SCOTUS may not have planned on dealing with! Trump's gift for chaos-at-a-distance, striking again?
Lots of ways to look at the CO. case and from many perspectives. All have merit.
Simply saying most Supreme Courts do search for something that can be unanimous including in the most complex cases. Am glad most do. The Supremacy Clause does offer a hook and Bush-Gore is the precedent. Suspect they will take it.
Doing so would free the originalists/textualists from confronting their long held position of geez, it's right there in the plain language. If they don't choose the easy way, the next will be to strike it down based on only Congress or the Federal Courts can define an insurrection (since it is a Federal crime) and everything that flows from it. Hard to disagree with that. And there is Due Process questions since only 1 state judge heard the matter w/o the accused notified and present on what is a Federal criminal charge.
Have no opinion on the specifics of #14A other than it doesn't empower any state court or official to interpret or apply. Had C) had such a statute then maybe. SCOTUS would rule on its compliance w/#14(3) but it doesn't.
The stronger cases against Trump are the DC and FL matters. The cases in state courts simply don't have anywhere near the effect those cases have other than they can't be pardoned out. At the same time if Trump was elected no way would SCOTUS or USSS hand over a sitting President to a state. In that matter he would need to first be impeached and convicted.
Yes, Trump is chaos and carnage. And getting worse. No way all 9Justices on SCOTUS are not aware of national news coverage of his speeches and Truth Social posts. They know they will have to tackle at least the DC case ASAP. It's that case that while not charging insurrection is the place to clarify and define insurrection, remedies, not in a state case.
The Southern states did not allow Lincoln on the ballot in 1860. They had a right to do that, because whom to allow on its ballot is up to each state.
Was it challenged in US Courts?
Is in direct contravention to the U.S. Constitution, states that the president must:
-Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
-Be at least 35 years old
-Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
That's all a candidate must meet. So, would not have survived a challenge any more than if a state disqualified on race, gender, disability or sexual preference or an age beyond 35.
I think you have a point. As far as I know, it wasn’t challenged but, as you say, it could have been. But not having engaged in an insurrection is another qualification, and a state can apply it to keep Trump off its ballot.
Rarely do I weigh in on how any legal case is likely to be decided for a mymarid of reasons. As my original post plainly stated, my position is predicated n the long history of the Court.
(1) Closely guarding and protecting its role as the supreme law of the land (and must add for better or worse).
(2) As divided as this Court is makes it more, not less likely for it to remind all states of just that and nothing more. Keep in mind Trump has not been charged and tried in any state or Federal court w/insurrection therefore never found guilty under 18 U.S. Code 2383 , Rebellion or Insurrection, not on CO very specific statue on rebelling against CO. Had it included language that included rebellion/insurrection against the US, then it would on paper have some grounds to disqualify a candidate. CO does have a law permitting voters to petition to remove a candidate. My position is based on SCOTUS deeming it unconstitutional rather than taking up the meatier matters in the CO Supreme Court decision. If they strike that statute, then all else goes with it. That's there easy and would argue smart out.
(3) Am unaware if DOJ and/or SC joined in the matter on the side of CO. Am too lazy to check. If they didn't, then they didn't see it as meeting constitutional muster. If they did, then they would go all in with it because that could result with SCOTUS finding Trump is an insurrectionist therefore disqualified from all presidential ballots and their 2 Federal cases being unencumbered by the Election.
I emailed a history professor I know, and he informed me that Lincoln could not have sued to get on the ballot in the Southern states, "because state officials/governments didn't print the ballots in the Civil War era, the parties did. If Lincoln wanted to be on the ballot then he needed Republicans in the various locales to print and distribute them. It always drives me nuts when historians say 'Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in the South.' It's a complete misrepresentation of how it worked back then. There was no 'the ballot' back then."
My nod to you, Henry for running this down and for not taking anything for granted. Much respect for instinctively knowing something was off, then taking it on. We're all better for it.
Thanks
No, thank you for not accepting something that was passed down and passed off without its correct context. History cries out for precision since it could only happen one way, i.e. the way it did.
Being ~indigenous~ we take great pride in storytell and it must be passed on, then retold exactly the way it was received.
Be proud. Henry Cohen. And am grateful for our exchanges.
The 14th Amendment allows the states to do just that and does not require any qualifications. Ironically, it was the GOP that insisted that elections be run by individual states and now they don't like it? Maybe the SC will find a way but I very much doubt it will be unanimous and I still have no idea what that way will be.
My wooden nickel is on SCOTUS deeming the CO statue allowing voters to petition for the removal of a candidate (disenfranchise) to be unconstitutional. (CO voters already have their say as to who is on the ballot and who is not via the vote. CO gives them 2bites of the same apple. To mix metaphors, comes off as sour grapes. Is dubious at best) or any reason to get themselves off the hook, for the time being that is.
Lots of legal minds inside those walls. If they want to find an out, then they will. And theirs is the final word even if the decision is WTF was that. And when an out is the goal it is more likely than not to be 9-0 especially knowing 2 others USG-DOJ-SC cases are in the hopper.
As an editor and writer, I'm most blown away by the Trump team's argument that Trump never swore to "support" the Constitution, only to “preserve, protect, and defend" it. I can admire hair-splitting when it's cleverly done, but this smacks of breathtaking ignorance and/or extreme desperation.
lol, Seems to be nothing more or less than an argument of linguistic linguine.
Including the signatories there are 4500+ words in the original text. Makes me wonder how many different people contributed and how many errors escaped its many edits. Am sure someone knows. The many times I read it sure seemed if each Article contained tells of different contributing authors based on similar yet different syntax.
What frosts me is when Rs/con cherry-pick the document much like they do holy books, and other people's word product. As bad as that is, the originalists on SCOTUS claim to channel the very dead Framers without speaking in the same way they did. Cracks me up.
I would very much like to hear the maybe not-so-dead Framers tell the SCOTUS originalists what's what.
lmrao, me too
Lin-Manuel Miranda and Tony Kushner could write it!
Great art. Great article.
The 14th amendment has an important clause that is being overlooked. “. . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.“
His “aid and comfort”, and offers to pardon those convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in January 6 would seem to satisfy the intent of the amendment.
(1) Future hypothetical/rhetorical crimes do not exist in American jurisprudence.
(2) Niithah DOJ nor the Special Counsel have charged Trump with Insurrection, including aiding and abetting.
How do so many folk think and believe SCOTUS is a trial court with the power to convict anyone of a crime the person was NOT charged with (to date).
How is it academics, scholars, attys, and ret. Judges find themselves to be in possession of facts and evidence DOJ and the SC overlooked, dismissed or doesn't have?
When in history has any Supreme Court said we don't need no fucking trial, no presentation of fucking facts, no fucking evidence cuz trials are for suckers and losers. We can do it all by simply interpreting the Constitution, full stop.
While all agree no one should be above the law, shortcutting and jumping over established processes including standing, seems to be putting a person far below the law. Trump needs to be charged and convicted the same way all others do when they violate Federal Criminal Law (US Code).
SCOTUS's ruling on this case is preordained.
This case is probably driving Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh crazy. Possibly also Barrett and Roberts. They are just aching to tilt their decision to Trump’s advantage in any way they can, law and precedent be damned. But if they do, it will be a tortured and controversial decision without peer. Or perhaps on a par with Dred Scott, which has long reigned as one of the most vile decisions any U. S. Supreme Court has made.
I cited Dred Scott and Korematsu a few minutes ago on here for comparison purposes - but as horrible as Korematsu was, there was at least Pearl Harbor and a World War scaring the bejeezus and (for a while) common sense of fairness to Japanese-Americans clean out of the majority of Americans, who had also seen German-American citizens organizing support for Hitler in the 1930s and right up to around Pearl Harbor. They may have very sloppily just assumed the Japanese-Americans in the US mainland were simply more sly, but every bit as likely to be plotting to help Imperial Japan. Unfair, illogical, morally wrong, bad law - but in some ways not as horrible in purely abstract legal terms, as far as the legal reasoning, to "invent" some cockamamie reading of 14 (3) that lets Trump have special treatment.
It's a real sign something is rotten and corrupt as can be when a case like Korematsu has any possible advantage over what this Supreme Court might well invent out of desperation.
Informative and well stated. Thank you.
It would be on a par with Bush v. Gore. The lesson that the Republican politicians on the Court took from that case and the justified outrage it provoked was not to be more restrained in the future. It was that, if they can get away with choosing the president with no basis in law, then they can get away with anything. And they have: overturning a 50-year-old precedent that established a constitutional right, inventing the "major question" doctrine to enable them to strike down whatever federal regulations they dislike, and soon overturning Chevron, which will enable them to substitute their judgments for those of federal agencies that Congress has authorized to use their expertise to act on its behalf. At least, if the Republican politicians on the Court refuse to apply section 3, they won't directly make Trump president, as they did Bush, but will merely give the Electoral College the chance to do so.