I don't think this is going anywhere, but part of me is enjoying the hypocrisy of those who support the radical right opinions of the Supreme Court overturning Roe and affirmative action and gutting the Voting Rights Act are now whining about "unelected judges" making decisions.
In response to the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, Vivek Ramaswamy announced that he would not let his name be listed on the Colorado ballot if Trump wasn't listed also. When polled for their reactions to this announcement, half of the respondents replied "who cares?", while the other half replied "who's Vivek Ramaswamy?".
I am not suprised that some Trump supporters [overtly and covertly ] are not happy with this Colorado supreme Court ruling. Remember this case was brought by the Republicans and Independents in Colorado and not Democrats.That is point no. one. The Republican Party brands itself as a Party of law and order. You said you are not a lawyer and then went on to say there is a 'controversial interpretation of the 14th amendment'. Well, the opinion of eminent Lawyers and retired judges like Lawrence Tribe and conservative retired judge Ludwig said the supreme court should affirm this ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court because that is what the Constituition says. You said the court is tipping its hand in favour of Biden. I don;t think Biden needs the court to win in 2024. Biden is going to win with and without Trump's criminal convictions.But, that does not mean that Trump or Hunter Biden should not be held accountable for their crimes.A society cannot operate in the fear of violence and not hold people [including Trump and Biden] who commit crimes accountable. There was no violence when the Supreme Court decided that Bush won the Presidency in 2000.This is probably because the left abhors violence and are law abiding. I will hate to see their limits tested again in 2024 when Biden wins again. In any case, I don't see them ever resorting to violence just to settle a political issue. No one [ including Trump]should ever encourage or threaten violence in any scenerio like Trump did in 2020
Chris Christie said that there would be “a lot of anger” in the nation if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling. It certainly seemed like he was suggesting that we should not uphold the law because there would be “anger”. Hardly a reason to let crimes go unpunished.
Chris, if SCOTUS rules so cleanly as you suggest (as does Ty Cobb), then it would go against the foundational beliefs underpinning most of this court’s rulings. This court has said it believes in the text of the constitution as written, and has continued to restrict most attempts to control guns, since the constitution does not say anything about the type of guns, or the lethality of the gun - it simply states Americans have “...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Nothing there says anyone can determine what kind of arms you can or cannot have, so anyone is entitled to an AK-47 or other weapons, who want them.
So, if the court is going to live by their foundational belief, and rely on the text of the XIV Amendment, as written, they have a very narrow path to disagree with the Colorado Court’s Opinion.
And if we are going to choose to ignore the XIV Amendment, as written, then what else in the Constitution can we ignore? Can we ignore the First Amendment, and shut down free speech? Freedom of the Press? Can we ignore the age minimum (35 years old) required to run for the Office of the President? If we do not like what the Constitution says, we are still supposed to abide by it until we all agree to change it.
The core issue here which raises these questions is not the ruling in Colorado - the ruling is a reaction to the actions of one Donald J. Trump leading up to and after the 2020 election. The courts are simply trying to apply the law to what happened back in 2019 & 2020. If Trump is disqualified, it is not the court’s fault, and we should not fall for that propaganda - it will be Trump’s fault, as a result of the actions he took. He and his cronies are and should be accountable if his eligibility is removed.
Recall, the Colorado District Court, after five days of testimony, in which Trump's counsel participated, found as a matter of fact that Trump participated in and aided an Insurrection. Unless SCOTUS will overturn the finding of facts in the Colorado District Court, SCOTUS does not have a lot of wiggle room.
I really hope you’re wrong, Chris. Because if youre correct it means laws don’t matter. It means conservative judges will simply be partisans, and it means the end of rule by law, and the end of democracy in this country.
So... theres that.
Not everything can or should be purely political. Laws must stand for something.
However, making foundational decisions about the nature of the political system by which we are supposed to be governing ourselves, must be made through political action if it is to have any permanence. A right "given" by a legal decision can be taken away by another legal decision - as witness Roe and Dobbs.
Let's not get ahead of our skis here. Let's trust the process and see how this ruling plays out. History has taken strange twists and turns before...I'm willing to wait and see.
Oh I think this gets a LOT trickier than your 5 (very excellent and legitimate) points would indicate. The Colorado Supreme Court quoted Neil Gorsuch's very clear written precedent in their opinion for a reason. The Supreme Court is going to have to work very hard and do many gymnastics to manage to explain that away, maintain their bogus "law and order" image, and not hand the current sitting Democratic president and party all kinds of backdoors and legal arguments to execute the exact shenanigans the Republicans are trying to get away with in Trump's defense. If I weren't terrified, I'd be looking forward to them attempting to pull off this tightrope walk. I am not sure I agree that the reading of the 14th amendment is questionable. If you claim to be the party of pure constitutionality, it's going to make for an interesting argument to defend a sitting president who took an oath to the country and constitution who chose to incite Jan 6. And whatever arguments you go with, whatever immunities you grant, whatever loopholes you identify - are now delivered on a silver platter to the current sitting president. I have never been more pleased than now to be from Colorado.
The only way I see is for some SCOTUS justices to recuse themselves, but they probably will not. However, their own futures and fortunes are tied to the case. If they rule for Trump, there is no other conclusion other than that their decision will be illegitimate. Any justice who rules for Trump will themselves be traitors.
Would SCOTUS rule that, since Trump has yet to be convicted for any Jan 6th activities, removing him from the primary ballot would be denying him due process? If that were the ruling, would a guilty verdict in the D.C. case mean that now Trump could be removed from the ballot since he has had his day in court? Or would that be put on hold pending Trump's appeal of the guilty verdict in the D.C. case? And what about Hillary's emails???
But Trump has not been accused of insurrection by the special counsel (yet). His conviction for obstruction would be relevant, but not on point in the manner you suggest.
"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."
Would the "given aid or comfort" clause apply? I've gotten the impression from legal commentators that defining Trump's actions/inactions on Jan 6th (and leading up to it) would be one of the primary tasks for SCOTUS. Does Trump have to be formally charged and convicted of insurrection for the 14th Amendment to come into play.
[Sarcasm font enabled]
I'm sure a sizable contribution to the Clarence Thomas Fund will help insure the 14th Amendment is ruled "not applicable"!
I'm glad this decision was made and that it will get punted up to the Supreme Court for its ultimate ruling. This, at least, will deny - or confirm - definitively this particular legal strategy, something that needs to be done and done swiftly. Likewise, whether Trump has any form of immunity from criminal prosecution.
The U. S. Supreme Court made a “political “ decision with their Bush vs Gore decision. Why wouldn’t they do it again? And of course the Supreme Grifter Clarence Thomas won’t recuse himself. Yogi said it best: “it’s deja vu all over again”!
Legalities aside, the whole concept is skewed, for America to turn the corner on Trump, the voters need to turn the corner on Trump.
Trump needs to be roundly defeated in a fair open election; like any sickness, America needs to run the MAGA fever before it gets well, which means Trump is on the ballot.
Should America now ignore the text of the constitution just because Trump is running for an office. In that case a 30 year old man should run for the Presidency and then we should allow him to run even though the constitution disqualifies him. The excuse should then be oh let the voters decide if he is old enough to run because this 30 year old man or woman is very popular among his base which is say the youths.
The point is that the only way to deal with the MAGA fever is to let the voters decide Trump's fate, without excuse. Already right-wing outlets are tarring the Colorado decision as another deep-state attack on Trump.
Until Trump is convicted and the case adjudicated by SCOTUS, banning him from the ballot by stretching a theoretical constitutional point will just add more fuel to that MAGA fire.
But Trump will claim that ANY adverse action against him is the Deep State fighting back. So what difference does it make? (And as you say, he already has wrapped up the nomination.) On the other hand, every action taken to show what a fraud and a danger he presents to the country is worth the effort.
Trump was the "general" in January 6. He told people to go to the Capitol. He riled them up to the point where violence would happen. Groups such as Proud Boys have been actively promoting violence on the day. By riling up the mob, Trump made it easier for PB to add to their numbers. Behind the scenes Trump was trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power by whatever means. To me, Trump did the 21st version of an insurrection. I am someone who believes in our country and goes along with the new administration every election. Might disagree with policy, but we move together as soon one country. I am horrified by Jan 6 and the attempt in Georgia. If Trump didn't lead an insurrection, what actually was it then? He was fighting against the peaceful transfer of power. Did Trump destroy this notion?
On one hand, Trump did it and I agree with this ruling. But voters should be the ones to ultimately decide this election and tell him to f off.
But then I see the polls and well, the voters are too stupid for their own good, so whatever works. (Yes, I live on the East Coast in an affluent area, why do you ask?)
This just feels like one big Pandora's box that we're not ready for. I really appreciate your perspective on this, Chris.
I don't think this is going anywhere, but part of me is enjoying the hypocrisy of those who support the radical right opinions of the Supreme Court overturning Roe and affirmative action and gutting the Voting Rights Act are now whining about "unelected judges" making decisions.
They conveniently forgot that it was the same unelected judges that decided the 2000 Presidential election in favour of Bush
Well not th *same* judges, but similarly unelected ones. :)
Thank you Daniel. That is what I mean , SIMILARLY unelected Supreme Court Judges and not the same Judges. Thanks for helping me clarify that!
Breaking news . . . .
In response to the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, Vivek Ramaswamy announced that he would not let his name be listed on the Colorado ballot if Trump wasn't listed also. When polled for their reactions to this announcement, half of the respondents replied "who cares?", while the other half replied "who's Vivek Ramaswamy?".
I am not suprised that some Trump supporters [overtly and covertly ] are not happy with this Colorado supreme Court ruling. Remember this case was brought by the Republicans and Independents in Colorado and not Democrats.That is point no. one. The Republican Party brands itself as a Party of law and order. You said you are not a lawyer and then went on to say there is a 'controversial interpretation of the 14th amendment'. Well, the opinion of eminent Lawyers and retired judges like Lawrence Tribe and conservative retired judge Ludwig said the supreme court should affirm this ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court because that is what the Constituition says. You said the court is tipping its hand in favour of Biden. I don;t think Biden needs the court to win in 2024. Biden is going to win with and without Trump's criminal convictions.But, that does not mean that Trump or Hunter Biden should not be held accountable for their crimes.A society cannot operate in the fear of violence and not hold people [including Trump and Biden] who commit crimes accountable. There was no violence when the Supreme Court decided that Bush won the Presidency in 2000.This is probably because the left abhors violence and are law abiding. I will hate to see their limits tested again in 2024 when Biden wins again. In any case, I don't see them ever resorting to violence just to settle a political issue. No one [ including Trump]should ever encourage or threaten violence in any scenerio like Trump did in 2020
Thanks formyour astute observation.
Chris Christie said that there would be “a lot of anger” in the nation if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling. It certainly seemed like he was suggesting that we should not uphold the law because there would be “anger”. Hardly a reason to let crimes go unpunished.
You are absolutely right- that is how the mob ends up taking over!
Thank you for writing this @Dr. Ibrahim
You are welcome ma, DeeDeeD
Chris, if SCOTUS rules so cleanly as you suggest (as does Ty Cobb), then it would go against the foundational beliefs underpinning most of this court’s rulings. This court has said it believes in the text of the constitution as written, and has continued to restrict most attempts to control guns, since the constitution does not say anything about the type of guns, or the lethality of the gun - it simply states Americans have “...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Nothing there says anyone can determine what kind of arms you can or cannot have, so anyone is entitled to an AK-47 or other weapons, who want them.
So, if the court is going to live by their foundational belief, and rely on the text of the XIV Amendment, as written, they have a very narrow path to disagree with the Colorado Court’s Opinion.
And if we are going to choose to ignore the XIV Amendment, as written, then what else in the Constitution can we ignore? Can we ignore the First Amendment, and shut down free speech? Freedom of the Press? Can we ignore the age minimum (35 years old) required to run for the Office of the President? If we do not like what the Constitution says, we are still supposed to abide by it until we all agree to change it.
The core issue here which raises these questions is not the ruling in Colorado - the ruling is a reaction to the actions of one Donald J. Trump leading up to and after the 2020 election. The courts are simply trying to apply the law to what happened back in 2019 & 2020. If Trump is disqualified, it is not the court’s fault, and we should not fall for that propaganda - it will be Trump’s fault, as a result of the actions he took. He and his cronies are and should be accountable if his eligibility is removed.
Recall, the Colorado District Court, after five days of testimony, in which Trump's counsel participated, found as a matter of fact that Trump participated in and aided an Insurrection. Unless SCOTUS will overturn the finding of facts in the Colorado District Court, SCOTUS does not have a lot of wiggle room.
I really hope you’re wrong, Chris. Because if youre correct it means laws don’t matter. It means conservative judges will simply be partisans, and it means the end of rule by law, and the end of democracy in this country.
So... theres that.
Not everything can or should be purely political. Laws must stand for something.
However, making foundational decisions about the nature of the political system by which we are supposed to be governing ourselves, must be made through political action if it is to have any permanence. A right "given" by a legal decision can be taken away by another legal decision - as witness Roe and Dobbs.
Let's not get ahead of our skis here. Let's trust the process and see how this ruling plays out. History has taken strange twists and turns before...I'm willing to wait and see.
Well, we DID beat Trump at the ballot box in 2020, and look how that turned out.
Yeah, we beat the Japanese at Midway - how come we had to fight all those other battles afterwards?
Oh I think this gets a LOT trickier than your 5 (very excellent and legitimate) points would indicate. The Colorado Supreme Court quoted Neil Gorsuch's very clear written precedent in their opinion for a reason. The Supreme Court is going to have to work very hard and do many gymnastics to manage to explain that away, maintain their bogus "law and order" image, and not hand the current sitting Democratic president and party all kinds of backdoors and legal arguments to execute the exact shenanigans the Republicans are trying to get away with in Trump's defense. If I weren't terrified, I'd be looking forward to them attempting to pull off this tightrope walk. I am not sure I agree that the reading of the 14th amendment is questionable. If you claim to be the party of pure constitutionality, it's going to make for an interesting argument to defend a sitting president who took an oath to the country and constitution who chose to incite Jan 6. And whatever arguments you go with, whatever immunities you grant, whatever loopholes you identify - are now delivered on a silver platter to the current sitting president. I have never been more pleased than now to be from Colorado.
The only way I see is for some SCOTUS justices to recuse themselves, but they probably will not. However, their own futures and fortunes are tied to the case. If they rule for Trump, there is no other conclusion other than that their decision will be illegitimate. Any justice who rules for Trump will themselves be traitors.
Would SCOTUS rule that, since Trump has yet to be convicted for any Jan 6th activities, removing him from the primary ballot would be denying him due process? If that were the ruling, would a guilty verdict in the D.C. case mean that now Trump could be removed from the ballot since he has had his day in court? Or would that be put on hold pending Trump's appeal of the guilty verdict in the D.C. case? And what about Hillary's emails???
But Trump has not been accused of insurrection by the special counsel (yet). His conviction for obstruction would be relevant, but not on point in the manner you suggest.
Section 3:
"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."
Would the "given aid or comfort" clause apply? I've gotten the impression from legal commentators that defining Trump's actions/inactions on Jan 6th (and leading up to it) would be one of the primary tasks for SCOTUS. Does Trump have to be formally charged and convicted of insurrection for the 14th Amendment to come into play.
[Sarcasm font enabled]
I'm sure a sizable contribution to the Clarence Thomas Fund will help insure the 14th Amendment is ruled "not applicable"!
[Sarcasm font disabled]
I'm glad this decision was made and that it will get punted up to the Supreme Court for its ultimate ruling. This, at least, will deny - or confirm - definitively this particular legal strategy, something that needs to be done and done swiftly. Likewise, whether Trump has any form of immunity from criminal prosecution.
Never underestimate the ability of the SCOTUS to find a way to duck and/or procrastinate a real decision.
The U. S. Supreme Court made a “political “ decision with their Bush vs Gore decision. Why wouldn’t they do it again? And of course the Supreme Grifter Clarence Thomas won’t recuse himself. Yogi said it best: “it’s deja vu all over again”!
Legalities aside, the whole concept is skewed, for America to turn the corner on Trump, the voters need to turn the corner on Trump.
Trump needs to be roundly defeated in a fair open election; like any sickness, America needs to run the MAGA fever before it gets well, which means Trump is on the ballot.
Should America now ignore the text of the constitution just because Trump is running for an office. In that case a 30 year old man should run for the Presidency and then we should allow him to run even though the constitution disqualifies him. The excuse should then be oh let the voters decide if he is old enough to run because this 30 year old man or woman is very popular among his base which is say the youths.
The point is that the only way to deal with the MAGA fever is to let the voters decide Trump's fate, without excuse. Already right-wing outlets are tarring the Colorado decision as another deep-state attack on Trump.
Until Trump is convicted and the case adjudicated by SCOTUS, banning him from the ballot by stretching a theoretical constitutional point will just add more fuel to that MAGA fire.
The biggest loser in an authoritarian government other than the people is the judiciary. SCOTUS ought to keep that in mind.
But Trump will claim that ANY adverse action against him is the Deep State fighting back. So what difference does it make? (And as you say, he already has wrapped up the nomination.) On the other hand, every action taken to show what a fraud and a danger he presents to the country is worth the effort.
Trump was the "general" in January 6. He told people to go to the Capitol. He riled them up to the point where violence would happen. Groups such as Proud Boys have been actively promoting violence on the day. By riling up the mob, Trump made it easier for PB to add to their numbers. Behind the scenes Trump was trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power by whatever means. To me, Trump did the 21st version of an insurrection. I am someone who believes in our country and goes along with the new administration every election. Might disagree with policy, but we move together as soon one country. I am horrified by Jan 6 and the attempt in Georgia. If Trump didn't lead an insurrection, what actually was it then? He was fighting against the peaceful transfer of power. Did Trump destroy this notion?
I'm torn on this.
On one hand, Trump did it and I agree with this ruling. But voters should be the ones to ultimately decide this election and tell him to f off.
But then I see the polls and well, the voters are too stupid for their own good, so whatever works. (Yes, I live on the East Coast in an affluent area, why do you ask?)
This just feels like one big Pandora's box that we're not ready for. I really appreciate your perspective on this, Chris.