I agree it may be a good thing for democracy, but what does the Insurrection Clause mean then? I teach US History, and would like to explain it to my high school students. The clause does not say that it only applies to the 1860s insurrection. Did the court even try to explain what they think the clause means? Or did they pretend Trump wasn't part of the 2021 insurrection?
The operative part of the opinion is that individual states lack the power to determine who is qualified under the Federal standard. Only Congress has that power. As a matter of logic, this makes sense. It would not be good to have standards under the 14th vary from state to state. Note that no Justice opined whether Trump's conduct amounted to insurrection. That remains an open issue, and it is my hope that Jack Smith add that count to his case in DC.
The court's narrow ruling did not explain what the rule means, if I understand your question. It decided only Congress can enforce the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against someone running for or in a national office, and further decided that enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment requires an act of Congress, therfore, is not really self-executing.
I think you could say that he hasn't yet been tried for that and if we are to uphold the way our justice system is SUPPOSED to work, then the default is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (we all know he is guilty, but the court of public opinion shouldn't dictate over the actual courts or we set a dangerous precedent, right?). I'd definitely open it up for discussion with my students, though, I'd want to see what they think!
You are incorrect. Trump was never tried in any lower court for insurrection. Jack Smith didn't even charge him for insurrection, although he should have.
Check judge Sarah B Wallace ruling in November of 2023. In that ruling, she said unequivocally that Trump engaged in insurrection but could not disqualify him. It was a fact finding trial with witnesses etc. O, I am correct that Trump had already been tried and found Guilty of insurrection
That was not a criminal trial. Trump was not a defendant.None of the procedural safeguards of a criminal trial were in place. The procedure was a challenge to his ability to be on the ballot. She based her holding on the record from the 1/6 Committee, as did the Colorado Supreme Court And the 1/6 Comm was also not a trial, much less a criminal one. He IS as a matter of fact an insurrectionist. But it is incorrect to say he was "tried" or "found guilty" of that crime.
There are different rationales offered by concurring opinions, but the operative holding is individual states lack the power to make decisions about how to apply Section 3 of the 14th and that Congress has that power. Note that no Justice let Trump off the hook: in other words, no Justice held that his conduct did not qualify as insurrection. That remains an open issue.
That is a fair point (I’m rusty, clearly!). Honestly, I’d probably read the clause to my students, let them see the opinions from the justices and open the floor to discussion. The kids will have plenty to say and it would be a good moment to see what they can do.
Well, you COULD argue that he HAS been tried and acquitted by the Senate (however unjustly you might think) in February 2021 (wasn’t “insurrection“ the intent of the 2021 impeachment)?
While I would have preferred a different outcome, I think this was decided correctly. Once he's been convicted, it's another story but since he's still awaiting trial (which still pisses me off), he must be assumed innocent until proven guilty. What's more, several Red states had threatened to toss President Biden off their ballots in retaliation; this unanimous ruling protects voters' enfranchisement against a certain party that will impeach or worse over policy disagreements. This is yet another reason why Garland has proven himself again to be an overly-cautious wimp to the detriment of democracy.
NYT: In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett echoes a judicial view that she has voiced before. In public appearances, Justice Barrett has contrasted her writing with that of her former boss, Justice Antonin Scalia, describing her judicial temperament as less fiery and more measured, a tone that comes through in her concurrence: “Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
So the Court ruled according to their feelings on the possible impact of their ruling, rather than the law or the Constitution?
Chris - I understand your reaction to the ruling, today, and can appreciate the uproar which would have followed if the court has upheld the Colorado Supreme Court Opinion.
However, please honestly ask yourself this question - would you feel the same way if you substituted Trump as the Petitioner for the QANON Shaman, Jacob Chansley, or for Henry Tarrio, or for anyone else who participated in and or supported the events on January 6th? If most people are being honest with themselves, they would think it reasonable to have them removed from the ballot. However, because it is Trump, there is a fear all hell would break loose, and therefore, to “preserve democracy”, Trump should not be removed from the ballot? You said so yourself in your video this morning. So, your reaction was about Trump, and not about the law. Therefore, in my opinion, the ruling implicitly acknowledges the rules apply differently to Trump, and again proves, bad facts make bad law. The bad facts are because we made the facts about Trump, and not about any person in the same situation. Secondly, SCOTUS also went further to opine that in the future, it will take a act of congress to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, when that section already indicated in clear language the Congress had the ability to remove the infirmity created by the 14th Amendment. This creates an apparent conflict - and as a result, bad law. SCOTUS did this as a preemptive strike, anticipating if Trump is elected in November, there would be lawsuits claiming he is ineligible to serve due to the 14th Amendment. This way, the suits can all be dismissed, saying Congress must act if an insurrectionist is to barred from office, instead of being automatic based upon how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written.
I fail to see how making a ruling based upon it being about Trump than about any other Petitioner, and how then creating bad law as a result, helps democracy in any way.
I totally agree. The establishment seems unable to administer reasonable justice against someone who insists on screaming, "but it isn't FAIR," about damn near everything. After all this time, they STILL seem unable to see this con artist for what he is and hold him to account in all the normal ways. Mueller, McConnell, Garland. It's ridiculous with the kid gloves and bending over backward to appease his base.
Isn't the difference here that the Shaman, Jacob Chansley, and Henry Tarrio were all found guilty in a court of law and Trump hasn't been (yet)? Not a day goes by that I don't curse Republicans for voting to acquit on the impeachment. If they had, we wouldn't be dealing with any of this.
Jennifer - fair point - I was trying to use names that others would recognize related to January 6. My first thought is, neither were found guilty of "Insurrection" - Tarrio was found guilty of seditious conspiracy, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging their duties, obstruction of law enforcement during a civil disorder, and destruction of government property. Chansley pled guilty to obstructing the Electoral College proceedings on January 6.
Secondly, I could have used other names of unindicted co-conspirators, like Jeffrey Clark, Mark Meadows, Roger Stone, Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley, etc.
Ultimately, my point is, any other person (whether involved in January 6 or not) would have been thought of and treated differently. However, because it was "Trump", the focus was on "Trump", and not on the law. So, people made excuses and twisted themselves in knots to come up with reasons why Trump should not be disqualified, IMHO. Anyone else, the focus would have been on insurrection, and most would have thought, "...of course an insurrectionist should be disqualified - why is it a question?"
As I have said elsewhere, if the civil war too many of his supporters say they want has to happen, I'm fine with it starting over denying him entry into Washington DC.
Based upon the second part of the ruling today, now the only way to not allow this to happen is for Congress to specifically act to bar Trump, based upon the 14th Amendment.
I suppose, if both houses of congress were in Democratic control (majorities), it might be possible to use this as leverage to keep Trump in line...
While I would have liked to see a different outcome because I want anything to stop Trump from being back in the White House. However, rationally I know it’s the right thing as he hasn’t been convicted of creating an insurrection. Of course, the way the courts have handled these charges is a whole other issue. We need to defeat Trump at the ballot box, nobody is going to save us.
I think the decision today was correct. I also think it was always an ill-advised tactic to try to keep Trump off the ballot . As a preliminary matter, Smith hasn't even charged the crime of insurrection (although he should). Beyond that, the effort to keep Trump off the ballot was only going to have traction in states he couldn't win anyway. The real outrage remains the SCOTUS's slow-walking the incredibly easy decision re immunity . Smith asked months ago for a prompt ruling. SCOTUS can rule quickly when it wants to. Taking the case & delaying argument until late April was a huge gift to Trump&may well preclude a trial before the election
As a normal human being under normal circumstances, I agree with you that
"I also would argue that this is a GOOD thing for democracy. The ONLY way that Trump will be diminished (or disappear) from our national politics is to beat him at the ballot box." Unfortunately, the last time Trump was beaten at the ballot box he incited and led an insurrection and has been lying about the election ever since. Do you really think he will accept the results should he loose again in 2024? As you mentioned before, the only way Trump will go away is when he is dead or maybe thrown in jail.
I agree it may be a good thing for democracy, but what does the Insurrection Clause mean then? I teach US History, and would like to explain it to my high school students. The clause does not say that it only applies to the 1860s insurrection. Did the court even try to explain what they think the clause means? Or did they pretend Trump wasn't part of the 2021 insurrection?
The operative part of the opinion is that individual states lack the power to determine who is qualified under the Federal standard. Only Congress has that power. As a matter of logic, this makes sense. It would not be good to have standards under the 14th vary from state to state. Note that no Justice opined whether Trump's conduct amounted to insurrection. That remains an open issue, and it is my hope that Jack Smith add that count to his case in DC.
Yes.
The court's narrow ruling did not explain what the rule means, if I understand your question. It decided only Congress can enforce the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against someone running for or in a national office, and further decided that enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment requires an act of Congress, therfore, is not really self-executing.
I think you could say that he hasn't yet been tried for that and if we are to uphold the way our justice system is SUPPOSED to work, then the default is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (we all know he is guilty, but the court of public opinion shouldn't dictate over the actual courts or we set a dangerous precedent, right?). I'd definitely open it up for discussion with my students, though, I'd want to see what they think!
Kayleigh, Trump has been tried in lower court and found guilty of insurrection.
You are incorrect. Trump was never tried in any lower court for insurrection. Jack Smith didn't even charge him for insurrection, although he should have.
Check judge Sarah B Wallace ruling in November of 2023. In that ruling, she said unequivocally that Trump engaged in insurrection but could not disqualify him. It was a fact finding trial with witnesses etc. O, I am correct that Trump had already been tried and found Guilty of insurrection
That was not a criminal trial. Trump was not a defendant.None of the procedural safeguards of a criminal trial were in place. The procedure was a challenge to his ability to be on the ballot. She based her holding on the record from the 1/6 Committee, as did the Colorado Supreme Court And the 1/6 Comm was also not a trial, much less a criminal one. He IS as a matter of fact an insurrectionist. But it is incorrect to say he was "tried" or "found guilty" of that crime.
I see and thanks for the correction.
I agree.
There are different rationales offered by concurring opinions, but the operative holding is individual states lack the power to make decisions about how to apply Section 3 of the 14th and that Congress has that power. Note that no Justice let Trump off the hook: in other words, no Justice held that his conduct did not qualify as insurrection. That remains an open issue.
The clause doesn't say that a conviction is required.
I mean as an educator (of little friends) I also feel this is a massive let down, so I feel for you. It feels like a slap in the face in a way.
That is a fair point (I’m rusty, clearly!). Honestly, I’d probably read the clause to my students, let them see the opinions from the justices and open the floor to discussion. The kids will have plenty to say and it would be a good moment to see what they can do.
Well, you COULD argue that he HAS been tried and acquitted by the Senate (however unjustly you might think) in February 2021 (wasn’t “insurrection“ the intent of the 2021 impeachment)?
You could but you'd be wrong. An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. Entirely different thing.
Why we must continue to treat this SOB and his followers with kid gloves amazes and dumbfounds me.
While I would have preferred a different outcome, I think this was decided correctly. Once he's been convicted, it's another story but since he's still awaiting trial (which still pisses me off), he must be assumed innocent until proven guilty. What's more, several Red states had threatened to toss President Biden off their ballots in retaliation; this unanimous ruling protects voters' enfranchisement against a certain party that will impeach or worse over policy disagreements. This is yet another reason why Garland has proven himself again to be an overly-cautious wimp to the detriment of democracy.
NYT: In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett echoes a judicial view that she has voiced before. In public appearances, Justice Barrett has contrasted her writing with that of her former boss, Justice Antonin Scalia, describing her judicial temperament as less fiery and more measured, a tone that comes through in her concurrence: “Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
So the Court ruled according to their feelings on the possible impact of their ruling, rather than the law or the Constitution?
It definitely sounds like they've found a clause in the Constitution they want to ignore.
Chris - I understand your reaction to the ruling, today, and can appreciate the uproar which would have followed if the court has upheld the Colorado Supreme Court Opinion.
However, please honestly ask yourself this question - would you feel the same way if you substituted Trump as the Petitioner for the QANON Shaman, Jacob Chansley, or for Henry Tarrio, or for anyone else who participated in and or supported the events on January 6th? If most people are being honest with themselves, they would think it reasonable to have them removed from the ballot. However, because it is Trump, there is a fear all hell would break loose, and therefore, to “preserve democracy”, Trump should not be removed from the ballot? You said so yourself in your video this morning. So, your reaction was about Trump, and not about the law. Therefore, in my opinion, the ruling implicitly acknowledges the rules apply differently to Trump, and again proves, bad facts make bad law. The bad facts are because we made the facts about Trump, and not about any person in the same situation. Secondly, SCOTUS also went further to opine that in the future, it will take a act of congress to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, when that section already indicated in clear language the Congress had the ability to remove the infirmity created by the 14th Amendment. This creates an apparent conflict - and as a result, bad law. SCOTUS did this as a preemptive strike, anticipating if Trump is elected in November, there would be lawsuits claiming he is ineligible to serve due to the 14th Amendment. This way, the suits can all be dismissed, saying Congress must act if an insurrectionist is to barred from office, instead of being automatic based upon how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written.
I fail to see how making a ruling based upon it being about Trump than about any other Petitioner, and how then creating bad law as a result, helps democracy in any way.
Just my two cents - take it for what it’s worth.
I totally agree. The establishment seems unable to administer reasonable justice against someone who insists on screaming, "but it isn't FAIR," about damn near everything. After all this time, they STILL seem unable to see this con artist for what he is and hold him to account in all the normal ways. Mueller, McConnell, Garland. It's ridiculous with the kid gloves and bending over backward to appease his base.
Isn't the difference here that the Shaman, Jacob Chansley, and Henry Tarrio were all found guilty in a court of law and Trump hasn't been (yet)? Not a day goes by that I don't curse Republicans for voting to acquit on the impeachment. If they had, we wouldn't be dealing with any of this.
Jennifer - fair point - I was trying to use names that others would recognize related to January 6. My first thought is, neither were found guilty of "Insurrection" - Tarrio was found guilty of seditious conspiracy, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging their duties, obstruction of law enforcement during a civil disorder, and destruction of government property. Chansley pled guilty to obstructing the Electoral College proceedings on January 6.
Secondly, I could have used other names of unindicted co-conspirators, like Jeffrey Clark, Mark Meadows, Roger Stone, Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley, etc.
Ultimately, my point is, any other person (whether involved in January 6 or not) would have been thought of and treated differently. However, because it was "Trump", the focus was on "Trump", and not on the law. So, people made excuses and twisted themselves in knots to come up with reasons why Trump should not be disqualified, IMHO. Anyone else, the focus would have been on insurrection, and most would have thought, "...of course an insurrectionist should be disqualified - why is it a question?"
Thanks
And what if we can’t beat him at the ballot box? We’re supposed to be ok with putting an insurrectionist back into office?
As I have said elsewhere, if the civil war too many of his supporters say they want has to happen, I'm fine with it starting over denying him entry into Washington DC.
Based upon the second part of the ruling today, now the only way to not allow this to happen is for Congress to specifically act to bar Trump, based upon the 14th Amendment.
I suppose, if both houses of congress were in Democratic control (majorities), it might be possible to use this as leverage to keep Trump in line...
While I would have liked to see a different outcome because I want anything to stop Trump from being back in the White House. However, rationally I know it’s the right thing as he hasn’t been convicted of creating an insurrection. Of course, the way the courts have handled these charges is a whole other issue. We need to defeat Trump at the ballot box, nobody is going to save us.
In a way, it doesn't matter HOW Trump is defeated--if he is to be defeated--because he will simply deny that he lost.
And, millions of Americans will then believe him.
I think the decision today was correct. I also think it was always an ill-advised tactic to try to keep Trump off the ballot . As a preliminary matter, Smith hasn't even charged the crime of insurrection (although he should). Beyond that, the effort to keep Trump off the ballot was only going to have traction in states he couldn't win anyway. The real outrage remains the SCOTUS's slow-walking the incredibly easy decision re immunity . Smith asked months ago for a prompt ruling. SCOTUS can rule quickly when it wants to. Taking the case & delaying argument until late April was a huge gift to Trump&may well preclude a trial before the election
Completely true
The MAGAts will never say they lost fair and square. Just not in their vocabulary.
Agree 100%
He must be defeated at the ballot box, because when he was, he still didn't go away but was muted?
As a normal human being under normal circumstances, I agree with you that
"I also would argue that this is a GOOD thing for democracy. The ONLY way that Trump will be diminished (or disappear) from our national politics is to beat him at the ballot box." Unfortunately, the last time Trump was beaten at the ballot box he incited and led an insurrection and has been lying about the election ever since. Do you really think he will accept the results should he loose again in 2024? As you mentioned before, the only way Trump will go away is when he is dead or maybe thrown in jail.
Agreed!
SCOTUS didn't want to open a Pandora's Can of Worms. (I might have mixed some metaphors....)
😄
Not sense arguing. It's done. Now on to the immunity ruling.
I absolutely agree, Trump must be totally repudiated in an election. He’ll kick and scream, but the evidence will, again, be incontrovertible.