The Supreme Court considering the Colorado Case to disqualify Donald Trump from elections- based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment- i.e.
Has thus far disclosed the danger of brains trapped in over thinking, and mental gyrations to defend abject cowardice. There's no other way to put it. The Colorado Supreme Court decision, after all, was solidly based on a defined amendment to the Constitution and merely because it's dated does not mean it's irrelevant! As the decision summarized:
“We conclude that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three (of the 14th Amendment), it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,” the court’s majority opinion says. “Therefore, the Secretary may not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, nor may she count any write-in votes cast for him.”
Specifically, Section 3 states in full:
“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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
But the justices (most) seemed to twist themselves into knots to try to avoid coming down on the side of the Colorado Supreme Court. As noted by two NY Times contributors:
Jesse Wegman:
"No one disputed that Trump is an insurrectionist! Not even his own lawyer, who at one point said that states can’t remove him from the ballot because Congress has the power to requalify him by a two-thirds vote, and “we don’t know whether Trump will be excused before he’s sworn in.” That is remarkable. Instead of arcane process questions, the debate should have been about whether the world’s oldest representative democracy will allow a man who tried to overthrow the government back into power."
David French:
"The sweep of Section 3 is broad because the scope of the underlying problem was broad. The authors of the 14th Amendment were concerned about countless former Confederates penetrating all levels of government. Moreover, delegating the rules for selecting presidential electors to state legislatures is part of the nation’s constitutional fabric. State legislatures are responsible for enforcing the Constitution as well."
But the Roberts' court's primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.
Answers: 1) NO Congress need not act. The state elections are under the separate states purview, case closed. The Amendment section itself is self-executing. The states then get to decide who is disqualified under Sec. 3 and who isn't. There is no need for any congressional intrusion, especially given these clowns can 't even get a damned border bill passed! (And Roberts and his crew are going to expect a two thirds majority to come to a conclusion on disqualification? You are looking at a monumental clusterfuck come January 6, 2025 when half the states may refuse to certify electoral votes if they have concluded - like Maine and Colorado- that Trump is disqualified on the basis of inciting an insurrection._
2) Of course the president is covered by the provision because he is a damned "officer." Deal with it.
Trump’s backers and hack lawyer bootlickers will no doubt argue that “an officer of the United States” does not include presidents. Which is pure bollocks. If presidents who act as commanders in chief (i.e. of the armed forces) aren’t officers, what the hell are they? So it’s reckless and egregious to claim those offices are for military officers and postmasters, not presidents. So congressional legislation is not needed!
Despite that, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know "why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States."
Actually, no single state does so decide. It only decides - for its own ballots- on the basis of the amendment, who is disqualified. But that is adhering to the letter of the constitution's text which is what the Supremes' textualists are supposed to be about. As the Colorado Solicitor General also pointed out to the court, Colorado makes such decisions about its ballots all the time. And currently has prevented a non-native born person from being on the state ballot. Other candidate - i.e. independents - may not be put on if they lack the credentials or meet the requirements.
The Roberts' court conservatives often call themselves "originalists" or "textualists" when applying the constitution to 2nd amendment issues. But it appears more and more that if an issue or decision emerges that is discomfiting then textualism-originalism depends on whether they're in the mood or not. In this case of the Colorado disqualification of Trump it appears they aren't. As legal specialist Dahlia Lithwick put it in an MSNBC Roundtable discussion last night:
"You kind of get the feeling the justices are hurtling their bodies against the sides of the train, screaming 'Get me off this train! I don't care what the rationale is! I'll go with the one state shouldn't decide rationale, I'll go with he wasn't an officer rationale, I'll go with the no due process for the president rationale. I don't care I need to be off!
And that anxiety was palpable."
In other words, fleeing the issue like spineless cowards, terrified to make a determination - for example- of what constitutes an insurrection. As Lithwick, Colorado state lawyer Jason Murray and MSNBC legal specialist Ari Melber observed, Colorado is saying it's the justices' job to answer and settle the hard questions. No dodging.
It is your job to decide for the entire country if Amendment 14, Section 3 is self-executing, whether the office-officer dichotomy holds, whether we can allow insurrectionists to run for office or not hold office. These are all exigent questions but as Ms. Lithwick pointed out, she noted 5 or 6 justices would simply rather hang their hats on the dopey, pragmatic argument 'we don't wanna decide 'cause it will allow shenanigans in other states.'
Basically, we found a court which - incredibly - for the first time in 20 years yesterday found judicial humility. This was a court that has had no problems deciding air pollution limits, extent of allowable water pollution, vaccine policies, and what ER doctors can do when there's an abortion occurring. Yet they can't determine what an insurrection is or defer to a trial court's definition? As Dahlia noted: "Very, very weird!"
Or maybe, just plain cowardly to the point of enabling a traitor to destroy what's left of the country after his initial insurrection. Accomplices before the fact and ready to terminate whatever shred of legitimacy they retain.
Even more insane, 8 of 9 justices suggested they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer. Thus, Trump could win his case if just one of those absurd arguments is found to be persuasive. The most retarded and egregious Mitchell argument was that what happened on January 6th was a riot and not an insurrection. And even if it was an insurrection, Trump did not participate. But as former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Reich put it in a blog post two days after the insurrection:
"When the president of the United States encourages armed insurgents to breach the Capitol and threaten the physical safety of Congress, in order to remain in power, I call it an attempted coup. Last week’ rampage left five dead, including a Capitol Hill police officer who was injured when he tangled with the pro-Trump mob. We’re fortunate the carnage wasn’t greater."
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor, sadly, appeared to have the intelligence and courage to see what was needed. She thus sounded like she might be the only justice to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore ineligible to be president or run for president.
As for Trump's loopy lawyer Mitchell claiming there was no insurrection, what would you expect him to do other than lick Trump's boots before the court? But the lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump’s name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.
A decision
upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme
Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment
from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot
and imperil his campaign. It will also certainly finally put this miserable rat's campaign to an end and with it any aspirations to reclaim power and realize his dictatorial ambitions.
But a definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado, Maine and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot. It will also end any remaining residue of legitimacy for this Supreme Court - as if it had any after the wretched Dobbs decision.
The court has signaled it will make every endeavor to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it received a written briefing and holds arguments in the court room. Let us hope they make the right ruling, for the sake of this country.
See Also:
by Thom Hartmann | February 10, 2024 - 7:29am | permalink
Excerpt:
The single most astonishing thing about yesterday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court was the almost complete lack of historical context in those arguments about an insurrectionist staying on the ballot.
The fear that led Colorado to ban Trump from the ballot was that he’d keep his word and “suspend the Constitution” and “be a dictator on day one.” Neither were mentioned even once: the words “suspend” and “dictator” don’t appear anywhere in the transcript.
And yet that is exactly what provoked Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, Michigan’s Senator Jacob Howard, and New York’s Senator Roscoe Conkling (and 12 others) to write and push through Congress the 14th Amendment.
The Confederate states had ceased to be a democracy in any real sense by the late 1830s, as I detail in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy, with the wealthiest families in each of those states running them like dictatorial fiefdoms.
And:
by Amanda Marcotte | February 9, 2024 - 7:27am | permalink
Excerpt:
The big news that kicked off this week was that the Supreme Court set Thursday to hear oral arguments over whether or not Donald Trump should be kicked off the ballot per the 14th Amendment, which bars those who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the government from holding office. What got a lot less attention was the announcement of which lawyer would argue on Trump's behalf: former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell. Reproductive rights activists sure sat up and took notice of the mention of Mitchell. He is one of the most odious men in the entire anti-abortion world, which is quite an achievement, considering the misogyny that fuels that movement.
Mitchell earned this "worst of the worst" title by being the architect behind the Texas "bounty hunter" law, which adds a level of creative sadism to abortion bans that would make the villain in the "Saw" movies envious. There have been so many vicious abortion bans passed since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 that readers could be forgiven for forgetting how ugly the Texas law is. To recap: Beyond just banning abortion, the Mitchell-penned law offers a $10,000 bounty to any person who sues someone who "aids and abets" an abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment