When the Supreme Court reviews Colorado’s decision to exclude President Trump from the state’s ballot, it will be delving into wholly uncharted territory.
The Supreme Court has never interpreted the constitutional provision prohibiting former office-holding insurrectionists from holding future office. Several leading constitutional scholars argue that, in part for this reason, the constitutional ban cannot be enforced without prior congressional enactment of guiding directives. The high court may consider this option to provide a welcome off-ramp.
But the position that the constitutional ban on insurrectionist office holders is not activated absent congressional legislation is not only incorrect, it also threatens the very foundations of America’s constitutional system.
I highly doubt the supreme court will care about breaking apart the way we think the legal system works. They’ll just take another case that would have its handling changed, and declare that ‘this particular instance works the old way, but that other one works the new way, (stick fingers in their ears) la la la la’
The wild thing is that it was two very conservative Federalist lawyers who wrote the initial article (based on originalism) putting out the theory that Trump should be disqualified.
Further, the amendment specifically lays out Congress’s role: they can, with 2/3rds vote, remove the imposed disqualification disability.
Ezra Klein had a great podcast on this awhile back.
They’ll probably “punt” it on principal then. We’ve seen how much they care about the constitution.
deleted by creator
I think their off-ramp is going to be to just say Trump didn’t engage in insurrection for some B.S. reason. He clearly did but Alito (like most other FedSoc judges) have no problem with ignoring the actual facts of a case and then rule on some story they made up using the people involved as characters. I could easily imagine a decision that says Trump didn’t engage in insurrection because he tried to use lawyers and a rally to pressure Congress and so his intent wasn’t insurrection against the constitutional order.
And then they’ll probably say the people who did storm the Capital can be considered insurrectionists because they’re just tawdry, regular folks who would never be invited to Bohemian Grove. People in fancy suits planning and directing the coup will be presented as the naïve ones who NEVER expected violence to break out.
@MicroWave yeah but the supreme court can easily threaten the constitution. That’s what 2/3rds of them were appointed to do in the first place.🤷♂️
Brett Kavanaugh: “Hey, you, hold my beer!”
beer(s)
14A S3 clearly describes disqualification as a “disability,” one which can be removed by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. SCOTUS can avoid looking absolutely foolish by upholding the Colorado ruling, while pointing to Congress as the body ultimately responsible for removing that disability, if they so choose.
scotus is about to vaporize chevron doctrine bringing more power to themselves. it’s just as likely they will let trump be on the ballot removing power from another branch of government and give more to themselves.
if scotus wants to maintain any of the little credibility they do have, they aren’t going to ignore what is even for this era of language and the definition of words, plain language text saying that people who were involved in insurrecion against the united states are ineligible to hold office unless 2/3 OF each house of congress waives the provision. and one of the things that john roberts really cares about is how his court is seen by history. I can see 4 votes right now to allow the ruling to stand but I can’t see of the rest of the unelected lords who provides vote 5.
They will rule he wasn’t given due process (not convicted of insurrection) and therefore can be on the ballot. It is the most straightforward path.
Meh, SCOTUS didn’t save Trump last time and I’m really doubtful they’re going to do it now either.
