I mean what is he going to argue if he sides with Trump? That the president is not an officer under the United States so it doesn’t matter whether he engages in insurrection? I don’t think he can say that what Trump did was not insurrection. So he would be arguing that the President of the U.S. can engage insurrection and still hold the office of the President? Like, do you really want to say that that is allowed by the Constitution?
For all of Gorsuchs flaws, this seems like something he’d be willing to do. I actually have a strong faith in his ability to flip on smth like this
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
Yeah you could argue that what Trump does is action of the US gov but that effectively unravels the entire system of checks and balances by giving so much power to the executive branch
I mean what is he going to argue if he sides with Trump? That the president is not an officer under the United States so it doesn’t matter whether he engages in insurrection? I don’t think he can say that what Trump did was not insurrection. So he would be arguing that the President of the U.S. can engage insurrection and still hold the office of the President? Like, do you really want to say that that is allowed by the Constitution?
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
It does seem that Gorsuch has a sort of code he follows, at least.
Their conservative goal may be to rid the party of Trump, we know there are plenty of Republicans who want him gone.
Unfortunately, the conservative SCOTUS has shown itself to be quite willing to be inconsistent in service of conservative goals.
Fun fact. Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado, and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
“inconsistent” is putting it gently.
Yes, but their inconsistency is almost always overruling other justice’s opinions in support of federalist society doctrine. This is kind of unique because to continue their trend of ignoring precedent whenever it suits them in this case will require them to overrule their own opinions on state control.
Unfortunately, the conservative SCOTUS has shown itself to be quite willing to be inconsistent in service of conservative goals.
Not a Yank, Singaporean. Need not be conservative. Just please continue to read the full textual language of 14th A until it reaches 14th A Section 5 “The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provision of this article.” This article means 14th A.
What do you think it says. It’s a very, very well & and long-established point in your American jurisprudence. The word “shall” means in your legal parlance, absolute or compelling absolute need/demand in this context in reference to your consitution/statutes. Congress can enforce this by its impeachment powers as per under the Consitution against the sitting incumbuent president or past president. It means Congress has the sole exclusively powers to determine this via its extant powers under your Cotus via impeachment for insurrection & or they could delegate it away too. They, the US Congress, also delegated it away to the DoJ to prosecute insurrection & rebellion as per Title 18 USC 2383. Only to the DoJ & no others like States Supreme Courts or States Secretary of State.
Congress has passed a law specifically addressing insurrection, Title 18 USC 2383. Therefore, a legally empanelled Federal Grand jury can make a finding of probable cause of insurrection & or rebellion. He could then be charged by a federal prosecutor, not by special prosecutor, convicted after due process by a federal court of first instances have it appealed by heard by a federal appellate court like a circuit court & then afterwards it can be said with some reasonable degree of confudence party is guilty of insurrection.
He has not been tried or even charged under extant federal law by a DoJ federal prosecutor for the crime of insurrection & rebellion, as Congress up in Capitol Hill deem necessary under Title 18 USC 2383 or impeached by Congress. Ipso facto, he murican citizen Trump is not guilty of insurrection & face no impediments to running for the office of the US Presidency as long he over 35 years of age & born in America. It’s irreguardless whether he is a serial mass rapist that did rape 1,000s or mass murder that did actually gun down 200 ankle snappers in a pre-school kindergarten with a pair of M249 Saws on full auto or mass swindler of 1,000,000 elders or even now imprsioned in a federal penitentiary for life or awaiting the death penalty for sedition & treason after been heard & rejected by your Scotus, which he is mainfestly not. Your system currently reeks to high heavens of unashamedly oppo suppression & bashing to me. Do note Trump is quite probably not a secret Hitler incarnate unless he cuts loose with nukes or really cut loose with hard kinetically enforced embargoes that analogues to Operation starvation in severity & intensity, this he probably won’t do, i hope. Capiche Y’ All ya Yankee Doddles
That is true, but I think they recognize that Chump would be a dictator if he was elected (or “elected”). I think they would be protective of their own power as the third (and overly powerful) branch of government to hand him a carte blanche to violate the Constitution.
I hope anyway.
I’ll be interested to see how SCOTUS handles this. Has he not threatened to dismantle everything including the judicial systems? That is their lifetime appointment…
Considering one of the perpetrators of the crime in question is married to one of our justices, I think there might also be a bit of a conflict of interest here.
I think this is an optimistic take. In the Gorsuch case that they are citing, there was no question as to whether the guy running for president was a naturalized citizen. I think SCOTUS conservatives are going to make this case about when someone can be kept off the ballot for insurrection: should there be charges brought? A conviction? Whatever standard they choose it will be two steps beyond whatever proof we have of Trump’s participation in Jan 6th.
This was, imo, a savvy move.
Reading through the opinion, the core part of it ( overturning the notion that the president is not an officer of the United States) leans heavily on the analysis by Baude and Paulsen, the two Federalist society law professors that wrote a definitive, recent paper on article 3:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
(there’s long sections in there to support the ideas that art. 3 is self executing, that the president is an office holder, and that freedom of speech is not a viable defense. It’s worth a read)
By quoting Gorsuch, they are putting him in a bit of a bind. If he is to be internally consistent, he should affirm the SCCO ruling.
Not to mention that a majority of the conservatives (if not all?) are FedSoc members, so the conclusions of Baude and Paulsen should carry some weight with them.
Its quite plausible that Gorsuch and Roberts would join the liberals on the court to uphold the Co ruling.
There is established precedent that a conviction is not necessary for article 3 to be in effect (see Davis, Jefferson and Lee, Robert E.).
And it’s also unlikely that the Supremes will overturn fact findings (note that this was never appealed by the trump team; they only focused on whether materials/evidence from the J6 committee could be allowed in the district court case). So the conservative majority will either have to come up with a novel way of protecting Trump while 1) not declaring article 3 null and void and/or unenforceable, and 2) respecting the rights of the states to hold elections.
That’s a difficult needle to thread, imo.