I agree with you here. The big money is not behind Trump right now in the GOP, and we all know the Supreme Court’s right-leaning justices care about donors. We also know they are no longer beholden to Trump.
I agree with you here. The big money is not behind Trump right now in the GOP, and we all know the Supreme Court’s right-leaning justices care about donors. We also know they are no longer beholden to Trump.
I got $5 on “Can’t take him off the ballot” with whatever excuse they want, and refusing to acknowledge the precedent next time it’s relevant.
So is your prediction that SCOTUS will throw Trump under the bus and save “States rights”?
Suppose the Court rules narrowly: e.g., just that the section doesn’t apply to the office of President due to the Presidential Oath text not matching the word in the Amendment, or something in the definition of “insurrection” Then they put Trump out of danger and don’t implicate State control of elections, right?
I’ll try. Basically conservatives have been leading a multi decade effort to get rid of the Voting Rights Act. They’ve largely accomplished this without repealing it by winning SC cases which ruled that basically all restrictive and enforcement measures contained in the act were unconstitutional.
In broad strokes, they can do this because federal law is clear (as in, I think it’s in the Constitution itself) that the states get to enact and enforce the laws controlling their elections, even state-held elections of federal government officials. You can read this as just another appearance of the “state’s rights” argument used by conservatives since the civil war to weaken federal enforcement of civil rights and liberties at the state level.
These state’s rights arguments are also at the heart of the independent legislature theories currently making the rounds. Conservatives have worked very hard to ensure that they can stay in power even if the lose democratic majorities. They can do this by exercising plenary state control over elections.
Largely, conservatives have succeeded in these efforts. This case, however, would require them to go against this decades long effort to place state control of elections out of reach of the US Constitution. My belief is that the Republicans don’t need Trump to continue undermining democratic norms; he’s very useful in that regard, but they have been doing this successfully since at least Reagan (and that’s just because I’m being generous). The Republicans were winning this battle before Trump and they will continue to win after 2024 if people don’t get serious about the party’s fascist aspirations. I don’t think they will find it worthwhile to protect Trump at the risk of weakening their state level control of voting rights.
Sorry for not being brief. How this helps.
Edit: speling
Another state has already used 14-3 to remove an office holder; this was last September and was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which affirmed it.
Suppose the Court rules narrowly: e.g., just that the section doesn’t apply to the office of President due to the Presidential Oath text not matching the word in the Amendment, or something in the definition of “insurrection” Then they put Trump out of danger and don’t implicate State control of elections, right?
Yeah pretty much. Copying from my comment earlier, there are plenty of elements in the Colorado SC’s ruling that SCOTUS could overturn without having to worry about state control of elections. These include:
-
The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three.
-
Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.
-
Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.
-
The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection.’
-
The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump ‘engaged in’ that insurrection through his personal actions.
-
President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.
Suppose the Court rules narrowly: e.g., just that the section doesn’t apply to the office of President due to the Presidential Oath text not matching the word in the Amendment, or something in the definition of “insurrection” Then they put Trump out of danger and don’t implicate State control of elections, right?
I think they might regret allowing Biden unlimited power.
Suppose the Court rules narrowly: e.g., just that the section doesn’t apply to the office of President due to the Presidential Oath text not matching the word in the Amendment, or something in the definition of “insurrection” Then they put Trump out of danger and don’t implicate State control of elections, right?
Thank you so much for your posts
I appreciate this. Thanks.
Thank you so much for your posts
Tried to follow you, but couldn’t. 
Enjoyed your analysis. Thank you.
I appreciate this. Thanks.
That was a really good thread to read, thank you for your insight.
Glad you found it useful. Thanks.
That was a really good thread to read, thank you for your insight.