Trump, 14th Amendment put Supreme Court on the spot

[CharlieH]

 

Decisions kicking former President Trump off the ballot in two states — Colorado and Maine — are amping up the pressure on the Supreme Court to resolve questions about Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment.

The Trump campaign appealed the Maine ruling Tuesday and is expected to do the same in Colorado, the latter of which especially puts the spotlight on the Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority, which includes three justices Trump nominated during his first term in the White House.

The looming decisions for the Supreme Court risk thrusting the justices into the political spotlight at a fraught time for the nation’s highest court, which has already been forced to confront other matters implicating Trump and the future of the 2024 race.

A battle over Trump’s criminal immunity is expected to soon return to the justices, and they already agreed to weigh in on the scope of an obstruction charge used against Trump and hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants.

But the 14th Amendment issue could distinctively stand out.

Legal experts long anticipated the patchwork of challenges would reach the Supreme Court, which has never squarely resolved the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban, with many observers believing the justices will ultimately keep Trump’s name on the ballot one way or another.

Some state courts tossed lawsuits challenging Trump’s primary ballot listing, kicking the can down the road to the general election. But the Colorado Supreme Court’s extraordinary ruling knocking Trump off the ballot suddenly provided the justices in Washington with a major vehicle to resolve the weighty legal questions soon, rather than closer to Election Day.

The amendment prohibits someone from holding “any office … under the United States” if they “engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Citing Trump’s actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, more than two dozen challenges to his ballot eligibility have been filed across the country.

 

 

FULL STORY

 

[Tug]

Trump encouraged the insurrection he continues to undermine our democracy by lying about the election he compermised our National Security by stealing the secret documents and their unsecured storage he continues to be a better ally to Putin than our nation,it’s a no brainer to me he should at the very bare minimum not be allowed to hold public office he should jailed all stop!

[metisdead]

An offensive troll post contravening our Community Standards has been reported and removed.

[jerrymahoney]

The name to watch since it appears nowhere in the World News forum is:

 

Gerard N. Magliocca

[jerrymahoney]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295040/20240105135754430_23-719 Anderson Respondents Resp.pdf

 

Petition GRANTED. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. 

 

January 4, 2024

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

 

Petitioner Donald J. Trump offers a single question
presented, which wrongly conflates at least seven
discrete legal and factual issues in his Petition.
Properly framed, the questions presented are:

 

1. Whether a challenge to the constitutional
qualifications of a candidate for President presents a
non-justiciable political question?

 

2. Whether the Presidency and the President fall
within the list of offices and officers to which Section
3 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies?

 

3. Whether states may exclude from the ballot
candidates who are ineligible to hold office under
Section 3?

 

4. Whether Congress must first pass legislation under
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment before a state
can enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,
even if state law provides a cause of action to enforce
it?

 

5. Whether, by intentionally mobilizing, inciting, and
encouraging the violent attack on the United States
Capitol on January 6, 2021, Trump “engaged in
insurrection” against the Constitution for purposes of
Section 3?

6. Whether the state trial court’s factual finding that
Trump intentionally incited a violent insurrection on
January 6, 2021, was clearly erroneous?

 

7. Whether the Electors Clause requires this Court to
override the Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation
of the Colorado Election Code?

Edited January 19 by jerrymahoney

[LosLobo]

34 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295040/20240105135754430_23-719 Anderson Respondents Resp.pdf

 

Petition GRANTED. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. 

 

January 4, 2024

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

 

Petitioner Donald J. Trump offers a single question
presented, which wrongly conflates at least seven
discrete legal and factual issues in his Petition.
Properly framed, the questions presented are:

 

1. Whether a challenge to the constitutional
qualifications of a candidate for President presents a
non-justiciable political question?

 

2. Whether the Presidency and the President fall
within the list of offices and officers to which Section
3 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies?

 

3. Whether states may exclude from the ballot
candidates who are ineligible to hold office under
Section 3?

 

4. Whether Congress must first pass legislation under
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment before a state
can enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,
even if state law provides a cause of action to enforce
it?

 

5. Whether, by intentionally mobilizing, inciting, and
encouraging the violent attack on the United States
Capitol on January 6, 2021, Trump “engaged in
insurrection” against the Constitution for purposes of
Section 3?

6. Whether the state trial court’s factual finding that
Trump intentionally incited a violent insurrection on
January 6, 2021, was clearly erroneous?

 

7. Whether the Electors Clause requires this Court to
override the Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation
of the Colorado Election Code?

Interesting.... I was reading an older version of 23-719 this morning and I found this on page 18.

'In 2020, President Trump received more than 74 million votes nationally, and more than 1.3 million votes in Colorado alone, to be re-elected as President of the United States'.

This is not on your update. 

 

I was thinking the Attorney might have some ethic issues in making false statements to SCOTUS.

 

20240104135300932_20240103_Trump_v_Anderson__Cert_Petition FINAL.pdf (supremecourt.gov)

Edited January 19 by LosLobo

[jerrymahoney]

50 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

interesting.... I was reading an older version of 23-719 this morning and I found this on page 18.

They are not the same document: One is the petition by Trump to overturn Colorado ruling

 

DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of Colorado

 

The question presented is:
Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?

 

and the other 
ANDERSON RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER DONALD J.
TRUMP’S PETITION

 

from where those 7 questions above were sourced.

[jerrymahoney]

As regards Trump v Colorado in the 14th Amendment Supreme Court case:

 

The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024

[jerrymahoney]

Retired conservative judge: ‘Trump disqualified himself’ from ballot
- 01/30/24 10:29 AM ET

 

Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday arguing that former President Trump is disqualified to run for public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

 

Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, argued the Supreme Court justices, when they hear arguments next month in the case involving the Colorado Supreme Court decision to bar Trump from the ballot, should take a “textualist” approach to interpreting the constitution.

 

“The ‘textualist’s touchstone’ is to give every constitutional provision its ‘fair meaning,’” Luttig wrote. “A narrow construction to promote judicial restraint is just as bad as an ‘unreasonably … enlarged’ construction. Scalia and Garner approvingly quote Justice Story that it is forbidden to narrowly construe a constitutional provision ‘as if it were subversive of the great interests of society, or derogated from the inherent sovereignty of the people.’”

 

“Every provision of the Constitution is part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land,’” he continued, “not the inferior law of the land.”

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4437135-retired-judge-luttig-trump-disqualified-himself-ballot/

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/18/2024 at 3:50 PM, jerrymahoney said:

The name to watch since it appears nowhere in the World News forum is:

 

Gerard N. Magliocca

Thanks for bringing him up. Should be interesting.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Retired conservative judge: ‘Trump disqualified himself’ from ballot
- 01/30/24 10:29 AM ET

 

Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday arguing that former President Trump is disqualified to run for public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

 

Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, argued the Supreme Court justices, when they hear arguments next month in the case involving the Colorado Supreme Court decision to bar Trump from the ballot, should take a “textualist” approach to interpreting the constitution.

 

“The ‘textualist’s touchstone’ is to give every constitutional provision its ‘fair meaning,’” Luttig wrote. “A narrow construction to promote judicial restraint is just as bad as an ‘unreasonably … enlarged’ construction. Scalia and Garner approvingly quote Justice Story that it is forbidden to narrowly construe a constitutional provision ‘as if it were subversive of the great interests of society, or derogated from the inherent sovereignty of the people.’”

 

“Every provision of the Constitution is part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land,’” he continued, “not the inferior law of the land.”

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4437135-retired-judge-luttig-trump-disqualified-himself-ballot/

 

It will be interesting to see if the rightwing, particularly the Trump rightwing appointees to the SCOTUS adhere to their positions on Originalism or whether their political allegiance gets the better of them.

 

 

Edited January 31 by Chomper Higgot

[sirineou]

On 1/4/2024 at 4:30 AM, Tug said:

Trump encouraged the insurrection he continues to undermine our democracy by lying about the election he compermised our National Security by stealing the secret documents and their unsecured storage he continues to be a better ally to Putin than our nation,it’s a no brainer to me he should at the very bare minimum not be allowed to hold public office he should jailed all stop!

A decision to remove him from the ballot would be a gift to trump!! 

He will not win in the general election anyway, so let the voters remove him. 

This will have the additional benefit of insuring a Democrat president.  

Removing him will force the republicans to offer a viable candidate, and will energise the maga crowd.

You can bet whoever runs for the republicans will use it as a wedge issue. 

Since his election  2016 when has he won anything?

If the supreme court removes him, especially if it is not a unanimous decision  it would give him the opportunity to  claim that this election was stolen from him also. And we will never  hear the end of it. 

 

 

Edited January 31 by sirineou

[jerrymahoney]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It will be interesting to see if the rightwing, particularly the Trump rightwing appointees to the SCOTUS adhere to their positions on Originalism or whether their political allegiance gets the better of them.

 

 

Presuming the 3 liberal block justices will sustain the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, then it will take 2 from the 6 member conservative block to join -- most likely Chief Justice  Roberts and one of the others which would have to be one of the 3 Trump appointees presuming AJ's Thomas and Alito would say Hxxx No!

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Presuming the 3 liberal block justices will sustain the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, then it will take 2 from the 6 member conservative block to join -- most likely Chief Justice  Roberts and one of the others which would have to be one of the 3 Trump appointees presuming AJ's Thomas and Alito would say Hxxx No!

I don’t gamble, and I certainly would not bet on the outcome of any issue placed before the current SCOTUS Bench.

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t gamble, and I certainly would not bet on the outcome of any issue placed before the current SCOTUS Bench.

 

 

Yes. Well I would say that 5 Assoc. Justices might be OK to predict but the 3 Trump appointees and Roberts could go either way.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes. Well I would say that 5 Assoc. Justices might be OK to predict but the 3 Trump appointees and Roberts could go either way.

We agree at last.

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We agree at last.

OK.

[jerrymahoney]

Just to note:

 

LDF Files Amicus Brief Defending Full Enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment in Trump v. Anderson   (NAACP Legal Defense Fund)

 

LDF’s amicus brief is not submitted on behalf of any party and does not address whether the Colorado Supreme Court’s ultimate determination was correct; rather, the brief responds to arguments that the Court should not apply the Fourteenth Amendment in this case.  Drawing on its decades of experience litigating seminal cases under the Fourteenth Amendment, LDF highlights the importance of the Amendment to the continuing existence of our constitutional democracy and urges the Court to ensure that it is fully enforced.   ...

 

 The plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment could not be clearer in banning government officials who engage in insurrections against the United States from again serving as officials of the United States. Yet, some urge the Court to ignore the provision entirely, claiming it is not the proper role of the Supreme Court to apply the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment to this case.

 

To maintain its own integrity, the Court must forcefully reject these arguments and avoid repeating its grave errors of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it refused to apply the Fourteenth Amendment fully and consistently, thereby denying Black Americans and other people of color equal citizenship and permitting the violent suppression of our democratic institutions. We unequivocally defend the Fourteenth Amendment and urge the Court use its power to honor it.

 

https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-files-amicus-brief-defending-full-enforcement-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-in-trump-v-anderson/

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, sirineou said:

A decision to remove him from the ballot would be a gift to trump!! 

He will not win in the general election anyway, so let the voters remove him. 

This will have the additional benefit of insuring a Democrat president.  

Removing him will force the republicans to offer a viable candidate, and will energise the maga crowd.

You can bet whoever runs for the republicans will use it as a wedge issue. 

Since his election  2016 when has he won anything?

If the supreme court removes him, especially if it is not a unanimous decision  it would give him the opportunity to  claim that this election was stolen from him also. And we will never  hear the end of it. 

 

 

I actually agree with most of that. Well said.

[sirineou]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I actually agree with most of that. Well said.

I am a Realist, and try to deal with what is, rather than what I wish it to be,

Not always successfully.  But I always think with the real possibility , that I could be wrong.

After all I have been wrong in the past, why can't I be wrong now? 

    5555 sound full of myself right? Well... I ma, a work in progress, hope to get it right before I kick the bucket,  but if not, there is always next try. 

[jerrymahoney]

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am a Realist, and try to deal with what is, rather than what I wish it to be,

Well realist or not it would seem from reports that the SCOTUS will have to give its decision prior to Super Tuesday 05 MARCH 2024 after oral arguments 08 FEB 2024.

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Well realist or not it would seem from reports that the SCOTUS will have to give its decision prior to Super Tuesday 05 MARCH 2024 after oral arguments 08 FEB 2024.

Yea I  think they start hearing argument Thursday , I have seen a few rebates from reputable sources on YouTube , and it should be interesting. I would not want to be in the position the justices are right now, but that's why they are being paid the big bucks. 

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yea I  think they start hearing argument Thursday , I have seen a few rebates from reputable sources on YouTube , and it should be interesting. I would not want to be in the position the justices are right now, but that's why they are being paid the big bucks. 

Just to note:

 

Upon occasion, appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States;

 

and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”  (my bold)

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/oathsofoffice.aspx

 

 

[LosLobo]

Seems Antonin Scalia may have come back from the grave to haunt Trump.....

'Former conservative appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, who has become an outspoken Trump critic, cited Scalia in a brief to the court this week.

 

The Scalia concurrence, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and two other conservatives, involved a dispute between the teamsters and a soda distributor.

 

The late justice wrote that all “officers” of the United States must be appointed by the president “except where” the Constitution “provides otherwise.”

 

It is on that caveat that Trump’s critics hang their argument.'

 

Trump’s critics hope that Antonin Scalia can sway the Supreme Court in 14th Amendment fight | CNN Politics

 

Edited February 2 by LosLobo

[jerrymahoney]

How lawyers in the Trump ballot case are training for the Supreme Court arguments
By Joan Biskupic, CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst

Published 4:30 AM EST, Fri February 2, 2024

 

Lawyer Jason Murray, taking the lead next week in the Supreme Court battle to keep Donald Trump off presidential ballots, has never argued before the justices.

 

Jonathan Mitchell, representing Trump, is a well-known conservative advocate with some experience at the court – yet none in a case close to this magnitude.

 

As of Friday, both men will move their operations to Washington and tap into a sophisticated network of lawyers who’ve stood many times in the well of the courtroom and are positioned to channel the justices. Murray and Mitchell will engage in multiple “moot courts,” separately honing their cases before attorneys who fire questions designed to simulate the justices and their intensity.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics/lawyers-prepare-supreme-court-arguments-trump-ballot-case

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/3/2024 at 9:43 PM, jerrymahoney said:

How lawyers in the Trump ballot case are training for the Supreme Court arguments
By Joan Biskupic, CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst

Published 4:30 AM EST, Fri February 2, 2024

 

Lawyer Jason Murray, taking the lead next week in the Supreme Court battle to keep Donald Trump off presidential ballots, has never argued before the justices.

 

Jonathan Mitchell, representing Trump, is a well-known conservative advocate with some experience at the court – yet none in a case close to this magnitude.

 

As of Friday, both men will move their operations to Washington and tap into a sophisticated network of lawyers who’ve stood many times in the well of the courtroom and are positioned to channel the justices. Murray and Mitchell will engage in multiple “moot courts,” separately honing their cases before attorneys who fire questions designed to simulate the justices and their intensity.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics/lawyers-prepare-supreme-court-arguments-trump-ballot-case

Whatever happened to the law that we have encumbered ourselves with when an entire squadron of lawyers is required just to prepare to argue a case?

There was a move to make law in clear English a while back, but I guess that got lost.

Gosh, it's almost like lawyers want to make the law so complicated that we have to pay them loadsacash to make sense of it.

[Danderman123]

The SCOTUS is currently considering the 14th amendment case. Based on the questioning, it looks like this is going to be a 6-3 verdict favoring Trump.

[Walker88]

Some will try to argue that removing trump from the ballot is undemocratic. It is not. It is law, by virtue of the US Constitution.

 

To remove the traitor and insurrectionist trump from ballots is not un-democratic. What IS un-democratic is the fact trump violated the 14th Amendment, Article III of the Constitution, which states:

 

“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.” (trump wouldn’t get that in either chamber, as the Dems have the majority in the Senate, and Repubs have nowhere close to 2/3s in the House.)

 

Calling his goobers to Washington, telling them to ‘fight like hell’, march to the Capitol, and sit on his arse for 187 minutes rather than do his duty and call a stop to it or send the National Guard, plus Tweeting support for it while sitting on his bloated arse, and after the fact not only calling the convicted terrorists “hostages“, but also claiming he would pardon them if re-elected, absolutely fits the definition of what is in bold above.

 

There are 3 requirements for ANYBODY to run for President: Be at least 35, be born in the US, and have never engaged in insurrection nor giving aid or comfort to those who have. Who would complain if the SC said Taylor Swift cannot run for POTUS because she’s only 34? Same same for trump.

 

Yes, if the SC takes him off ballots, or tells States they are free to make their own decision (both unlikely), trump’s goobers will engage in more violence. Fear of that should not be any part of the decision. Only the law and Constitution should be taken into consideration.

 

If his goobers riot, gun every last one of those traitors down. In fact, real patriots can play "Kyle Rittenhouse", a hero of the far right, and simply help law enforcement by showing up with their own AR-15s and eradicating the anti-American scum.

Edited February 8 by Walker88

[Danderman123]

36 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Some will try to argue that removing trump from the ballot is undemocratic. It is not. It is law, by virtue of the US Constitution.

 

To remove the traitor and insurrectionist trump from ballots is not un-democratic. What IS un-democratic is the fact trump violated the 14th Amendment, Article III of the Constitution, which states:

 

“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. 

To determine whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, a jury must convict Trump. Failing a jury verdict, legally, Trump is not an insurrectionist, regardless of appearances.

 

It's like calling someone a murderer who hasn't been tried yet.

[Jingthing]

17 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

To determine whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, a jury must convict Trump. Failing a jury verdict, legally, Trump is not an insurrectionist, regardless of appearances.

 

It's like calling someone a murderer who hasn't been tried yet.

That is NOT what the amendment says IN ANY WAY.

I get that you think that is a fair way to do it, but again, no such stipulation in the amendment.

So why repeat that misinformation?