Trump’s 14th Amendment case reaches Supreme Court

[Social Media]

 

In a pivotal legal showdown, former President Donald Trump's quest for eligibility to run for office faces its most significant hurdle yet as it reaches the Supreme Court. The high-stakes case revolves around challenges to Trump's candidacy under the 14th Amendment, following his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

 

The Supreme Court's decision, prompted by Colorado's move to disqualify Trump, holds profound implications for the upcoming election cycle, potentially shaping the nation's political landscape. Trump's legal team, buoyed by recent primary victories, underscores the principle of democratic choice, arguing that the electorate, not the judiciary, should determine presidential eligibility.

 

Here's a closer look at the key arguments Trump's legal team is expected to present before the Supreme Court:

 

• Disputing the Insurrection Allegation: Trump's attorneys challenge the characterization of the Capitol riot as an insurrection, a pivotal point in the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling. They contend that there is insufficient evidence linking Trump directly to the events of January 6.
• Asserting Presidential Exemption: Trump's defense team argues that the 14th Amendment's insurrection ban does not extend to the presidency. They emphasize textual analysis and historical context to support their position that the term "officer of the United States" excludes the president.
• Questioning Legislative Enforcement: Trump contends that congressional legislation is necessary to enforce the insurrection ban, citing historical precedent and legal interpretation. They point to past cases, such as Chase's Case, to bolster their argument that Congress must play a role in implementing the restriction.
• Interpreting "Holding Office": Trump's lawyers argue that the insurrection ban applies only to individuals actively holding office, not those seeking or winning it. They suggest that Congress could potentially waive this prohibition before the next presidential term concludes.
• Alleging State Law Misinterpretation: Trump maintains that Colorado courts misconstrued state law in ruling him ineligible. His legal team asserts that the judiciary overstepped its authority by misinterpreting legislative intent and constitutional principles.
•  

While Trump's legal strategy covers a range of legal and constitutional arguments, the outcome of the Supreme Court's deliberations remains uncertain. Legal experts anticipate a rigorous examination of the issues at hand, with profound implications for both Trump's political future and the broader interpretation of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.

 

09.02.24

Source

 

[jerrymahoney]

The NYTimes this AM:

 

Here are several takeaways.
Colorado’s ruling appeared unlikely to stand.

 

Well the final vote is yet to come. For me, I don't really care the outcome of all Trump's criminal and legal tribulations, although there is a group on here who seems to want to repeatedly taunt me for taking that position.

 

I just don't want to see him elected President on Tuesday, 05 NOV 2024.

 

 

[placeholder]

On the basis of their comments and questions, it looks like the Justices are going to be unanimous or close to it in their overruling of the Colorado attempt to disallow Trump from being on the ballot. And their argument makes sense. The Civil War was fought over the issue of states rights vs federal government rights. And it would seem odd that the outcome of that war was an amendment that would elevate the rights of states over that of the federal govt in the case of federal elections. The justices seemed to suggest that it would take an act of Congress to empower the states to disallow candidates.

[jerrymahoney]

Dr. Richard Hasen, quoted elsewhere in this forum on the Trump/Carroll Defamation punitive award.

 

A Grand Bargain Is Emerging in the Supreme Court’s Trump Cases, but Chaos May Be Ahead
By Richard L. Hasen
Feb 08, 20242:33 PM
 

Depending upon how the court writes its opinion, however, it could leave the door open for chaos in January, if Donald Trump appears to win the 2024 election and a Democratic Congress rejects Electoral College votes for him on grounds he’s disqualified. 

 

 If Trump appears to win the election in November and Democrats control Congress, there will be a serious effort to disqualify Trump when Electoral College votes are counted in January, something that would risk political instability and even violence. Kicking the can down the road in this way is dangerous.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/supreme-court-trump-john-roberts-bargain.html

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

If Trump appears to win the election in November and Democrats control Congress, there will be a serious effort to disqualify Trump when Electoral College votes are counted in January, something that would risk political instability and even violence. Kicking the can down the road in this way is dangerous.

 

They needed to be careful what they wished for.  Isn't that the basis of prosecuting Trump in Georgia?  Not hard to imagine a DA or AG in a Red jurisdiction empaneling a Grand Jury to prosecute anyone who "interferes" like that... 

 

Tit for Tat.  Or, What goes around, comes around.

 

[Berkshire]

Trump will win this case.  But he'll lose the immunity case which is coming shortly after.  Fine with me. 

[jerrymahoney]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

They needed to be careful what they wished for.  Isn't that the basis of prosecuting Trump in Georgia?  Not hard to imagine a DA or AG in a Red jurisdiction empaneling a Grand Jury to prosecute anyone who "interferes" like that... 

 

Tit for Tat.  Or, What goes around, comes around.

 

With a big if as posted above, if the 6-member conservative Supreme Court block says a major point in overturning Colorado is that the 14th Amendment Article i3 s not self-executing and can only be executed by Congress ...

 

Then  if a Democratic controlled Congress might go ahead and execute it , they can say it is because Trump's 3 appointees and the other 3 said that's how it works.

 

 

Edited February 9 by jerrymahoney

[illisdean]

Another case of blatant democrat desperation in their convoluted and hysterically stupid attempts at subverting democracy by preventing voters from  exercising their rights in voting for the candidate of their choice and not what deep state actors in the Biden regime want you to vote for. This was dead before it made it past Co and anyone expecting this to pass is afflicted with whatever afflicts Biden. Another big win for Trump and the MAGA phenomenon.

 

Wow, I sense another big MAGA Trump victory in the coming near term right about the time Biden resigns in disgrace. LOL.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/supreme-court-weighs-trumps-bid-stay-colorado-ballot-rcna136557

Edited February 9 by stats
unsourced and unsubstantiated claim removed

[stevenl]

I think the only question is if there will be a dissent or not.

[candide]

4 hours ago, illisdean said:

Another case of blatant democrat desperation in their convoluted and hysterically stupid attempts at subverting democracy by preventing voters from  exercising their rights in voting for the candidate of their choice and not what deep state actors in the Biden regime want you to vote for. This was dead before it made it past Co and anyone expecting this to pass is afflicted with whatever afflicts Biden. Another big win for Trump and the MAGA phenomenon.

 

Up next, since Biden has prosecutorial immunity based on his age, memory deterioration rendering him unfit for trial on charges of willingly possessing and sharing classified information as per Hur SC report, what then should the courts do about the glaring double standard of persecuting Trump, who by way of the PRA had privilege to possess WHATEVER records he wanted while Biden was not covered by the same PRA and essentially stole classified information then shared it.

 

Wow, I sense another big MAGA Trump victory in the coming near term right about the time Biden resigns in disgrace. LOL.

 

 

No Insurrection MOOT SCOTUS

B.S. 

Both had no right to keep classified documents after the end of their mandate.

However  Biden gave them back without being asked to give them back.

Trump refused, lied, and conspired to obstruct the recovery of the documents.

[herfiehandbag]

21 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Trump will win this case.  But he'll lose the immunity case which is coming shortly after.  Fine with me. 

I suspect that he will not be disqualified, but the decision will be driven not on the definition of insurrection but on the practical implications of individual states interfering in a Federal election.

 

Quite simply, if Colorado can take Trump off the ballot, other states will take Biden off their ballots, and the election will fail in chaos.

 

Perversely such chaos would hand Trump a victory of sorts - the biggest stumbling block to his re-election is the possibility/likelihood of an emphatic defeat in the popular vote. Any and all other outcomes are likely to be open to a blizzard of legal actions (again) and manipulation of electors, the electoral college and ultimately congressional decisions, until he gets to be "dictator for a day", at which point it would be game over for democracy!

Edited February 10 by herfiehandbag

[retarius]

This is fascinating and gives me some hope for a decent US. Frankly the SCOTUS, is to me, the last institution that I have any faith in at all. The rest, the WH, DoJ, Pentagon, State Department, military, CIA, FBI, Senate, and Congress are all led by people who are unfit to be in positions of power and who have forfeited my trust by endless lies and lying.

I will await the decision and then will have to accept whatever happens, but I will believe that the decision will have been arrived at in good faith. The only SCOTUS judge whose good faith I might dispute is that of Clearance Thomas.

Edited February 10 by retarius

[Callmeishmael]

While I am not in any way a fan of Trump, I do think that he should be allowed to run for president and win or lose on his own merits.

[placeholder]

19 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

With a big if as posted above, if the 6-member conservative Supreme Court block says a major point in overturning Colorado is that the 14th Amendment Article i3 s not self-executing and can only be executed by Congress ...

 

Then  if a Democratic controlled Congress might go ahead and execute it , they can say it is because Trump's 3 appointees and the other 3 said that's how it works.

 

 

Hasen does note that Democrats are not likely to go for that. They are not as far gone as the Republicans Almost 3/4 of Republican House members voted to reject the election results. I doubt that the Democrats would come up with anything like that percentage.

[jerrymahoney]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Hasen does note that Democrats are not likely to go for that. They are not as far gone as the Republicans Almost 3/4 of Republican House members voted to reject the election results. I doubt that the Democrats would come up with anything like that percentage.

Hasen's final paragraph in the Slate article:

 

The bottom line is that if and how the court rules for Trump in the disqualification case, and as it considers sending him to trial on election subversion, it needs to keep an eye on what’s going to happen in January if Trump appears to win. If there’s going to be a grand bargain, the court should not forget what Congress might do.