I’m starting to think the SC might find a way to skirt the language of the 14th, CO, and now ME law by using the MI decision. MI didn’t weigh in on whether Trump was an insurrectionist or whether he is qualified just that the primary is a party decision and as such the state has no say on who the party can run. This does mean that they could disqualify Trump from taking office later but just punts it and if Trump loses the election then they don’t have to revisit.
I don't think they go that route. I think they decide something or other. Having to decide this in Nov/Dec AFTER he wins an election would be their worst nightmare. There's no way they could, in mid-December, declare him ineligible, for example and then completely wreck the transition process. In that scenario, who even becomes President? The VP is only the VP-elect at that point - can they replace a President who's never sworn in? The loser of the election didn't actually win and wouldn't have any legitimacy. I think it opens a can of worms the USSC wants nothing to do with. They have to make the call one way or another ASAP.
You do know that one person often makes decisions about eligibility of candidates, right? It's part of the job description of the SoS. If an 8 year old or a North Korean citizen or whomever ran for President, the SoS would do the same thing. I wonder if this Oilfield rando ever said "we just had a President try to seize power by using fake electors and invalidate the vote. How do we come back from that?" Given what the GOP has both accepted and encouraged, they have no room to speak on the Democratic process.
It’s certainly going to be a problem but the impression I get is that the USSC would prefer to find a way of sidestepping it. They cannot just overule CO law by saying they misinterpreted it. A very narrow ruling that sidesteps the issue seems like the route to go. Even in the situation you describe they could still rule head on in the 14th.
"You tell me how we come back from where we are." How about "conservatives" become sane again, be willing to lose an election, and stop riding the coattails of a complete loser whose continued domination of your party proves that you never had any principles at all?
I agree they'd prefer to avoid it all - but disputes between states is part of their job description. And now that various states have ruled in all sorts of different ways on this (with more to come), this is basically what the USSC exists for. I just don't think they have the option to avoid taking the issue head-on.
I think it would be incredibly difficult for Republicans to argue Biden has given comfort and aid to an enemy of the United States. It would be easier to argue the governor and AG of Texas has which is still a giant hill to climb. Ted Cruz would be a large hill but slightly lower. I'm okay with rulings like MN and MI. If it can't be decided until he's the nominee, that's okay, but it screws over GOP primary voters.
I think they’re a few ways they could do this. They could follow MI’s argument or they could use an equal protection or a due process argument.
Heh... susan was very concerned. I wonder if when she looks back at her life she will realize how much of a difference she could have made, but failed?
LOL... the guy desperately trying to find something... anything he can impeach President Biden for calls January 6 a "rally that went bad" and was not planned.
MI doesn’t have an argument regarding the 14th Amendment. The case was rejected based on state procedural grounds. As you mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court typically avoids intervening in state procedures or laws and focuses more on constitutional law. The CO decision remains the elephant in the room that other states could follow (and at least one has so far), and it’s likely the Supreme Court will have to rule on it directly. It’s hard to imagine them not taking up the CO case.
You should read them Not really. Disqualification from seeking office is pretty clear-cut in the Constitution. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is textually exact, but there are a few words open to interpretation. Essentially, if you engage in insurrection, you are disqualified. It’s almost as clear as the 2nd Amendment, and we know how that has been ruled over time, lol. J/k aside, s3 of 14a is texturally clearer than 2a, imo. Edit: I think TX can definitely try and I wouldn’t b surprised if they do try. Someone abusing the law is not a reason for state to genuinely hold people to the highest law in the land. It is somewhat a disservice to the US Constitution if we are afraid of political backlash or abuses by officials.
I rather hope that red states do exclude Biden from the ballot. Puts pressure on SCOTUS to resolve the whole thing once and for all. And just like the sham revenge-impeachment effort of Biden looks like amateur hour, the sham revenge-ballot-denial of Biden will look the same.
