Very likely could be, but it's still sad that the court is influenced. If not influenced, I think he's disqualified; in fact, it should be more like a 6-3 or 5-4 vote in favor of disqualification. However, given that the court is influenced by outsiders, it's a 4-4. (I do hope for a 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 decision, regardless of which way it goes, with very solid legal reasoning behind it)
The idiot secretary of state of MO wants to take Biden off the MO ballot because of insurrection, based on what he read from the Texas LT Gov. Seriously...
I hope they all follow through and remove Biden from Fl, Mo, and Tx from the ballot. Those are the three states with politicians (including DeSantis) toying with this.
He walks through the maga effort to take President Biden off ballots. Yes, its ridiculous. But republicans are ridiculous at this point...
They have to twist facts to make their leader happy.................no matter how absolutely stupid it makes any of them look, and lets not for get who started this in Colorado.......one guess, it wasn't the Dems
Jamelle Bouie/New York Times: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection … I’ve argued, relying on evidence drawn from an amicus brief to the Colorado Supreme Court, that the former president’s actions make him an insurrectionist by any reasonable definition of the term and certainly as it was envisioned by the drafters of the 14th Amendment, who experienced insurrection firsthand. If that isn’t persuasive, consider the evidence marshaled by the legal scholars Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar in a more recent amicus brief. They argue that top of mind for the drafters of the 14th Amendment were the actions of John B. Floyd, the secretary of war during the secession crisis of November 1860 to March 1861. During the crucial weeks after the election of Abraham Lincoln, as pro-slavery radicals organized secession conventions throughout the South, Floyd, “an unapologetic Virginia slaveholder,” Amar and Amar write, used his authority to, in the words of Ulysses S. Grant, distribute “the cannon and small arms from Northern arsenals throughout the South so as to be on hand when treason wanted them.” When it became clear that President James Buchanan would not surrender Fort Sumter to South Carolina, in late December, Floyd resigned to join the Confederacy. What’s more, the Amars note, “the insurrectionary betrayals perpetrated by Floyd and other top officials in the lame-duck Buchanan administration went far beyond the abandonment of Southern forts. They also involved, through both actions and inactions of Floyd and his allies, efforts to prevent President-elect Lincoln from lawfully assuming power at his inauguration.”
I’m still predicting the court will find some way to side step the insurrection clause with something like “equal protection” like they did with Bush v Gore.
Legal expert lays out 4 crucial things to remember about Trump’s ballot eligibility In a listicle published by the conservative website The Bulwark on January 31, law professor and former federal prosecutor Kimberly Wehle lays out "four things to keep in mind about the debate over whether Trump is constitutionally disqualified from office." They are: (1) "Because Congress has never passed a federal law authorizing lawsuits to enforce Section 3, the litigation is happening under state law," (2) "Even a small number of states excluding Trump from the ballot could keep him from the White House," (3) "Why did the Supreme Court agree to hear the Colorado case?", and (4) "The Court should be careful not to read Section 3 out of the Constitution altogether." "The Colorado case is guaranteed to produce divided opinions," Wehle explains. "If the (U.S. Supreme) Court rules in Trump's favor by overruling Colorado, there are a number of directions it could go to justify its decision. One option: The Court could rule that Section 3 is a dead letter unless Congress passes a law implementing it — which, with one chamber led by Republicans, Congress won't do. That would at least have the benefit of keeping Section 3 on the back burner for future insurrectionists who would be 'king.'" Wehle continues, "Or it could rule that presidents are not covered by Section 3 — on the dubious claim that they are not 'officers' of the United States — that January 6th wasn't an 'insurrection,' an assertion that borders on laughable; or that because Trump stayed on the sidelines and didn't engage in violence on the ground, he didn't 'engage in' insurrection at all…. If the Court rules that Trump didn't engage in insurrection on January 6th, that future insurrectionist presidential candidate will do so with the blessing of the Supreme Court."
Brandi Buchman/Law and Crime: Even Jefferson Davis recognized Section III ‘automatically disqualified him’: Dozens of historians urge Supreme Court to remove Trump from 2024 ballot Even Jefferson Davis, leader of the Confederacy — and his lawyer — knew the insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution not only disqualified him from holding office but, importantly, that Section III of the Fourteenth Amendment “executes itself” and once that constitutional Rubicon is crossed, disqualification was his “automatic” punishment. This is one of several key arguments lifted straight from history that 25 prominent historians, professors, and legal scholars have presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in a new amicus brief supporting a December ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court finding that Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot for 2024 since he engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and is therefore ineligible for office. The latest amicus (friend of the court) brief for the CO Trump disqualification appeal by historians is a great read (.pdf).
Link On Feb. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in case number 23-719, Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson. A former elected leader of the Republican Party, Anderson is the lead plaintiff in the case seeking to disqualify Trump from the Colorado presidential ballot by virtue of his participation in the events surrounding Jan. 6, 2021. At issue is the proper application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is one of three Reconstruction-era amendments aimed at affording African Americans the rights and legal protections denied to them during the antebellum period. It consists of five sections. The first, and most well-known section contains the due process and equal protection clauses that underpin much of current American jurisprudence. Section 2 undoes the notorious three-fifth’s clause; Section 4 prohibits the questioning of U.S debt and Section 5 gives Congress the ability to enforce all the 14th amendment through “appropriate legislation.” Tucked in the middle of the amendment is Section 3: 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. For Trump to be disqualified from being president, a court must find that he was (1) “an officer of the United States;” (2) who previously took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” and (3) “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” Additionally, the courts must determine that the provision is self-executing, i.e., it does not require Congress to enact legislation under Section 5 for it to take effect. This is a novel case. Never has a president incited a violent mob to storm the Capitol. Never has a major political party embraced a candidate who has been indicted in state and federal court for conspiring against the peaceful transfer of power. That the Supreme Court needs to hear this case speaks to the complete failure and moral bankruptcy of the GOP. The fact that the case is unusual does not mean that it is difficult. The plain text should win the day. By contrast, the legal arguments against disqualification require a cramped and nonsensical reading of the provision. For example, some opponents of disqualification argue that the president is not an “officer” of the United States and that when presidents swear to “defend” the U.S. Constitution, that does not mean they will “support” it. Neither of these accord with traditional principles of constitutional interpretation. While we should take solace in the fact that no prior president has acted as recklessly as Trump, that is not a reason to ignore Section 3 of the 14th Amendment now. Other Trump defenders insist that, however misguided Trump’s behavior was on Jan. 6, it did not rise to the level of insurrection or rebellion. The problem they face is that the Colorado court conducted a full evidentiary hearing and made specific findings that Trump’s conduct qualifies as an insurrection. The U.S. Supreme Court has no independent basis to disturb that factual finding. Finally, some argue that the disqualification provision is not self-executing, but instead requires Congress to enact legislation for it to take effect. Though a convenient dodge, there is no legal reason supporting this position. Tellingly, none of the 14th Amendment’s other, better known, provisions require a separate congressional enactment. To fill in the gaps of these weak legal arguments, a series of pseudo-legal claims have started to take hold. Proponents of keeping Trump on the ballot insist that strict adherence to the disqualification clause would damage democracy. At a minimum it would enrage his supporters and deny Republicans the ability to elect their candidate of choice. At its worst, they argue, disqualifying Trump would entangle the Court in politics and damage its credibility. None of these are objections based on the law or Constitution. To start, candidate eligibility is a constitutional feature not a flaw. The Constitution containsseveral requirements to be eligible to hold federal office. A person can be disqualified from holding federal office on account of age, where they were born and even where they live. The Framers of the 14th Amendment added that a person — who previously took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States — cannot hold federal office. While we should take solace in the fact that no prior president has acted as recklessly as Trump, that is not a reason to ignore Section 3 of the 14th Amendment now. There is no exception for former presidents who are renominated. The Constitution does not care about MAGA’s feelings and nor should the Court. Bending the Constitution to avoid a confrontation with Trump is the antithesis of democratic rule. The Supreme Court would have never desegregated schools if conservative voices could have prevented constitutional decisions they disliked. Speakers would have no First Amendment protection at all if they must yield to a GOP veto. As for politicizing the court, we must recognize the difference between the Court deciding cases with political implications and the Court becoming politicized. The Supreme Court routinely decides cases with profound political and electoral consequences. In 2000, then-presidential candidate George W. Bush successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to halt a presidential recount in Florida that resulted in his election. In 2020, Trump and allies filed more than 60 unsuccessful lawsuits to have the courts overturn the presidential election in one or more states. If the goal is to prevent the courts from deciding cases with political implications, that ship has sailed. The way the Court can be nonpolitical in this case is simply to follow the Constitution rather than right-wing social pressure. Applying Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump is a judicial act, not a political one. Ignoring the plain text of the Constitution because the Court fears the consequences would be an act of judicial abdication that will reinforce the belief that the Court is hopelessly political. When the justices walk up to the Court next week to hear the Colorado disqualification case, they will see “Equal Justice Under Law” inscribed on the entrance. Donald Trump is entitled to that inscription as is every other citizen of this country. We should expect and demand nothing less.
Today's unanimous DC Appeals Court ruling that trump is not immune from crimes he committed (including the alleged insurrection charges) also deflates his 14th Amendment defense:
Observers were watching to see if thomas would recuse based on his wife's own involvement in January 6.
I know that the media will pick and choose, but this exchange seems funny... I'd think whoever trump put up there to argue his case would have experience presenting to the supreme court.
