The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[Stevicus]

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

apnews.com

Arguments will be held in early February.

The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.

Of course, this was expected, but now they've finally announced that they will be hearing the case. Should be interesting.

 

[sun rise]

The commentariat has been speculating on what they'll decide. And I think that's after the Colorado list is final enough for some ballots to be mailed.

 

[Left Coast]

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

apnews.com

Of course, this was expected, but now they've finally announced that they will be hearing the case. Should be interesting.

Prosecutors will have a tough uphill battle. They'll have to prove three things: 1) that Jan 6th was an insurrection, 2) that Trump participated in that insurrection, and 3) that the 14th amendment applies to the President. I suspect things will not go their way. But it'll be interesting to see how the majority reasons out their decision.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prosecutors will have a tough uphill battle. They'll have to prove three things: 1) that Jan 6th was an insurrection, 2) that Trump participated in that insurrection, and 3) that the 14th amendment applies to the President. I suspect things will not go their way. But it'll be interesting to see how the majority reasons out their decision.

One and two have been done. Three is questionable. But yes, they will have to present some evidence for January 6 and Trump's part in it. The Supremes may even already have come to a decision on that already. They are not ignoramuses. The main problem for them is if they let Trump off how will they justify it. There is some valid reasoning that for that there was a purpose in leaving the President off. That looks like Trump's only hope.

 

[Brickjectivity]

February? Maybe they will change their minds.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Prosecutors will have a tough uphill battle. They'll have to prove three things: 1) that Jan 6th was an insurrection, 2) that Trump participated in that insurrection, and 3) that the 14th amendment applies to the President. I suspect things will not go their way. But it'll be interesting to see how the majority reasons out their decision.

Not necessarily. They may not even be asked, for example, about the insurrection, and might well take that as a given.

I think Chief Justice Roberts has got a real challenge, and he's going to have to find a way to NOT look as if the court is acting politically. This might well be an effort in judicial subterfuge and mis-direction, which I think would be a real shame, and a lasting black mark on his record as Chief Justice.

 

[flowerpower]

February? Maybe they will change their minds.

"The wheels of justice turn slowly" as they say. Ugh.

Funny how the same can't be said for the literally hundreds of people already sitting in prison for their participation in 1/6.

I guess that's former POTUS-privilege for you LOL.

A lot of the time, legal processes are drawn out for so long because part of the sentence is found in the deliberation (as hard as that is for people to wrap their heads around) - a cynical way to look at it is that the justice system is just another industry like any other, and procedures of this magnitude make a lot of money for that industry - the longer a case is on foot, the more money it makes.

The poor saps sitting in jail right now were probably pretty cut and dry cases though - not a lot to figure out in a lot of those matters.

 

[sun rise]

I think Chief Justice Roberts has got a real challenge, and he's going to have to find a way to NOT look as if the court is acting politically.

He knows, I'm sure, that whatever he does will royally **** off a large group and please another large group. The easy part is to rule that Presidents are not above the law, Trump's absolute immunity claim.

An Everest sized mountain of manure is about to hit a fan the size of Texas.

 

[icehorse]

I hope SCOTUS will think of their legacies and not just expediency...

But I'm not optimistic.

 

[flowerpower]

He knows, I'm sure, that whatever he does will royally **** off a large group and please another large group. The easy part is to rule that Presidents are not above the law, Trump's absolute immunity claim.

An Everest sized mountain of manure is about to hit a fan the size of Texas.

Just realized that it's literally the 3-year anniversary of 1/6!!

The fact that it's taken 3 years and counting for them to drop the hammer on this matter already sets a pretty terrible de facto precedent as far as immunity due to being POTUS goes - not a good look.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

He knows, I'm sure, that whatever he does will royally **** off a large group and please another large group. The easy part is to rule that Presidents are not above the law, Trump's absolute immunity claim.

An Everest sized mountain of manure is about to hit a fan the size of Texas.

He's got a bigger challenge, you know, in that sadly divided country. If we wind up with a 6-3 judgement, everyone will "know" that the partisan divide now rules the nation, and that neither side can trust the country's institutions. But how on earth is he going to get a 9-0 or 8-1 decision? He may have to prostitute himself in ways it may be better not to contemplate!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It also seems to me that SCOTUS has a tremendous opportunity -- and possibly even a momentously important one: they could affirm that the obvious language of the 14th Amendment does indeed disqualify Trump. In exactly the same way that Trump tried to scotch Obama's run, by disqualifying him on the basis of country of birth. To me (I'm not a lawyer, and not terribly subtle) seems completely obvious to me.

If they could do that 9-0 or 8-1, it would incorporate a deep message of immense importance about what the Constitution is really about. Like ripping the bandage off a wound, it would hurt at first, but lead to real healing.

 

[sun rise]

It also seems to me that SCOTUS has a tremendous opportunity -- and possibly even a momentously important one: they could affirm that the obvious language of the 14th Amendment does indeed disqualify Trump. In exactly the same way that Trump tried to scotch Obama's run, by disqualifying him on the basis of country of birth. To me (I'm not a lawyer, and not terribly subtle) seems completely obvious to me.

If they could do that 9-0 or 8-1, it would incorporate a deep message of immense importance about what the Constitution is really about. Like ripping the bandage off a wound, it would hurt at first, but lead to real healing.

If at least 2 on the left and 2 on the right agreed, it would be great even if it were 5-4.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If at least 2 on the left and 2 on the right agreed, it would be great even if it were 5-4.

Very, very hard to see a path to that outcome!

 

[Dao Hao Now]

One and two have been done. Three is questionable. But yes, they will have to present some evidence for January 6 and Trump's part in it. The Supremes may even already have come to a decision on that already. They are not ignoramuses. The main problem for them is if they let Trump off how will they justify it. There is some valid reasoning that for that there was a purpose in leaving the President off. That looks like Trump's only hope.

The presidential oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



Section 3 of the 14th amendment:

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.


While it’s true the office of president isn’t specifically enumerated, it is still in fact an
office of the U.S. requiring an oath to support the
Constitution of the U.S.
It really shouldn’t be that “questionable”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The presidential oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



Section 3 of the 14th amendment:

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.


While it’s true the office of president isn’t specifically enumerated, it is still in fact an
office of the U.S. requiring an oath to support the
Constitution of the U.S.
It really shouldn’t be that “questionable”.

I agree, but the first Colorado judge, a Democrat by the way, disagreed and argued that it looked as if the President was left off of the list of officers on purpose. Though no rational reason was given for that. I, like you, think that the meaning is rather clear.

 

[Left Coast]

One and two have been done.

In court, in front of the Supremes?

Three is questionable. But yes, they will have to present some evidence for January 6 and Trump's part in it. The Supremes may even already have come to a decision on that already. They are not ignoramuses. The main problem for them is if they let Trump off how will they justify it. There is some valid reasoning that for that there was a purpose in leaving the President off. That looks like Trump's only hope.

Trump's defense is likely to poke holes in all three issues. Different Justices may take issue with different premises. We'll know before long.

 

[sayak83]

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

apnews.com

Of course, this was expected, but now they've finally announced that they will be hearing the case. Should be interesting.

How can a candidate be disqualified before he is actually convicted of the said disqualifying crime ? Trump has not been convicted. If the situation changes before or during the hearing, that is another matter.

 

[Left Coast]

Not necessarily. They may not even be asked, for example, about the insurrection, and might well take that as a given.

That would be quite surprising. I doubt Trump's team would permit those premises to simply be conceded.

I think Chief Justice Roberts has got a real challenge, and he's going to have to find a way to NOT look as if the court is acting politically. This might well be an effort in judicial subterfuge and mis-direction, which I think would be a real shame, and a lasting black mark on his record as Chief Justice.

Roberts strikes me as someone who is interested in maintaining the reputation of the Court. If anything he's probably the most reasonable of the conservatives. I'm not sure what you mean by "judicial subterfuge," beyond just bias.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, considering he appointed a few of them.
Regardless their decision he's still treasonous scum who more deserves a date with a headsman than sit in the White Hoise again.