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

[sun rise]

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.

The 14th does not speak to being convicted. For the civil But Trump will surely bring that up.

Section 3 in its entirety says this (I've highlighted the point in question) which is did Trump give "comfort" to the Jan 6th insurrectionists by his actions and his lack of actions.

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.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Or they could (reasonably) accuse themselves and state that conducting the election is a states' right and duty. They have insisted on states' rights before (Dobbs).

 

[Subduction Zone]

In court, in front of the Supremes?

Why assume that the Supremes are idiots? They probably already know this.

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.

With his lawyers? Are you kidding me? The Court may have problems with following their own oaths of office, that is the only way that Trump can win in reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or they could (reasonably) accuse themselves and state that conducting the election is a states' right and duty. They have insisted on states' rights before (Dobbs).

Minor correction: Recuse, not accuse. And there have already been demands made be some that Clarence Thomas recuse himself because of his wife's activities in this issue. But yes, the USSC could simply say that the Constitution says that it is a state's level issue. That might be the best outcome that Trump could expect.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Do you think they shouldn't also consider Trump's having
ordered Pence to over-turn the election? Or Trump's
threatening prosecution of secretaries of states if they
don't "find" him the votes he needs to win?
I find those more incontrovertible evidence of his treason.

Hey, you're not siding with Trump, are you?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

During oral arguments, it's the court that asks the questions. Trump's team doesn't get to set the agenda.

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.

So far, the only argument I've seen is that the President isn't "an officer" under the United States. Since this mechanism has never been used against a president, there are still questions to resolve. The disqualification clause applies to current and former federal officials, state officials, and military officials. However, legal scholars are split on whether the disqualification clause applies to the presidency. But surely the Chief Justice would know that Presidents swear to an "oath of office," since he administers the oath. And if the President holds the "office of President of the United States of America," I can't see how he isn't an officer (which simply means office-holder). And since the Amendment includes "military officials," how is the Commander in Chief not one of those?

You may call my thinking biased, but I'm only reading the words themselves.

 

[sayak83]

The 14th does not speak to being convicted. For the civil But Trump will surely bring that up.

Section 3 in its entirety says this (I've highlighted the point in question) which is did Trump give "comfort" to the Jan 6th insurrectionists by his actions and his lack of actions.

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.

What it says clearly that the person should have engaged in or supported insurrection. But that determination has to be done in the court of law only correct? How else?

 

[McBell]

What it says clearly that the person should have engaged in or supported insurrection. But that determination has to be done in the court of law only correct? How else?

It was in fact determined in a Colorado court of law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Nor do I. This 14th Amendment strategy may well prove to be too clever by half and a tremendous boon to the Trump campaign.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

But I'm not optimistic.

If they are thinking of that, Clarence Thomas will recuse himself, so there will only be 8 justices hearing the case.

Looks like a tie vote upholds the decision of the lower court.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What it says clearly that the person should have engaged in or supported insurrection. But that determination has to be done in the court of law only correct?

The law doesn't say this.

How else?

Generally, a state official makes a ruling on whether a candidate is eligible when they apply. Then there's an appeal process.

The details vary from state to state.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What it says clearly that the person should have engaged in or supported insurrection. But that determination has to be done in the court of law only correct? How else?

There are civil.courts and criminal courts. A civil court is still a court of law and he has been determined to have engaged in insurrection in Colorado. Both of the courts that heard the case agreed to that.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

So far, the only argument I've seen is that the President isn't "an officer" under the United States. Since this mechanism has never been used against a president, there are still questions to resolve. The disqualification clause applies to current and former federal officials, state officials, and military officials. However, legal scholars are split on whether the disqualification clause applies to the presidency.

Ironically it was Trump himself that clarified that issue:
In February 2020, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503, concluded, at President Trump's request, that the U.S. President is a federal officer, when they wrote: “President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)

Officer of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Those positions that are enumerated in
Section 3:
“Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President” are
not officers which is why they are enumerated in addition to;
“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.”

Trump having proven in the courts that the President is in fact a federal officer has set precedent of that fact, in addition he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

He promises to give aid and comfort to Jan 6 rioters by pardoning their convictions, and claims to be helping some financially.

It seems pretty clear cut.
Unfortunately I fear politics may have more bearing than the actual law.
The current court has proven they are not necessarily bound to precedent.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Well if the judge remains impartial like they're supposed to be, then there really shouldn't be any problems.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ironically it was Trump himself that clarified that issue:
In February 2020, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503, concluded, at President Trump's request, that the U.S. President is a federal officer, when they wrote: “President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)

Officer of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Those positions that are enumerated in
Section 3:
“Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President” are
not officers which is why they are enumerated in addition to;
“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.”

Trump having proven in the courts that the President is in fact a federal officer has set precedent of that fact, in addition he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

He promises to give aid and comfort to Jan 6 rioters by pardoning their convictions, and claims to be helping some financially.

It seems pretty clear cut.
Unfortunately I fear politics may have more bearing than the actual law.
The current court has proven they are not necessarily bound to precedent.

Thank you for that. Those precedents are very interesting, and I was not aware of them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

But I'm not optimistic.

This Court already established its legacy as anti-liberty and willing to lie to have a shot to ax liberty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Minor correction: Recuse, not accuse. And there have already been demands made be some that Clarence Thomas recuse himself because of his wife's activities in this issue. But yes, the USSC could simply say that the Constitution says that it is a state's level issue. That might be the best outcome that Trump could expect.

Trump amd the South and the Northern states who pretend to be southern. Dems will have very limited victories id that happens.

 

[Left Coast]

Why assume that the Supremes are idiots? They probably already know this.

It has nothing to do with the Supremes being idiots. Facts have to be established in court. Trump's team is likely to challenge the notion that January 6th was an insurrection, and further that Trump ingended for it to be one and participated in it. They're not just going to lay down and let those things be a given. The prosecution will have to demonstrate them.

With his lawyers? Are you kidding me? The Court may have problems with following their own oaths of office, that is the only way that Trump can win in reality.

I understand you have strong feelings about this. But realistically it's not at all unlikely a majority of the Court will side with Trump. It will come down to how well the prosecution makes their case. Demonstrating all three premises will be a tall order.

 

[Left Coast]

During oral arguments, it's the court that asks the questions. Trump's team doesn't get to set the agenda.

So far, the only argument I've seen is that the President isn't "an officer" under the United States. Since this mechanism has never been used against a president, there are still questions to resolve. The disqualification clause applies to current and former federal officials, state officials, and military officials. However, legal scholars are split on whether the disqualification clause applies to the presidency. But surely the Chief Justice would know that Presidents swear to an "oath of office," since he administers the oath. And if the President holds the "office of President of the United States of America," I can't see how he isn't an officer (which simply means office-holder). And since the Amendment includes "military officials," how is the Commander in Chief not one of those?

You may call my thinking biased, but I'm only reading the words themselves.

I don't think your thinking is biased per se. I don't think either of us are lawyers, and I suspect Trump's team will have legal reasons that the words don't apply to the President.

IIRC, opening statements are made by both sides prior to the beginning of oral arguments led by the Justices. I expect Trump's team to bring up at least two challenges to the prosecution's case: that Trump wasn't participating or encouraging an insurrection, and that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the President. Maybe I'm wrong, let's wait and see.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think your thinking is biased per se. I don't think either of us are lawyers, and I suspect Trump's team will have legal reasons that the words don't apply to the President.

IIRC, opening statements are made by both sides prior to the beginning of oral arguments led by the Justices. I expect Trump's team to bring up at least two challenges to the prosecution's case: that Trump wasn't participating or encouraging an insurrection, and that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the President. Maybe I'm wrong, let's wait and see.

It would be a dreadful pity, not to mention a cruel irony, that having gone to all the trouble of a revolution to rid itself of monarch, the Republic could, through its Constitution, enable the creation of someone akin to a king -- able to exert any power without fear of arraignment. (I use the word after Goneril in King Lear: "The laws are mine not thine. Who can arraign me for 't?"