The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over whether former President Donald Trump is ineligible to be president again and can be kept off the ballot.
Immunity case:A federal appeals panel ruled on Tuesday that Trump can face trial on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election in a separate case that could be taken up by the Supreme Court.
The Nation’s legal analyst Elie Mystal explained that Mitchell was caught by Justice Elena Kagan making an argument that wasn’t based on the text of the Constitution.
“You’re not making a constitutional argument. You’re making a statutory pre-emption argument… is that right?” she asked.
Mystal noted that “one of the fun things about the Trump argument is that it’s actually not grounded in constitutional law.”
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with Kagan in the argument, which is when Mitchell was forced to admit that his argument wasn’t a constitutional one.
Mystal pointed out that Justice Samuel Alito came “to the rescue” by “restating Mitchell’s argument for him since he was flailing.”
I get the position that this decision shouldn’t be made on a state-by-state basis, especially if it allowed bad actors in other states use it as an excuse to disqualify Democratic candidates for frivolous reasons, but that’s why it’s so critical for SCOTUS to make a final determination on Trump’s eligibility already.
Ballots have already gone out for the Super Tuesday primaries and we still don’t have a definitive legal ruling on whether the leading Republican candidate is even Constitutionally qualified to run for the office. In the current political environment this kind of dickering could literally spark a civil war.
Deciding after some states have held their primaries is bad.
Deciding after both parties have finished the process and he’s the R canditate is worse.
Deciding after the election is even worse.
The R party should have a contingency plan for when Trump is struck off for (relatively) smoothly moving onto selecting a valid candidate.
Though given that they’re giving their full support to someone who is so obviously banned from office under 14A that folks at Eastern +5 hours are keyboard bashing over it… I won’t hold my breath.
There is no need for the party to be given the benefit of the doubt. There are so many things T**** has done that should have disqualified him practically, regardless of the legal determination of eligibility under 14Asec3, that the party should have shut him down as a viable candidate themselves. Instead, they’ve assissted him to the RNC’s detriment. If he’s determined to be legally ineligible at any point, including after a hypothetical victory, then they’ve earned that downfall.
One point of contention argued by Kavanaugh and others is that Colorado removing Trump from the ballot “disenfranchises Trump voters.”
I see it as the exact opposite. Allowing an ineligible candidate to appear on the ballot disenfranchises voters, because if Trump is ultimately barred from taking the office it means that millions of Americans wasted their votes when they could have chosen one of the other candidates. So I’d say states have a duty to their voters to only include Constitutionally eligible candidates.
Yeah, that same argument would be considered laughable if someone tried to say that not allowing a 33-year-old onto the ballot (due to the constitutional eligibility requirements) were disenfranchising the people who wanted to vote for that candidate. But people with legal backgrounds are still treating the “should insurrectionists be allowed on the ballot?” question as one that should be left up to the voters.
Moreover, there are no such things (legally) as “T**** Voters.” They are just voters. If they are eligible to vote, then they can vote. They can vote for anyone on the ballot or even write in a vote for a candidate who is not on the ballot (a la Biden in NH). Claiming that T**** not being on the ballot disenfranchises them is such bullshit, even more so as the question is for a primary and his hypothetical opponent just won a primary through write-in voting.
Whenever some says, “shouldn’t the question be up to the voters?” I respond that it was, in 1865, and they voted that insurrectionists are ineligible for public office.
The timeline for Smith’s response isn’t fast compared to how the Supreme Court has handled some recent emergency applications, however, a signal the justices aren’t viewing Trump’s case with particular urgency.
a signal the justices aren’t viewing Trump’s case with particular urgency.
Oh by all means, take your time. It’s not like the entire concept of rule of law that comprises the heart of our Democratic Republic is at stake or anything.
Thomas (maybe)
“takin’ the RV down to miami to catch Harlan’s boat out to the Caymans for a little banking. Ginny gon’ do some shoppin’, imma do some fishin’.
y’all get back tomme when i can collect mah pay…”
i’m not even sure this needs an /s. but there it is…
for insurance.
