Supreme Court justices steer clear of insurrection question in Trump ballot case
During a two-hour oral argument, justices avoided wrestling with the contentious question of whether former President Donald Trump “engaged in insurrection.”
Asshole judge trick number one: did someone you like (or don't want to hold accountable for whatever reason) do something upsettingly bad? Just don't talk about it! Flood the conversation with bullshit questions about hypothetical scenarios, and you'll be off to give your paid speech to the Legion of Doom about how Americans need to have more respect for the law in no time!
"We're going to make our decision on whether or not he can't be on the ballot due to the 14th amendment, but please do not talk about how he violated the 14th amendment."
They steered clear of it because SCOTUS is not a fact-finding court. That fact finding was already handled by Colorado courts. Trump did engage in insurrection.
SCOTUS answers questions of law, not questions of fact. In this case, it seems that they all came to the oral arguments looking for a way to justify what they already wanted to do: keep Trump on the ballot. There are a few justifications they may employ. (For the record, I think all of these are stupid, but I am not a Supreme Court Justice.)
SCOTUS is going to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling barring Trump from the Republican primary ballot in that state, even though no federal entity has any authority over elections. What of Maine, then? Will the SCOTUS ruling mention or otherwise impact the Maine decision (which is itself still working its way through the Maine court system)? What about the other states that have challenges to Trump's qualification still pending? A problem that I see is that if the court finds that States do not have the right to disqualify candidates based on Section Three, it would seem that States also do not have the right to disqualify candidates based on age, natural born citizenship, or any other reason. Hell, a tortoise should run. Nowhere in the consitution does it say that non-human candidates are disqualified.
I frankly don't understand this court's obvious desire to order that Section Three be ignored for this candidate. I do see that a problem with Section Three is that it is written to be self-executing, but that it hinges on slightly subjective definitions of "insurrection" and "aid or comfort." This court's ruling will clarify that, but it will do it wrong.
Tell that to "racism isn't real anymore" and "infinite money in elections couldn't possibly cause harm" and so many more. This court loves basing conclusions in "fact" when it suits them.
Money is free speech and corporations are people. It's patently ridiculous.
if they are cover for his actions that makes them accessories in the insurrection
Clarence Thomas literally is an accessory. He proved that when he wouldn't recuse himself in this case.
Accessory is too nice a word. He's a jock strap at best.
How can they NOT see, and not be frightened, that by not holding him accountable, they are literally opening up the possibility that he will dissolve the SCOTUS on his "day one" of being dictator? That would be ironic and I wouldn't put it past him.
Leopards Ate My Face exists for a reason unfortunately.
Exactly. I can see the movie scene now:
"Your usefulness to me is now at an end... [maniacal Orange-man laughter]" :(
Bought-and-paid-for, treasonous coprophiles...isn't that right, Uncle Clarence?
Frauds.
This was always going to happen. Leaving the enforcement of this very federal matter to the individual states would have terrible consequences. No one wants Abbot or DeSantis to have this power, because they would immediately abuse it by declaring anyone but trump unfit for the ballot based entirely on lies and fever dreams.
Of course the ultra shitty consequence is that we're stuck with the equally fucked-by-insane-people Congress's complete inability to act.
If bad faith gamesmanship has gone that far then we're already in the pot and we just don't know it yet. What's better, finding that out with Biden in the White House or Trump? Because the rules are very clear and bending them in hopes that the bad guys will just magically stop being bad is ridiculous. If they're willing the DQ all other candidates then they're also willing to just declare him victor of their state and send his delegates to D.C. In which case nothing we do matters.
The best thing we can do is hew to the rules while we have a sane president and deal with the fallout now. It only gets worse the longer you push it off.
At this point, the best outcome would be for Biden to self-sacrifice, and go on the ultra-offensive:
"Oh, SCOTUS is supporting the fact a President can commit insurrection, and is absolutely immune, or at least can't be prosecuted while or after being President?
Fine. I have just signed Executive Order #XXX, dissolving the SCOTUS and unseating each of this handpicked list of State and Federal Judges, effective immediately, replacing them with this other (waves big sheet of papers) hand-picked list.
Also, I have just signed Executive Order #YYY, calling for the immediate arrest and indefinite detention of this handpicked list (waves the thid, EVEN LARGER pile in his other hand) of Enemies Of The Republic.
Furthermore, I am resigning as President of the United States immediately, please stand and sing Our National Anthem to welcome President Kamala Harris to the Oval Office as the new Executive In Chief. Thank You and Good Night."
(Just in case there's a way to veto these Executive Orders, he should send guards to discreetly lock Congress at nighttime so they can't hold a vote just before he goes on TV.)
I think you'd see either some VERY quick backtracking by the entire SCOTUS, plus the GOP asking for an emergency meeting and a chance to make things right, or a short Civil War. Which is coming anyhow, by the looks of it, so might as well get it over with now.
He's near the end of his life, so why not perform this selfless act for the good of the nation?
I really wish they could be made to answer questions rather than just ask them. I want to hear who they think does have authority to enforce the 14th amendment. It seems like they think they can effectively repeal a Constitutional amendment by simply not acknowledging that anyone has a right to enforce it.
Trumps lawyer and some of the judges were obviously of the opinion that Congress has to create some sort of system for dealing with this. But that's nonsense because no other bar to office requires positive action from Congress. And the next argument they're going to make is that if Congress proposed a system it would require a 2/3rds majority to pass and implement because that's the threshold for removing the bar from a candidate. They know full well that's impossible but they'll pretend that's the actual law until the day they die because words mean nothing to fascists, only results.
You have full throated agreement from me.
This is the truth. They were always going to rule to keep him on the ballot as a matter of law and the implications of that ruling. Just because people were trying to remove King Asshat today doesn’t stop a complete abuse of this tomorrow with an actually qualified candidate.
That said, ruling “for” him here gives them the opportunity to rule “against” him when Jack Smith’s case is pushed about Trump’s immunity from prosecution.
I’m wiling to put money on the fact that they will not even hear the appeal to that case.
I'm hoping they do their fucking jobs when that case lands in front of them, but it's a slim hope.