It’s not a political problem. It’s a legal problem. He broke the law, he incited an attack on our Capitol and our Constitution. He refused to implement his sworn oath to protect US from domestic terrorists. This is not the time to be chicken or “soft on crime.” If the US Supreme Court gives him a pass, then and only then will this be a political problem. Americans will vote. Love will trump hate.
Nearly 64 percent of Republicans want him to be their nominee for president. Those Americans obviously don't share your view of the matter. What gives you and those who agree with you the authority to say, "Nope, you're not allowed to vote for him"? Is it just because you're certain and passionate about how right you are? Well, so are those on the other side. That's what I mean by a legitimacy crisis. Once a country can no longer agree with an overwhelming consensus about what the rule of law amounts to and demands, that country no longer has the rule of law.
What about the Republicans who brought the case in the first place or the 24% of them who don’t want Donald on the ballot? Don’t those Republicans count for something? Or is it as simple as *MAGA is synonymous with the GOP* and no other Republicans count?
How hold on, Damon. We know what gives him the right: the 14th Amendment provision has a clear focus aimed at people like Trump, and it is an arguable and reasoned proposition that prevailed in the Colorado Sup Ct. It might have been wrong, but it wasn't a Trump-level frivolous legal argument that gets your law license pulled in most jurisdictions. So its not just what our friend John Adams here [I'd kill to have a name like that] says about what makes him happy. Either the constitution means something or it means nothing. And maybe the rule of law is indeed on its death bed, but if that is the case, this is all prologue. I keep thinking about what Henry Kissinger said about Chile: "I don't see why we should stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." Well, its our turn in the barrel. Now, I personally don't believe that a majority of Americans are going to let this happen, yet again, but suspending the rule of law on our end isn't going to help prevent it. And besides, if Trump was truly going to triumph in a state like Colorado, we are well and truly finished.
Correction: you didn’t actually make the argument that this was a net benefit for Trump. You said it led to a legitimacy crisis and a threat to the rule of law. Conway is arguing that keeping Trump off the ballot is consistent with the rule of law.
I know that 64% isn't an overwhelming consensus (though that's 64% of all Republicans, not "MAGA Republicans"). My point was that to vindicate your view of the 14th Amendment and its application to Trump, you would need an overwhelming consensus on your side, and you don't have it. Americans disagree about what the rule of law demands in this case, and when that's true, there is no independent person or position that can determine which option is the correct one.
While I get your point (and tend to agree), how do we solve the asymmetry problem? No person in recent memory has weaponized the court system like DT, yet, when turned on him, legal proceedings are somehow unfair and illegitimate. Republicans can sue to declare Obamacare unconstitutional and also file suits to have him declared ineligible to be president, and that is all fair game. But the rest of us can't fight back?
It's not that we Americans disagree about what the rule of law demands in this case. It's that 64% of Republicans have made up what they believe out of whole cloth. And they don't know what the rule of law is. If they did, they would recognize that they have no rational basis for believing the election was stolen because 60+ cases went through a lengthy legal process and found no evidence of fraud.
First of all, you didn't respond to John's point, "It’s not a political problem (as you said). It’s a legal problem." It's a legal problem because, as the Colorado district judge found, he engaged in inciting the insurrection. According to the law, if you do that you forfeit your right to run for elected office.
Is John right? Yes or no and if no, why not?
Secondly, the authority is not John et.al. who think they are right. The authority is The Constitution as interpreted by federal judges. That is their job. The judges were appointed by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate, so they are the legitimate authority to say not "You are not allowed" as you put it, but rather, under the Constitution, this candidate is not qualified.
Finally, we already disagree about what the rule of law amounts to and demands, which proper evidence that proves the claim. As you said, 63% of Republicans believe a lie that has no basis in fact and they are deluded. (THAT's the political problem our liberal, democratic nation has, and, so far, no one has figured out how to solve it.) We're already there. We have been since trump won.
Sounds like we're back to arguing whether Trump should be allowed to get a free ride, or instead be prosecuted for his crimes.
I agree with people like Damon that we need a criminal conviction first before we start keeping people off ballots, but I'm pretty confident that The Best Supreme Court that Money Can Buy will take the position that eviscerates the 14th Amendment [they only like the pro-slavery part of the Constitution] and we'll be back where we started.
Its nice that we still have romantics who think the Rule of Law should govern us.
No argument the decision itself will unlikely change outcome, inflame Trump base and be a talking point to his tiresome "witch-hunt" powerpoint.
But it also has the same and opposite effect on opposition voters, fund raisers and Biden speech writers.
Taking it to the people is the only means, no doubt, but it’s a flawed argument that the law of the Constitution should not be tested when it speaks so plainly. The fact that the document lacks an explicit enforcement mechanism has been overcome many times before based on an equitable argument that every right implies a remedy. And yes, whether a court does so depends on its political makeup, not intellectual firepower, the Voting Rights Act being a prime example, with private actions formerly embraced, now abhorred.
I think the Colorado decision is meaningful because of the political composition of those who brought it, including a prominent Republican. It likely speaks to moderate Republicans and independents and,frankly, is a great example for history (our grandchildren) of a thoughtful effort to grapple both morally and legally with an existential issue, one far more morally important than even abortion, immigration, Foreign policy or which GOP candidate is the lesser of two weevils. Forgive the reference to Master and Commander.
We tested that rule of law in New Mexico. The rule of law won.
A county commissioner in New Mexico was disqualified on appeal by our Supreme Court for engaging in insurrection in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.
The county commissioner was removed from his office and banned from running again.
This isn’t rocket science, folks. It’s the law of USA. You break it, you pay for it.
IMO, any republican who supports the indicted former 45th president is a MAGA republican.
Nevertheless, you have precisely stated (your last reply) why America needs a supreme legal opinion registered in this matter. The Colorado Supreme Court provides that first step.
America needs a Supreme Court ruling. That’s next. The rule of law will trump hate, IMO.
FYI, New Mexico’s Supreme Court tested the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The 14th rule won. A county commissioner was remove from office (on appeal) and barred from running again.
The courts may be wrong in barring Trump from qualification to run for president. But if you leave it up to the voters, Trump will be our next president/dictator. Our country is in the midst of a democracy problem and the voters won't know what that means until after Trump is elected. Then it will be too late. We will have a dictator rather than a president and there will be no one to stop him. If the courts don't stop him, no one will until after the damage is done.
He lost the popular vote in 2016, but won the EC because enough liberals (about 33,000 nationwide in several states) wouldn’t hold their noses and vote for Hillary.
He lost the popular vote again in 2020. He also lost the Electoral College. He tried and failed to overthrow his loss on Jan. 6, 2021.
He won’t win in 2024, either. Many, many more Americans now understand who he is and what he is, a dictator without a country.
America’s voters will dump him if our Supreme Court doesn’t do it first. Overwhelmingly.
He may or may not be ahead today. In a year from now, he will be in jail. He’s been disqualified by a Supreme Court of a state. He broke not just a law, he violated his Oath of Office.
Ok re today's polls. But, I have to say, none of the legal experts I follow think he'll be in jail by next November. The only criminal case that can conclude before the election is the Jan 6th case. By all accounts, it's a strong case so a likely conviction - unless a Trump acolyte slips through jury selection. But if convicted, he'll be free pending appeals, which he most certainly will do.
Well it's easy to see 'politics' and bad political fallout in this event; but I suggest it's probably not useful or right, except that a politician is the loser in the dispute, and he himself is probably a lawbreaker.
The use of law enforcement against lawbreakers is sometimes discretionary; however, avoidance of applying law is fraught in all cases involving Donald Trump. He's now vowing to gut the independent judiciary, if you hadn't noticed. So I must respectfully disagree with the characterization of the suits as '[only an optional] legal remedy for a political problem'.
The only thing 'problematic' about the disqualification, is that its grounds have never had to be used before; of course, there's never been as gross a scofflaw in the highest office of the land.
However, there'd be no such thing, in a land where rule of Law obtains, as any 'political legitimacy' that is at the same time... illegal. That wouldn't work. In the broader arena, to state the obvious, that's why written constitutions and codes exist, and why all *political officers* are required to swear oaths of loyalty, not to My Constituency, but to The Constitution.
Ironically, very ironically, Trump's political career began with his campaign of innuendo against Barack Obama's birth certificate. All innuendo, zero evidence, and now the Maga rail against someone filing a legal argument with meticulous documentation, against Trump's eligibility, at a competent court of Law. That's a howling rhetorical point to make, and should be made.
Second, the Colorado suit was filed by registered Republicans and 1 independent. No Democrat involved. Thirdly, the suit is a commonplace challenge to the eligibility of a candidate for a ballot place. Such challenges are filed routinely on technical grounds. Just because a serial lawbreaker in this event has once been a Chief Executive doesn't make any claims against his eligibility "too political."
I hear your fears and have the same ones, and I've heard the legal and political arguments and there is obviously a lot of room for debate. I come out in the other side. As you say, there is already a serious legitimacy problem in this country, but your focus is on the legitimacy problem as seen by Trump supporters, ignoring the one as seen by those who view Trump as a serious threat to our nation. There is an expectation that we focus on the needs of MAGA and adjacent and expect all others to be the adults in the room and suck it up until the tantrum goes away. The problem is, the tantrum will never go away no matter what you do. Meanwhile, the adults in the room are just big children also with their own needs.
If the option was to have this legitimate constitutional question brought to the forefront of public debate just be swept under the rug in order to attempt to placate the unplacatable Trump fans, how would you explain that to those who believe in the "rule of law?" The option would be to say, yes that's a legitimate question but Trump is going to cry about it and will probably get more popular. I would argue that this is a great way to lead to further disenchantment of Democraticl voters.
I apologize for oversimplifying any contrary arguments, but typing on the phone leaves much to be desired. We have no good options, but in my opinion, the worst option is to attempt to give Trump what he wants.
Yes, and here's a very useful simplification. Trump's organization spent 2-4 months, even *before* he was defeated, assembling the assault against the constitutional transfer of power and the Vote of the People. 'Just in case' they had to use illegality to keep him in power.
Possibly, the most elaborate domestic conspiracy against America ever. Their motto is 'power is legitimacy'.
I don't think you oversimplified at all. This is a very good question: "If the option was to have this legitimate constitutional question brought to the forefront of public debate just be swept under the rug in order to attempt to placate the unplacatable Trump fans, how would you explain that to those who believe in the 'rule of law?'". I hope Damon answers that.
Damon's position here is consistent with his view that Trump should not have been indicted for criminal charges because Trump's populist tactics weaponize the Rule of Law in a manner that undermines our political system. Therefore, the rule of law can not be used against Trump, because it will make him stronger. While those are not Damon's exact words, it is how I read and interpret them. Having said that, I do agree that trying to apply the 14th Amendment is a political mistake and I hope SCOTUS rules 9-0 against it (ideally the same week they issue another 9-0 opinion striking down Trump's claims of presidential immunity. It would be a strong sign SCOTUS can be united and can be even handed.)
But I have a real concern about Damon's argument that politics must trump process, i.e. the Rule of Law. As I commented before--and may ask this direct question in the next call for questions--practicing politics within the framework of the Rule of Law is what a liberal society IS. Making political decisions outside the framework of the Rule of Law creates either an authoritarian dictatorship or anarchy. I can not comprehend what kind of government we'd have if, as Damon clearly argues, the Rule of Law has to be sidelined every time a dangerous populist movement scream "tyranny". This argument is akin to surrendering 200 plus years of democratic republicanism because we are afraid that populists will destroy the Republic, if we duly apply the rules of our 200 plus years of tradition.
So while I do agree that the politics of the Colorado decision is bad, how can I criticize those who sued? The principle of blocking Trump was first supported by conservative jurists at the Federal Society and blessed by the most imminent of conservative scholar (Judge Luttig). Who am I to say they should not sue? This is NOT something imagined by liberal Trump haters, but bonifide conservatives. Are we to deny people the right to enforce the clear text of the 14th Amendment?
Where Damom and I most disagree about is how do we want the Republic to die. Of course neither of us want that and we are both committed to stopping the forces that are destroying our political system. Damon wants to save the Republic by allowing political factors to triumph over the Rule of Law. In my view, we can't retain our republican experiment by letting political factors trump the Rule of Law. I'd rather fight using the basic tools that make who we are: the Rule of Law. If in fact this allows the populist forces to use this principle as a cudgel to destroy the system, well, at least we went down fighting instead of surrendering.
1/6 wasn't an insurrection because a) it wasn't or b) these were well-meaning patriots or c) BLM's just as bad, go arrest them.
The people have a right to whichever candidates they may want, that's democracy.
Holding Trump accountable to the law only inflames his supporters all the more and confirms their suspicions about the illegitimacy of the law.
As for the "legitimacy" argument, I can't but recall Lincoln at Cooper Union: "But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"
While I always hated conservatives arguing "we are not a democracy, we are a Republic" when debating the Electoral College, in this case I think it's very appropriate.
Damon argues that only the people should be deciding who the President should be. But that kind of direct democracy is not part of our system, is it? We have a Constitution--a rule book--that says people younger than 35 can't run for office or they must be born a citizen. The voters do not have the right to vote for someone younger than 35, yet by Damon's logic, they should if there is a huge groundswell of populist support. But just as people under 35 can't run for President, the Constitution prohibits people who took an oath to protest to the Constitution and have engaged in insurrection against the US government to be ineligible to run. That's what the text says. And we have a process of multiple checks and balances (in this case within the judiciary) to evaluate the merits of the current situation. That's what republic's do and we are a Republic and not an unfettered democracy.
Damon, I usually think you're right about 99% of the time but on this one we have to part ways. I don't think disqualifying Trump is any more undemocratic than not allowing 24-yr olds or non-citizens to run for the Presidency.
And Trump's voters are going to think the game is rigged no matter what the Court does - they'll think it's rigged whether he wins or not. There is no way to satisfy the pathologies of MAGA short of surrender.
As I understand it the Constitution is both a legal and "political" document so I have no problem invoking Article 3 as any more or less political than impeachment. If Article 3 is self-enforcing and it seems to me logical that it is then we really have no choice in the matter.
How about this: Jack Smith didn't indict Trump under the federal statute for insurrection, and neither did he charge him with any crime directly linking him to violence on Jan 6. So by what definition was he guilty of "insurrection" as stated in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
Since I think he did incite insurrectionary violence that day, I don't have trouble convincing myself that his acts may be covered. But the problem is that tens of millions of Americans disagree with me on that -- and Jack Smith appears to be one of them. In that circumstance. I don't see how trying to disqualify him from running for president is anything other than democracy being usurped by judges who want to beat Trump in a way that ordinary democratic politics may be incapable of doing.
I tend to think Smith is employing a legal strategy he thinks will have a better chance of convicting Trump. I doubt he doesn’t believe Trump incited insurrectionary violence.
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t see how democracy is being usurped. SCOTUS tells voters all the time what they can and can’t have based on their reading of the Constitution- Dobbs jumps out. Why is this any different? If it’s unconstitutional to allow Trump on the ballot it’s unconstitutional.
A possible answer, Damon. The courts of Colorado are not required to counter-check with Jack Smith, as to exactly what criminal counts his office has charged against D J Trump et al, to know what the courts of Colorado may admit as a suit against D J Trump, candidate IN THIS CASE. The Amendment does not say 'convicted of... [the crime]'. The same Colorado courts may adjudicate the allegation that D J Trump prepared, fomented, and incited insurrection, on the basis of the argumentation and evidence supplied in testimony, by complainants in the case. The Lower Colorado court already found that he had! Long live the rule of Colorado Law.
If I’m reading my history right Jefferson Davis was never convicted of treason, insurrection or rebellion and I don’t think anyone believes he wasn’t covered under Article 3. I also think he probably would have had no problem getting elected to office by voters in the South.
Yes, the lower court found that he had, based on five days of testimony and documents under the traditional rules of evidence. and the SC accepted that finding without question.
The district court judge found that he did. The judge was the trier of fact, as this was a bench trial which is normal for election cases. Both the CO SC majority opinion and dissents accepted that finding without question.
A twisted attempt to argue and allege our U.S. Constitution is “usurped” [trumped] by democracy. Utter nonsense.
The Supreme Court has no path but to fulfill its duty to protect and defend our U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court must enforce the 14th Amendment by disqualifying the 45th. The 45th has not earned the legal, Constitutional right to place his name on any state’s ballot.
In fact, the due process of Colorado’s Supreme Court has found that the 45th earned his right to be disqualified.
New polls demonstrate tens of millions of Americans support the Colorado Supreme Court’s disqualification decision.
Our Founders were smart enough to build-in the 14th Amendment so wanna-be dictators and kings would not be allowed a do-over.
A question in response to your CNN article, specifically to the statement that "Democracy cannot be vindicated by abrogating democracy. "
If the Constitution is a "We the People" document structuring our political processes, how can officially interpreting the 14th amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) be defined as "abrogating democracy? "
I understand and mostly agree with you political analysis of the ramifications of the Colorado decision, but I don't think such an analysis justifies the "abrogating democracy" claim you and many others make.
Normally I agree with everything you say, Mr Linker. I have the deepest respect for your perspective, your values, your knowledge and insight. On this matter of the Colorado SC’s ruling, I must, for the first time, disagree. The 14th Amendment is clear, and the unanimous finding that Trump fomented an insurrection against Congress, and that he is indeed an officer of the government, is dispositive. If Trump is an exception to the Rule of Law, then everything Americans fought for and won in the War of Independence and in the Civil War is in vain. There are indeed powerful people and groups who disdain the democratic experiment and seek an oligarchic government -- a coalition of Nietzschean intellectuals, the plutocratic super-rich, and their restive and credulous followers. If we abandon the Rule of Law to these people, all is lost.
Thanks. I appreciate that. If you look for my responses to other commenters, you'll see how I respond to these kinds of arguments against my position. You will also get to read my own view elaborated in future posts.
The reason that 64% of Republicans want Trump to be their nominee is because they have accepted unquestioningly the claim of their Leader (aka Duce, Fuehrer) that the 2020 election was “stolen.” They believe this despite NO supporting evidence, despite the 61 court cases brought by Trump’s lawyers being dismissed as meritless by duly-appointed judges, many of whom were appointed by Trump himself. In other words, Trump and those who follow him or tolerate him have themselves followed Trump’s example by HAVING CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW. Call this a “cult” of the “true believers,” call it a cynical and arrogant movement driven by the lust for power and wealth by his GOP enablers and the “masters of the universe” plutocrats -- I call it a crisis of the legitimacy of our Constitution and the Rule of Law, the sine qua non of the American Republic.
Yes, it is a political problem which, as noted in Rucho v Common Cause: "Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." SCOTUS has been attempting to avoid questions about State's operation of elections as a Federal issue like it was the Blue Lagoon in Iceland and presenting this Colorado case puts all this mess back into a Federal bailiwick. Not being a citizen of CO, I'm not sure if registered members of a party had authority to contest a candidate before even attaining nomination in a primary, but I have to assume since the court heard it, they do. If that is so, then SCOTUS should have no option other than to return it back as a State issue that is "beyond the reach of the federal courts".
You'll have to take it up with the 5 who said political issues are not judicial. And I don't know what could be more political than selecting candidates to be on a party's slate. Now, may CO law doesn't allow this, but you'll have to show that it doesn't, because I don't know why the state courts would even have heard the case if it didn't have merit.
As I understand it, political issues are not justiciable, in court parlance, when the issue is politically charged (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justiciability). This is why the Court sent back the case on gerrymandering to the state court in 2019. They ruled it was nonjusticiable because the states can set their own laws on gerrymandering, and therefore SCOTUS does not need to be involved. There is no text in the Constitution that addressed gerrymandering.
That is not the case here. Section 3 is not beyond the reach of the courts.
Further, the court does not, as you put it, select candidates. By applying the law, (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5), any candidate who was not born in the US, is not qualified. Same with a candidate who has engaged in insurrection who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution (14th Amendment, Section 3). By applying the law, some candidates will not be qualified. That's the court's job, to interpret and apply the law. That's not selecting which implies some sort of agency on the part of the Court separate from what the law requires.
I don't know enough particulars (after all, it is 213 pages: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf ) in the CO hearing to know if the Republicans who petitioned the court had any official duties in the CO GOP Party or were just the anti-Trumper wing but the court heard the case and ruled. Secondly, I can't find how candidates are selected in CO. Is it by primary or party apparatchiks? But either way, it is done by 'politics'. Again, what SCOTUS would prefer not to be involved in. Who knows what they'll do once the DC Circuit rules. They'll agree to hear the appeal if they are dissatisfied with the DC ruling (or maybe they'll decide to make law since a textualist reading of the 14th doesn't even require a conviction of insurrection).
First, some factual mattrers. (1) Racial gerrymandering is different from political gerrymandering. Racial gerrymandering violates the 4th and 15th amendments, so the Court does take those cases. There is no prohibition in the Constitution against political gerrymandering. (2) There were six petitioners in the CO case, 4 Rs and 2 Independents. They weren't petitioning as members of the R party. (3) Cadidates for the primary get on the ballot by filing a statement to the Secretary of State along with a fee or a signed petition. It's not done by "politics", as you said, whatever that means. It's done by following state law. Anybody can submit a statement to the Secty of State. (4) The DC Circuit is not involved in this case. Trump's campaign is appealing the CO SC ruling to SCOTUS.
Secondly I agree with you that this is a big mess for SCOTUS. FYI, I read from Steve Vladeck's Substack. He's a U Texas law professor and author of a recent book critical of SCOTUS, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic."
He says they have to resolve the Section 3 issue in a way that is "not perceived as partisan, and that doesn’t further inflame the toxic politics of the 2024 election cycle and/or further undermine the Court’s credibility." He sees one possible approach that accomplishes all of that: A majority of the Court to concludes that President Trump did engage in insurrection, but that there is some impediment (self-execution; Section 3 not applying to the presidency; etc.) that prevents the courts from providing a remedy for his misconduct.
IMO, this would be good. They find that he did engage in insurrection, but he remains on the ballot. That finding might push some of those squishy swing voters in the swing states away from Trump.
1) Yes, racial gerrymandering violates other amendments. Political gerrymandering apparently doesn't and that's why SCOTUS doesn't want to touch it.
2) And yet they were allowed to petition the court. Still doesn't answer whether CO law allows this but the court heard them so I assume they had what is considered standing. From what I'm hearing about from other states, it's not the same.
3) Based on this ( https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Colorado ) getting on the ballot is politics. Petitions are a form of voting as is being accepted as the nominee, by whatever method (caucus or primary), by the party. (As an aside, the Michigan Repubs are a holy mess, practically bankrupt. What if a rogue group said they would break from the leadership and provide their own list of candidates minus Trump because he imperils the down ballot candidates. Are they the Republican Party? And based on my reading, the Secretary of State is required to accept the Party slate presented to them.)
and 4) sorry about the circuit court, so many cases, so many courts. But Trump will appeal and it looks like that appeal goes to the 10th. But who knows how that will go. https://ballsandstrikes.org/circuit-status/#10
As for Vladeck, I see no benefit in saying that the pres 'did engage in insurrection' but the court can't provide a remedy. That's right up there with "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible." That would just as likely alienate voters, who came out for Biden solely out of detestation of Trump, from voting as to push them away from Trump.
I think Trump is both a political problem and a legal problem. The CO SCOTUS got (imho) the legal part right.
If Trump shot your mother on live TV, would you guys still say that he should be able to run because, politics? The man is a narcissistic criminal sociopath. Someone needs to put an end to this existential threat to our nation, somehow. This court had the guts to try. By following the law, no less.
It’s not a political problem. It’s a legal problem. He broke the law, he incited an attack on our Capitol and our Constitution. He refused to implement his sworn oath to protect US from domestic terrorists. This is not the time to be chicken or “soft on crime.” If the US Supreme Court gives him a pass, then and only then will this be a political problem. Americans will vote. Love will trump hate.
Nearly 64 percent of Republicans want him to be their nominee for president. Those Americans obviously don't share your view of the matter. What gives you and those who agree with you the authority to say, "Nope, you're not allowed to vote for him"? Is it just because you're certain and passionate about how right you are? Well, so are those on the other side. That's what I mean by a legitimacy crisis. Once a country can no longer agree with an overwhelming consensus about what the rule of law amounts to and demands, that country no longer has the rule of law.
What about the Republicans who brought the case in the first place or the 24% of them who don’t want Donald on the ballot? Don’t those Republicans count for something? Or is it as simple as *MAGA is synonymous with the GOP* and no other Republicans count?
I tend to agree that, politically, this is a net benefit for Trump. But how do you respond to George Conway’s article arguing that the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court was correct, political concerns aside: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/dont-read-the-colorado-ruling-read-the-dissents/676920/ Is it possible that your real problem is with the 14th amendment itself?
Good question. I would like to see a response.
How hold on, Damon. We know what gives him the right: the 14th Amendment provision has a clear focus aimed at people like Trump, and it is an arguable and reasoned proposition that prevailed in the Colorado Sup Ct. It might have been wrong, but it wasn't a Trump-level frivolous legal argument that gets your law license pulled in most jurisdictions. So its not just what our friend John Adams here [I'd kill to have a name like that] says about what makes him happy. Either the constitution means something or it means nothing. And maybe the rule of law is indeed on its death bed, but if that is the case, this is all prologue. I keep thinking about what Henry Kissinger said about Chile: "I don't see why we should stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." Well, its our turn in the barrel. Now, I personally don't believe that a majority of Americans are going to let this happen, yet again, but suspending the rule of law on our end isn't going to help prevent it. And besides, if Trump was truly going to triumph in a state like Colorado, we are well and truly finished.
Great quote from Kissinger. Agree Damon wants the Court to suspend the rule of law.
Correction: you didn’t actually make the argument that this was a net benefit for Trump. You said it led to a legitimacy crisis and a threat to the rule of law. Conway is arguing that keeping Trump off the ballot is consistent with the rule of law.
64% of MAGA republicans is not an “overwhelming consensus”.
Let’s take a poll and test how many Americans support “rule of law”.
As to my passion, it has nothing to do with this matter. This is about American law -- the U.S. Constitution -- and the enforcement of our laws.
Try listening to an experienced, respected Constitutional lawyer, such as Mr. Laurence Tribe.
I know that 64% isn't an overwhelming consensus (though that's 64% of all Republicans, not "MAGA Republicans"). My point was that to vindicate your view of the 14th Amendment and its application to Trump, you would need an overwhelming consensus on your side, and you don't have it. Americans disagree about what the rule of law demands in this case, and when that's true, there is no independent person or position that can determine which option is the correct one.
While I get your point (and tend to agree), how do we solve the asymmetry problem? No person in recent memory has weaponized the court system like DT, yet, when turned on him, legal proceedings are somehow unfair and illegitimate. Republicans can sue to declare Obamacare unconstitutional and also file suits to have him declared ineligible to be president, and that is all fair game. But the rest of us can't fight back?
It's not that we Americans disagree about what the rule of law demands in this case. It's that 64% of Republicans have made up what they believe out of whole cloth. And they don't know what the rule of law is. If they did, they would recognize that they have no rational basis for believing the election was stolen because 60+ cases went through a lengthy legal process and found no evidence of fraud.
My responses:
First of all, you didn't respond to John's point, "It’s not a political problem (as you said). It’s a legal problem." It's a legal problem because, as the Colorado district judge found, he engaged in inciting the insurrection. According to the law, if you do that you forfeit your right to run for elected office.
Is John right? Yes or no and if no, why not?
Secondly, the authority is not John et.al. who think they are right. The authority is The Constitution as interpreted by federal judges. That is their job. The judges were appointed by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate, so they are the legitimate authority to say not "You are not allowed" as you put it, but rather, under the Constitution, this candidate is not qualified.
Finally, we already disagree about what the rule of law amounts to and demands, which proper evidence that proves the claim. As you said, 63% of Republicans believe a lie that has no basis in fact and they are deluded. (THAT's the political problem our liberal, democratic nation has, and, so far, no one has figured out how to solve it.) We're already there. We have been since trump won.
Agree. See my response to Damon's response to you.
Sounds like we're back to arguing whether Trump should be allowed to get a free ride, or instead be prosecuted for his crimes.
I agree with people like Damon that we need a criminal conviction first before we start keeping people off ballots, but I'm pretty confident that The Best Supreme Court that Money Can Buy will take the position that eviscerates the 14th Amendment [they only like the pro-slavery part of the Constitution] and we'll be back where we started.
Its nice that we still have romantics who think the Rule of Law should govern us.
Thanks for your good work.
No argument the decision itself will unlikely change outcome, inflame Trump base and be a talking point to his tiresome "witch-hunt" powerpoint.
But it also has the same and opposite effect on opposition voters, fund raisers and Biden speech writers.
Taking it to the people is the only means, no doubt, but it’s a flawed argument that the law of the Constitution should not be tested when it speaks so plainly. The fact that the document lacks an explicit enforcement mechanism has been overcome many times before based on an equitable argument that every right implies a remedy. And yes, whether a court does so depends on its political makeup, not intellectual firepower, the Voting Rights Act being a prime example, with private actions formerly embraced, now abhorred.
I think the Colorado decision is meaningful because of the political composition of those who brought it, including a prominent Republican. It likely speaks to moderate Republicans and independents and,frankly, is a great example for history (our grandchildren) of a thoughtful effort to grapple both morally and legally with an existential issue, one far more morally important than even abortion, immigration, Foreign policy or which GOP candidate is the lesser of two weevils. Forgive the reference to Master and Commander.
Great quote; thanks.
We tested that rule of law in New Mexico. The rule of law won.
A county commissioner in New Mexico was disqualified on appeal by our Supreme Court for engaging in insurrection in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.
The county commissioner was removed from his office and banned from running again.
This isn’t rocket science, folks. It’s the law of USA. You break it, you pay for it.
IMO, any republican who supports the indicted former 45th president is a MAGA republican.
Nevertheless, you have precisely stated (your last reply) why America needs a supreme legal opinion registered in this matter. The Colorado Supreme Court provides that first step.
America needs a Supreme Court ruling. That’s next. The rule of law will trump hate, IMO.
FYI, New Mexico’s Supreme Court tested the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The 14th rule won. A county commissioner was remove from office (on appeal) and barred from running again.
The courts may be wrong in barring Trump from qualification to run for president. But if you leave it up to the voters, Trump will be our next president/dictator. Our country is in the midst of a democracy problem and the voters won't know what that means until after Trump is elected. Then it will be too late. We will have a dictator rather than a president and there will be no one to stop him. If the courts don't stop him, no one will until after the damage is done.
I don’t believe it for a second.
He lost the popular vote in 2016, but won the EC because enough liberals (about 33,000 nationwide in several states) wouldn’t hold their noses and vote for Hillary.
He lost the popular vote again in 2020. He also lost the Electoral College. He tried and failed to overthrow his loss on Jan. 6, 2021.
He won’t win in 2024, either. Many, many more Americans now understand who he is and what he is, a dictator without a country.
America’s voters will dump him if our Supreme Court doesn’t do it first. Overwhelmingly.
OK, why is he ahead in the SWING STATE polls?
He may or may not be ahead today. In a year from now, he will be in jail. He’s been disqualified by a Supreme Court of a state. He broke not just a law, he violated his Oath of Office.
Ok re today's polls. But, I have to say, none of the legal experts I follow think he'll be in jail by next November. The only criminal case that can conclude before the election is the Jan 6th case. By all accounts, it's a strong case so a likely conviction - unless a Trump acolyte slips through jury selection. But if convicted, he'll be free pending appeals, which he most certainly will do.
He’s not.
Not what? Ahead in the polls?
Well it's easy to see 'politics' and bad political fallout in this event; but I suggest it's probably not useful or right, except that a politician is the loser in the dispute, and he himself is probably a lawbreaker.
The use of law enforcement against lawbreakers is sometimes discretionary; however, avoidance of applying law is fraught in all cases involving Donald Trump. He's now vowing to gut the independent judiciary, if you hadn't noticed. So I must respectfully disagree with the characterization of the suits as '[only an optional] legal remedy for a political problem'.
The only thing 'problematic' about the disqualification, is that its grounds have never had to be used before; of course, there's never been as gross a scofflaw in the highest office of the land.
However, there'd be no such thing, in a land where rule of Law obtains, as any 'political legitimacy' that is at the same time... illegal. That wouldn't work. In the broader arena, to state the obvious, that's why written constitutions and codes exist, and why all *political officers* are required to swear oaths of loyalty, not to My Constituency, but to The Constitution.
Ironically, very ironically, Trump's political career began with his campaign of innuendo against Barack Obama's birth certificate. All innuendo, zero evidence, and now the Maga rail against someone filing a legal argument with meticulous documentation, against Trump's eligibility, at a competent court of Law. That's a howling rhetorical point to make, and should be made.
Second, the Colorado suit was filed by registered Republicans and 1 independent. No Democrat involved. Thirdly, the suit is a commonplace challenge to the eligibility of a candidate for a ballot place. Such challenges are filed routinely on technical grounds. Just because a serial lawbreaker in this event has once been a Chief Executive doesn't make any claims against his eligibility "too political."
All really well said, esp "loyalty, not to My Constituency, but to The Constitution". Trump was president of his base ONLY.
Yes indeed. And he looks worse today than he was in 2017. Leaving aside that horror, I wish you and loved ones very happy holidays.
Thank you! Same to you.🎁
I hear your fears and have the same ones, and I've heard the legal and political arguments and there is obviously a lot of room for debate. I come out in the other side. As you say, there is already a serious legitimacy problem in this country, but your focus is on the legitimacy problem as seen by Trump supporters, ignoring the one as seen by those who view Trump as a serious threat to our nation. There is an expectation that we focus on the needs of MAGA and adjacent and expect all others to be the adults in the room and suck it up until the tantrum goes away. The problem is, the tantrum will never go away no matter what you do. Meanwhile, the adults in the room are just big children also with their own needs.
If the option was to have this legitimate constitutional question brought to the forefront of public debate just be swept under the rug in order to attempt to placate the unplacatable Trump fans, how would you explain that to those who believe in the "rule of law?" The option would be to say, yes that's a legitimate question but Trump is going to cry about it and will probably get more popular. I would argue that this is a great way to lead to further disenchantment of Democraticl voters.
I apologize for oversimplifying any contrary arguments, but typing on the phone leaves much to be desired. We have no good options, but in my opinion, the worst option is to attempt to give Trump what he wants.
Yes, and here's a very useful simplification. Trump's organization spent 2-4 months, even *before* he was defeated, assembling the assault against the constitutional transfer of power and the Vote of the People. 'Just in case' they had to use illegality to keep him in power.
Possibly, the most elaborate domestic conspiracy against America ever. Their motto is 'power is legitimacy'.
Yes. AKA "might makes right". That's not our political system. So for that reason, for them to engage in it with that belief is unAmerican.
I don't think you oversimplified at all. This is a very good question: "If the option was to have this legitimate constitutional question brought to the forefront of public debate just be swept under the rug in order to attempt to placate the unplacatable Trump fans, how would you explain that to those who believe in the 'rule of law?'". I hope Damon answers that.
Damon's position here is consistent with his view that Trump should not have been indicted for criminal charges because Trump's populist tactics weaponize the Rule of Law in a manner that undermines our political system. Therefore, the rule of law can not be used against Trump, because it will make him stronger. While those are not Damon's exact words, it is how I read and interpret them. Having said that, I do agree that trying to apply the 14th Amendment is a political mistake and I hope SCOTUS rules 9-0 against it (ideally the same week they issue another 9-0 opinion striking down Trump's claims of presidential immunity. It would be a strong sign SCOTUS can be united and can be even handed.)
But I have a real concern about Damon's argument that politics must trump process, i.e. the Rule of Law. As I commented before--and may ask this direct question in the next call for questions--practicing politics within the framework of the Rule of Law is what a liberal society IS. Making political decisions outside the framework of the Rule of Law creates either an authoritarian dictatorship or anarchy. I can not comprehend what kind of government we'd have if, as Damon clearly argues, the Rule of Law has to be sidelined every time a dangerous populist movement scream "tyranny". This argument is akin to surrendering 200 plus years of democratic republicanism because we are afraid that populists will destroy the Republic, if we duly apply the rules of our 200 plus years of tradition.
So while I do agree that the politics of the Colorado decision is bad, how can I criticize those who sued? The principle of blocking Trump was first supported by conservative jurists at the Federal Society and blessed by the most imminent of conservative scholar (Judge Luttig). Who am I to say they should not sue? This is NOT something imagined by liberal Trump haters, but bonifide conservatives. Are we to deny people the right to enforce the clear text of the 14th Amendment?
Where Damom and I most disagree about is how do we want the Republic to die. Of course neither of us want that and we are both committed to stopping the forces that are destroying our political system. Damon wants to save the Republic by allowing political factors to triumph over the Rule of Law. In my view, we can't retain our republican experiment by letting political factors trump the Rule of Law. I'd rather fight using the basic tools that make who we are: the Rule of Law. If in fact this allows the populist forces to use this principle as a cudgel to destroy the system, well, at least we went down fighting instead of surrendering.
I've seen several arguments thus far:
Trump isn't a convicted insurrectionist (yet).
1/6 wasn't an insurrection because a) it wasn't or b) these were well-meaning patriots or c) BLM's just as bad, go arrest them.
The people have a right to whichever candidates they may want, that's democracy.
Holding Trump accountable to the law only inflames his supporters all the more and confirms their suspicions about the illegitimacy of the law.
As for the "legitimacy" argument, I can't but recall Lincoln at Cooper Union: "But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"
While I always hated conservatives arguing "we are not a democracy, we are a Republic" when debating the Electoral College, in this case I think it's very appropriate.
Damon argues that only the people should be deciding who the President should be. But that kind of direct democracy is not part of our system, is it? We have a Constitution--a rule book--that says people younger than 35 can't run for office or they must be born a citizen. The voters do not have the right to vote for someone younger than 35, yet by Damon's logic, they should if there is a huge groundswell of populist support. But just as people under 35 can't run for President, the Constitution prohibits people who took an oath to protest to the Constitution and have engaged in insurrection against the US government to be ineligible to run. That's what the text says. And we have a process of multiple checks and balances (in this case within the judiciary) to evaluate the merits of the current situation. That's what republic's do and we are a Republic and not an unfettered democracy.
“This isn’t politics. It’s the Constitution that will disqualify the former president if he’s disqualified,” says J. Michael Luttig.
“The former federal judge help craft the strategy that resulted in Colorado blocking Trump from the ballot.”
Damon, I usually think you're right about 99% of the time but on this one we have to part ways. I don't think disqualifying Trump is any more undemocratic than not allowing 24-yr olds or non-citizens to run for the Presidency.
And Trump's voters are going to think the game is rigged no matter what the Court does - they'll think it's rigged whether he wins or not. There is no way to satisfy the pathologies of MAGA short of surrender.
As I understand it the Constitution is both a legal and "political" document so I have no problem invoking Article 3 as any more or less political than impeachment. If Article 3 is self-enforcing and it seems to me logical that it is then we really have no choice in the matter.
How about this: Jack Smith didn't indict Trump under the federal statute for insurrection, and neither did he charge him with any crime directly linking him to violence on Jan 6. So by what definition was he guilty of "insurrection" as stated in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
Since I think he did incite insurrectionary violence that day, I don't have trouble convincing myself that his acts may be covered. But the problem is that tens of millions of Americans disagree with me on that -- and Jack Smith appears to be one of them. In that circumstance. I don't see how trying to disqualify him from running for president is anything other than democracy being usurped by judges who want to beat Trump in a way that ordinary democratic politics may be incapable of doing.
I tend to think Smith is employing a legal strategy he thinks will have a better chance of convicting Trump. I doubt he doesn’t believe Trump incited insurrectionary violence.
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t see how democracy is being usurped. SCOTUS tells voters all the time what they can and can’t have based on their reading of the Constitution- Dobbs jumps out. Why is this any different? If it’s unconstitutional to allow Trump on the ballot it’s unconstitutional.
What am I missing?
A possible answer, Damon. The courts of Colorado are not required to counter-check with Jack Smith, as to exactly what criminal counts his office has charged against D J Trump et al, to know what the courts of Colorado may admit as a suit against D J Trump, candidate IN THIS CASE. The Amendment does not say 'convicted of... [the crime]'. The same Colorado courts may adjudicate the allegation that D J Trump prepared, fomented, and incited insurrection, on the basis of the argumentation and evidence supplied in testimony, by complainants in the case. The Lower Colorado court already found that he had! Long live the rule of Colorado Law.
If I’m reading my history right Jefferson Davis was never convicted of treason, insurrection or rebellion and I don’t think anyone believes he wasn’t covered under Article 3. I also think he probably would have had no problem getting elected to office by voters in the South.
Yes, the lower court found that he had, based on five days of testimony and documents under the traditional rules of evidence. and the SC accepted that finding without question.
The district court judge found that he did. The judge was the trier of fact, as this was a bench trial which is normal for election cases. Both the CO SC majority opinion and dissents accepted that finding without question.
As George Conway put it, "This was a full-blown, five-day trial, with sworn witnesses and lots of documentary exhibits, all admitted under the traditional rules of evidence before a judicial officer, who then made extensive written findings of fact under a stringent standard of proof" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/dont-read-the-colorado-ruling-read-the-dissents/676920/).
A twisted attempt to argue and allege our U.S. Constitution is “usurped” [trumped] by democracy. Utter nonsense.
The Supreme Court has no path but to fulfill its duty to protect and defend our U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court must enforce the 14th Amendment by disqualifying the 45th. The 45th has not earned the legal, Constitutional right to place his name on any state’s ballot.
In fact, the due process of Colorado’s Supreme Court has found that the 45th earned his right to be disqualified.
New polls demonstrate tens of millions of Americans support the Colorado Supreme Court’s disqualification decision.
Our Founders were smart enough to build-in the 14th Amendment so wanna-be dictators and kings would not be allowed a do-over.
A question in response to your CNN article, specifically to the statement that "Democracy cannot be vindicated by abrogating democracy. "
If the Constitution is a "We the People" document structuring our political processes, how can officially interpreting the 14th amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) be defined as "abrogating democracy? "
I understand and mostly agree with you political analysis of the ramifications of the Colorado decision, but I don't think such an analysis justifies the "abrogating democracy" claim you and many others make.
michael
Normally I agree with everything you say, Mr Linker. I have the deepest respect for your perspective, your values, your knowledge and insight. On this matter of the Colorado SC’s ruling, I must, for the first time, disagree. The 14th Amendment is clear, and the unanimous finding that Trump fomented an insurrection against Congress, and that he is indeed an officer of the government, is dispositive. If Trump is an exception to the Rule of Law, then everything Americans fought for and won in the War of Independence and in the Civil War is in vain. There are indeed powerful people and groups who disdain the democratic experiment and seek an oligarchic government -- a coalition of Nietzschean intellectuals, the plutocratic super-rich, and their restive and credulous followers. If we abandon the Rule of Law to these people, all is lost.
Thanks. I appreciate that. If you look for my responses to other commenters, you'll see how I respond to these kinds of arguments against my position. You will also get to read my own view elaborated in future posts.
The reason that 64% of Republicans want Trump to be their nominee is because they have accepted unquestioningly the claim of their Leader (aka Duce, Fuehrer) that the 2020 election was “stolen.” They believe this despite NO supporting evidence, despite the 61 court cases brought by Trump’s lawyers being dismissed as meritless by duly-appointed judges, many of whom were appointed by Trump himself. In other words, Trump and those who follow him or tolerate him have themselves followed Trump’s example by HAVING CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW. Call this a “cult” of the “true believers,” call it a cynical and arrogant movement driven by the lust for power and wealth by his GOP enablers and the “masters of the universe” plutocrats -- I call it a crisis of the legitimacy of our Constitution and the Rule of Law, the sine qua non of the American Republic.
Uh-GREE!!
Yes, it is a political problem which, as noted in Rucho v Common Cause: "Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." SCOTUS has been attempting to avoid questions about State's operation of elections as a Federal issue like it was the Blue Lagoon in Iceland and presenting this Colorado case puts all this mess back into a Federal bailiwick. Not being a citizen of CO, I'm not sure if registered members of a party had authority to contest a candidate before even attaining nomination in a primary, but I have to assume since the court heard it, they do. If that is so, then SCOTUS should have no option other than to return it back as a State issue that is "beyond the reach of the federal courts".
They can't. The law is the Constutition, not a state law.
You'll have to take it up with the 5 who said political issues are not judicial. And I don't know what could be more political than selecting candidates to be on a party's slate. Now, may CO law doesn't allow this, but you'll have to show that it doesn't, because I don't know why the state courts would even have heard the case if it didn't have merit.
As I understand it, political issues are not justiciable, in court parlance, when the issue is politically charged (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justiciability). This is why the Court sent back the case on gerrymandering to the state court in 2019. They ruled it was nonjusticiable because the states can set their own laws on gerrymandering, and therefore SCOTUS does not need to be involved. There is no text in the Constitution that addressed gerrymandering.
That is not the case here. Section 3 is not beyond the reach of the courts.
Further, the court does not, as you put it, select candidates. By applying the law, (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5), any candidate who was not born in the US, is not qualified. Same with a candidate who has engaged in insurrection who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution (14th Amendment, Section 3). By applying the law, some candidates will not be qualified. That's the court's job, to interpret and apply the law. That's not selecting which implies some sort of agency on the part of the Court separate from what the law requires.
"the states can set their own laws on gerrymandering, and therefore SCOTUS does not need to be involved" except when they do need to be involved....
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/10/court-to-hear-argument-in-racial-gerrymandering-challenge-to-s-c-district/
I don't know enough particulars (after all, it is 213 pages: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf ) in the CO hearing to know if the Republicans who petitioned the court had any official duties in the CO GOP Party or were just the anti-Trumper wing but the court heard the case and ruled. Secondly, I can't find how candidates are selected in CO. Is it by primary or party apparatchiks? But either way, it is done by 'politics'. Again, what SCOTUS would prefer not to be involved in. Who knows what they'll do once the DC Circuit rules. They'll agree to hear the appeal if they are dissatisfied with the DC ruling (or maybe they'll decide to make law since a textualist reading of the 14th doesn't even require a conviction of insurrection).
First, some factual mattrers. (1) Racial gerrymandering is different from political gerrymandering. Racial gerrymandering violates the 4th and 15th amendments, so the Court does take those cases. There is no prohibition in the Constitution against political gerrymandering. (2) There were six petitioners in the CO case, 4 Rs and 2 Independents. They weren't petitioning as members of the R party. (3) Cadidates for the primary get on the ballot by filing a statement to the Secretary of State along with a fee or a signed petition. It's not done by "politics", as you said, whatever that means. It's done by following state law. Anybody can submit a statement to the Secty of State. (4) The DC Circuit is not involved in this case. Trump's campaign is appealing the CO SC ruling to SCOTUS.
Secondly I agree with you that this is a big mess for SCOTUS. FYI, I read from Steve Vladeck's Substack. He's a U Texas law professor and author of a recent book critical of SCOTUS, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic."
He says they have to resolve the Section 3 issue in a way that is "not perceived as partisan, and that doesn’t further inflame the toxic politics of the 2024 election cycle and/or further undermine the Court’s credibility." He sees one possible approach that accomplishes all of that: A majority of the Court to concludes that President Trump did engage in insurrection, but that there is some impediment (self-execution; Section 3 not applying to the presidency; etc.) that prevents the courts from providing a remedy for his misconduct.
IMO, this would be good. They find that he did engage in insurrection, but he remains on the ballot. That finding might push some of those squishy swing voters in the swing states away from Trump.
1) Yes, racial gerrymandering violates other amendments. Political gerrymandering apparently doesn't and that's why SCOTUS doesn't want to touch it.
2) And yet they were allowed to petition the court. Still doesn't answer whether CO law allows this but the court heard them so I assume they had what is considered standing. From what I'm hearing about from other states, it's not the same.
3) Based on this ( https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Colorado ) getting on the ballot is politics. Petitions are a form of voting as is being accepted as the nominee, by whatever method (caucus or primary), by the party. (As an aside, the Michigan Repubs are a holy mess, practically bankrupt. What if a rogue group said they would break from the leadership and provide their own list of candidates minus Trump because he imperils the down ballot candidates. Are they the Republican Party? And based on my reading, the Secretary of State is required to accept the Party slate presented to them.)
and 4) sorry about the circuit court, so many cases, so many courts. But Trump will appeal and it looks like that appeal goes to the 10th. But who knows how that will go. https://ballsandstrikes.org/circuit-status/#10
As for Vladeck, I see no benefit in saying that the pres 'did engage in insurrection' but the court can't provide a remedy. That's right up there with "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible." That would just as likely alienate voters, who came out for Biden solely out of detestation of Trump, from voting as to push them away from Trump.
I think Trump is both a political problem and a legal problem. The CO SCOTUS got (imho) the legal part right.
If Trump shot your mother on live TV, would you guys still say that he should be able to run because, politics? The man is a narcissistic criminal sociopath. Someone needs to put an end to this existential threat to our nation, somehow. This court had the guts to try. By following the law, no less.
Excellent point. Agree we have to put an end to this by Constitutional means only.