I thought trump’s lawyer was effective even though arguing points I did not agree with (The President/trump was not an officer under the US vs OF the US). edit: lawyer for CO voters was admonished by Alito and Gorsuch for not answering questions or changing the hypothetical. edit2: CO lawyers were out lawyered by the insurrection’s lawyer in my layman’s view.
Here is an interesting opinion about it. Opinion: In Trump Supreme Court case, remember Congress already disqualified him | CNN
This point sums up his case nicely: Our elected representatives convened, heard from both sides and voted that January 6 was an insurrection and that Donald Trump not only engaged in it but incited it. This was the conclusion of 232 of 435 representatives and 57 of 100 senators. I have Snell’s book - looking forward to the read.
But doesn’t this ignore the second part of the analysis—the a congressional impeachment “trial”? The note to impeach, it seems to me, was a vote akin to an indictment. The impeachment trial, where there were insufficient votes, would weigh more heavily than the first vote. At least that’s how I see that analysis.
That’s the whole point, right? Should someone be self-banned from running for the Presidency when, he denies the charges, and there has never been a trial on the charges? I suppose a hyper-strict construction of the Constitution supports that view — which puts several of the SC’s conservative strict constructionists in a pickle — but it runs against the core of our judicial system of innocence until proven guilty.
This will likely end up being something close to a unanimous decision and probably likely for the best. Trump will be allowed on the ballot. SCOTUS will not even address the insurrection issue and just rule that states don't have the right to kick him off. I say this is for the best because the red states in the future would rule a black guy in a tan suit is an insurrection and keep a Dem off their ballots. This court will do states' rights rulings when it suits them (Dobbs) and federalism over states when it suits them. Whatever the GOP wants. They likely won't even name a mechanism of how the 14th amendment disqualification clause could be invoked other than maybe congress after the electoral college certification. That would be setting up a mechanism to say you can't block a candidate for running for a 3rd term and would have to deal with it after he or she wins.
I though this court was all about states rights and elections are meant to be governed by the states. Kicked roe to the states for them to decide but takes election control away from states...things that make you go hmmm.
Let's see what they do regarding the immunity issue. If they say he has blanket immunity, the next step should be to sandblast the words " equal justice under law" off the front of the scotus building as it would be clear that he above the law. The first Americans did not fight and die in the revolution so anyone could be above the law, not even the orange god.
Kavanaugh had a disturbing statement about using the law to subvert the will of the voters. We better watch that immunity ruling carefully.
Said it previously, regardless of the merits of the case there is no way that the Supreme Court will permit states to remove Trump from the ballot. The only question is what rationale will the court use and whether the decision will be 9-0 or 8-1. My guess is that it will be a 9-0 decision with multiple opinions.
and then we have Cannon requiring Smith to provide info on witnesses against Trump with no concern for the MAGA threat to them. Will the 11th provide him relief and finally remove that incompetent hack from the case? “Awful and unethical”: Legal experts say Judge Cannon could face removal for “disturbing” order (msn.com) Legal experts sounded the alarm after the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s bid to keep government witnesses secret. Smith’s team opposed making information public that could reveal the identity or any personal identifying information of any potential witnesses in the case or any transcripts or other documents they may have provided, citing concerns about witness intimidation. Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in Trump’s favor on the matter, writing: “Following an independent review of the Motion and the full record, the Court determines, with limited exceptions as detailed below, that the Special Counsel has not set forth a sufficient factual or legal basis warranting deviation from the strong presumption in favor of public access to the records at issue.” Cannon questioned Smith’s concern for witnesses, writing that “the Special Counsel’s sparse and undifferentiated Response fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing.” ............................................................. “Judge Aileen Cannon continues to make rulings that are disturbing,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack. “Perhaps we’d view any one of them, on their own, as a judicial aberration. But the pattern of ruling upon ruling that is out of the legal mainstream and results in delay well past the point where this case should have been ready for trial is something that shouldn’t be ignored. Judges should not put their fingers on the scales of justice either for or against a defendant or any other party. Here, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that the scales are being tipped.” ............................................ A big test will come next week when Cannon holds a hearing under Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), where she will make rulings on what classified material in discovery can be used at trial. Trump is expected to seek additional delays in the case, asking Cannon to postpone the deadline for some pre-trial motions and revisiting his presidential immunity and Presidential Records Act claims that “border on being frivolous at this point, and using them to further delay this case would be a travesty,” Vance wrote. “The time for Smith to decide whether to actively seek Cannon’s recusal, or at least hint to the Circuit that it’s merited, will be after the Section 4 hearing rulings are issued,” Vance noted. “Forced recusals are rare. But at this late date, even if the 11th Circuit were to move quickly, as it has in the past, and force Cannon to step aside, it would take a new judge some time to get up to speed. There are no quick fixes for the damage Judge Cannon has done,” she added.
There are 18 federal judges in the southern district of FL. How does she get picked to try/delay this case. She has already been overturned once in this trump matter by the 11th when she appointed a “Special Master” to go through (delay trial) the evidence.
With the decision on Biden's classified documents case and the reasons for not charging Biden, what would happen if different states said that under the 25th amendment Biden was not eligible to be on the ballot? For the record, I don't believe it has merit, but I can see the argument being made.
I I think the hypothetical question for me would be - if Biden were found guilty of sexual assault, then defamation of the woman, and had bragged about sexually assaulting women on video, would Democrats support such a candidate to lead the party?
I thought the 25th required cabinet officials to vote (I.e the executive branch). Don’t think that gives states any say in the matter nor is it an election issue; it’s an executive branch function for a SITTING President who becomes incapacitated (either temporarily or permanently). If the President is permanently incapacitated or there is a dispute as to the Presidents incapacitation (after the cabinet officials vote to remove) then Congress must vote on elevating the VP on a permanent basis. But seems pretty clear this amendment was more in line of actual incapacitation. The thing was conceived after Kennedy Assassination. It’s been invoked 6 times for minor health issues. Not sure if it was discussed for Reagan’s dementia? With Trump it should have been invoked after the insurrection as the guy was basically having a protracted mental health episode and in no way was acting as President (by all accounts Pence fulfilled those duties in the final months after the election). Supposedly it was discussed but never invoked.
Have you read the 25A? There is a clearly specified procedure set forth as to how it is invoked, none of which involves the states.
