This week, the American Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kicked off the primary ballot in some states. Nathan Vanderklippe writes:
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the Colorado decision, which has been stayed pending the higher court’s ruling. Lawyers for Mr. Trump have warned that, if the decision stands, it could disenfranchise tens of millions of voters and “unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots.”
The efforts to erase Mr. Trump from the ballot are part of a much broader erosion in support for the partisan power structures that underlie American democracy. It’s not simply that some conservative voters want nothing to do with the former president. Their legal action against him comes at a moment of widening disaffection with Republicans and Democrats alike.
The American electorate is now marked by “disgust with both parties,” said Norma Anderson, a former member of Colorado’s state legislature who is another of the petitioners. “Parties don’t work anymore, in my opinion.”
One party has become the plaything of one man -- and the whole country is in deep trouble:
For some, the Colorado lawsuit marks an attempt to stake out ground for those who continue to reject the extremes. If Republicans are defeated in the coming election, “it will be essential to have a rebirth, and in a more responsible, ethical way,” said Claudine Schneider, another petitioner, who served in the U.S. Congress as a Republican representative from 1981 to 1991. She said she felt a moral obligation to oppose Mr. Trump. She also hopes to “have some voice, perhaps not today in the Republican party – but definitely tomorrow.”
But the current party leadership shows no sign of listening. A county wing of the party formally censured several of the lawsuit petitioners. The party has added [Republicans who brought the lawsuit] to a RINO – “Republican in Name Only” – hall of shame.
One of those Republicans is Norma Anderson:
Ms. Anderson [is] one of the state’s most accomplished Republicans, who spent nearly two decades in the Colorado legislature. Her living room is decorated with a framed flag that was flown over the U.S.Capitol in honour of her service. She regularly thumbs through a paper copy of the Constitution.
And she was sitting in front of her television on Jan. 6, watching events that she is convinced amounted to an insurrection in which Mr. Trump played a role. “I just couldn’t believe what was happening,” she said.
Will the Supreme Court support Trump's insanity? The smart money says yes.
Image: The Globe and Mail
22 comments:
I'm not so sure. Don't forget that the people challenging Trump's eligibility are prominent Republicans. As I understand it, the 14th Amendment is self-executing and simply adds to the people who are ineligible to run for president. These people include Arnold Schwarzenegger (not US born), George W Bush (already served 2 terms), and AOC (not yet 35 years old). The legal analysis is straightforward and there are lots of historical records indicating that the framers intended to make future insurrectionists ineligible. To find Trump eligible to run again, the Court will have to find that he did not lead an insurrection. That would fly in the face of what everyone saw on live TV and destroy the reputation of the Court.
No doubt Owen, if Trump is re-elected president he will inflict more chaos and bedlam so it is appropriate to take him off the ballot. By the same token if PP is elected PM he will also inflict more chaos and bedlam for Canadians. RG
I agree with your take, Cap. But I expect Trump's three justices will save him.
There are a lot of people around who want to burn it all down, RG.
I saw a video on the Meidas touch the other night of a Steve Bannon interview he gave while in England. He outlined in pretty great detail their plans for what happens when trump wins the election. Very scary stuff if it happens. Apparently it will begin on day one of the presidency.
Trump has been very clear about what will happen in this second act, Terry. Americans are crazy if they buy what he's selling.
"destroy the reputation of the Court"
that happened back in Bush/Gore days.
This court will not rule against tRump.
A lot of people agree with you, PoV. But, as Cap says, the language of the Constitution is pretty clear.
Declining to take the case would be risk free for the supremes. They don't have to state any reasons if they do that and the decision would be someone else's fault.
They have an easy out, rumley.
The Supremos will issue a split decision. They will say insurrectionists must be excluded from the ballot, but since Trump has not formally been found to be an insurrectionist he must be included on any ballot he qualifies for and wants to be on.
That's an interesting speculation, Anon. Please initial your next comment.
Finding that the 14th Amendment requires a guilty verdict by a court would be a major break from precedent. Following the US Civil War, many southerners were denied political offices by the 14th Amendment. Many were even elected to office, but denied a seat. None of them were found guilty of insurrection in court. It's up to the insurrectionist to argue that the 14A shouldn't apply, at which point, Congress may choose to waive its application by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. It's right there in the text of the Amendment.
In fact, when Jefferson Davis was on trial for treason following the Civil War, he argued that the 14A was punishment enough. In other words, the 14A already punished his crime and there was no need for a treason trial. Fortunately for Davis, President Johnson issued a general pardon before the matter could be resolved. But even the general amnesty never allowed former Confederate officials to vote or hold office.
Cap
I suspect the Court will suggest some kind of test, Cap. But I also suspect it will be meaningless.
!? - I am anon 9:25 above. Thanks for that Cap. I just bumped into a thread on Reddit some of you might find interesting - it is the lawyers from Colorado who will be in front of the Supremos tomorrow... https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1al6iir/we_brought_the_14th_amendment_lawsuit_that_barred/ "Hi there - we’re Noah Bookbinder (President), Donald Sherman (Chief Counsel) and Nikhel Sus (Director of Strategic Litigation) with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-partisan ethics watchdog organization based in DC. Tomorrow, we will be at the Supreme Court as part of the legal team representing the voters challenging Trump's eligibility to be on the presidential primary ballot..."
"We believe that disqualifying Trump as a presidential candidate is a matter not of partisan politics, but of Constitutional obligation. Rule of law and faith in the judicial system must be protected, and in defending the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, we are working to defend American democracy."
You would think that would be self-evident, Anon. But don't count on it.
Its a crap shoot. If I had to bet, then the money would go to the Supreme Court not hearing the casse. Rationale: They know they're in trouble as is adding this type of case to their record who knows how the public may react and those members of the right may not want to give up with life styles. To them, Trump may have helped them get there, but they will think of themselves first.
Two decisions are coming their way, e.a.f. If they're wise they'll take a pass on both. But they won't.
According to the media reports, 8 of the 9 Supremes disagree with the esteemed US Constitutional experts in the comments above. 🙄 😉
That's the speculation, Anon. Please initial your comment.
Forgot to initial my snarky comment. NPoV
Thanks for that, PoV.
Post a Comment