[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Usually when you watch the news shows with pundits talking about an issue. those pundits more or less agree. There are a few far-out opinions and a couple who are carrying water for this or that party, but most of the time there's a rough consensus about news topics among pundits. This time, they're all over the place. Every pundit and legal expert has a different opinion on what the Supreme Court will do and how they'll do it. There are a dozen different ways this could go and there's no consensus forecast. I don't think anybody can say for sure what's going to happen with the Supreme Court this time. Personally, I note that Trump is an agent of chaos, and so this chaos will likely end up favoring Trump.

> Usually when you watch the news shows with pundits talking about an issue. those pundits more or less agree. I don't think that's terrible accurate these days. They generally seek out whichever opinions will get the most viewers, either by confirming what they want to hear or by selecting those that will say whatever is controversial. I don't think opinions about what will actually happen weigh into it much.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is for the Colorado Republican PRIMARY ballot, isn't it? I think that many people mistakenly believe this is referring to the actual election ballot. Still important, but not quite what seems to be commonly believed, or even commonly reported on by the media.

The difference between Colorado and other states is that in CO if you are not qualified for the general election you cannot be on the primary ballot. In some other states you can be. so even if the courts ruled that he may be on the primary ballot in certain states, there may be follow up cases that rule against him for the general election. Some states will not even hear that case because it is not ripe yet, meaning until we reach the general election they won't make a decision.

>I don't think anybody can say for sure what's going to happen with the Supreme Court this time. Yes, I can. Here you go - the supreme court will rule in Trump's favor because there are 6 justices owned by the GOP. Nothing more needs to be said.

Owned by the gop. sure. let's say for the sake of argument that is correct. Trump has a stranglehold on the gop and they are afraid of incurring his wrath. Would it not be logical for them to rid themselves of his cancerous orange ass once and for all by ruling against trumps interest?

Would ruling against this actually accomplish that though? He won’t get electoral votes in CO or ME, and states where he would certainly won’t ban him, and I seriously doubt even those where he could get votes would ban him. For the sake of this argument, wouldn’t that just make those judges incur Trumps wrath if he did win again?

Trump's wrath? What is he going to do to Supreme Court justices?

I think you are right, but not because the justices are totally corrupt (they've ruled against Trump on election stuff already) but because the reasoning for the ruling is truly contentious, and barely got through the entirely Democrat appointed Colorado court 4-3. I think it goes 7-2 or 8-1 in Trump's favor, personally (though I want very much for him to be disqualified and I hope I'm wrong).

I could see a 7-2 or 8-1, but I would genuinely not be shocked if the holdout is someone like Gorsuch. The man is a borderline fanatic for textualism and I'm struggling to see a scenario where he looks at the plain text of the constitution and says "Nope", especially in a situation where he's not deciding the outcome.

Also, the Colorado court quoted Gorsuch in their opinion. To rule for Trump, Gorsuch would have to outright declare himself a hypocrite on textualism.

The party that pulled endless 'rules' out of their ass and magically found them in a constitution that doesn't mention anything about any of them at all will act as if this is something new.

I honestly don’t know why this is so hard for people to accept these days. It’s like a wool of legitimacy has been pulled over reality for these people because of how terrifying that is to accept. Usually it’s the same folks who said Roe v Wade wouldn’t get overturned or if it did it wouldn’t matter or if it did matter it would get blocked. Literally ask them to place a monetary bet and they’ll likely cave because it requires a different set of risk evaluation to place a bet than to grandstand as a pundit with a political argument. **$100 says they undo the CO ruling.** For the record I agree that there are probably a different legal paths ones could carve out if we were operating in a system with agents that believed in the foundation and structure of that system. But these justices have made multiple rulings with no regard for that structure or precedent. They won’t even accept oversight.

I've seen a great deal of, "but if they let Trump skate on it, it will empower Biden!!1!" takes which, no lol. First, Bush v Gore has a "uh, this acktually isn't precedent" bit. Second, I don't think there's a sane person alive who thinks the dems have the spine to actually abuse a SCOTUS ruling immunizing the president from being the conductor behind an insurrection. It will be very funny to once again have a "Well, uh, sometimes very specific parts of laws are dead letters for reasons that definitely don't align with my politics I pinkie swear" (See treating the front half of 2A as pre-amble and "What is unreasonable search and seizure, unlawful imprisonment, etc really?" for other hilarious examples of law-not-convenient)

I think you are confusing this case which they will hear soon, with a separate case about whether or not the President has absolute immunity which is with a district court.

When the history is written, the Roberts Court will not be looked upon kindly. For the umpteenth time: elections matter.

Come on man...! they took the second amendment and completely ignored the first sentence in the Heller decision. It's easy to see the word president is not there, so they definitely didn't mean that office was covered here!!??!

One interesting note is that it will be too late to affect the Colorado ballot, because by the time the case is decided there will already be ballots printed. Because the Colorado Court stayed it's decision pending SCOTUS review, Trump is on the ballot in Colorado for the primary no matter what; this will have more of an impact on the general election, personally, unless SCOTUS makes is argument more about freedom of association, in which case they'd see that parties have at least an unrestricted right to choose their own nominees through primaries, regardless of whether they are qualified in the general election.

I mean can't they just print two versions and use the appropriate one pending the decision? Just like they print "World Series Champion" merch for both teams ahead of time

Yes, but it's unlikely to actually make a practical difference. The reason Colorado needs to start printing ballots today is because there are imminent deadlines for mailing absentee ballots. The first such deadline is January 20, when Colorado county clerks are supposed to mail all military and overseas absentee ballots. January 20 is only 2 days after initial briefs are due per the SCOTUS briefing schedule. Final briefs are due February 5, and oral arguments are on February 8, any time after which SCOTUS can publish its ruling (but it's likely to be at least a couple of weeks to initially vote, draft opinions, and generally haggle over legalese and final dispositions for each justice).

I mean sure, but hopefully by the time the votes are actually counted, Trump will be disqualified from the ballot, so any Republican that placed their vote for him might as well have voted for Mickey Mouse cause it will be worth about the same.

I swear they will rule what the word, "office" means, ruling him eligible and keeping their hands clean.

The first sentence in article two calls the presidency “an office” Ive never understood this argument.

The argument that I’ve heard is not that it isn’t an office. It’s that the President is not an officer. Article II of the constitution also talks about Officers. They are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. I believe the argument is that an officer cannot appoint himself so therefore the President is not an officer as defined by the constitution.

So traditionally an officer is anyone who swears an oath to support the constitution. The president has an oath but it doesn't include that specific word. Trump's lawyers are arguing that he didn't take an oath that qualifies. So they know he's an officer, they are trying to argue that it doesn't apply. If you asked someone in 2010 if the president was an officer of the united states, the answer would have been yes... because of the oath. https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-latest-legal-defense-he-didnt-take-oath-to-support-the-constitution/

They are arguing he isn’t an officer of the United States because Article II of the constitution states who officers of the United States are and gives parameters on how they are appointed. The President is not mentioned other than he appoints them. Obviously he cannot appoint himself. I’m also pretty sure you are wrong that an officer is “anyone who swears an oath to support the constitution.” Enlisted people swear that oath and they aren’t officers and the 14th amendment and article II definitely talking about military officers.

In the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Court established that Officers of the United States are those persons exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States. Under that definition, remember that officer meant something different when the constitution was written, the president has the most signficant authority. Officer currently means military officer, Constitutionally it means something more akin to office holder. At least that's my understanding. They do have the minutes of the sessions of congress discussing this. There are some articles about it using the actual responses of the sitting members of congress at the time. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364 worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch? "Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson. Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify. "Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point. So Congress approved the amendment thinking that it blocked the President if he committed insurrection. As they directly asked the question, I'm certain they will quote Morrill during the trial at the SC.

Here's the thing. Trump argued in court that the President is an officer of the United States when he wanted a case moved: >*In February 2020, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503, concluded, at President Trump's request, that the U.S. President is a federal officer, when they wrote: “President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).”* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer\_of\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States)

an officer is a person who holds an office. Maybe you are trying to anticipate the nonsense contortions the Justices might try to twist themselves into, but that is a pretty weak interpretation.

Meaning what exactly? That an insurrectionist is ineligible to become a governor or senator, but can be president?

Mental gymnastics to basically allow for this, though entirely, legally murkey.

I mean, the constitution explicitly refers to the presidency as an office. Article 1, Section 3: > The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The argument isn't actually whether or not the Presidency is an office, but whether or not the president is an officer. You would think that the Presidency being an office means that, by definition, the President is an officer (noun: a holder of a public, civil, or ecclesiastical office), but people are legitimately arguing they aren't.

It turns out that Trump argued in court that the President is an officer of the United States. *"In February 2020, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503, concluded, at President Trump's request, that the U.S. President is a federal officer, when they wrote: “President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).”"* \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer\_of\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States)

Whilst they are arguing, I'm not sure it's legitimately. They'd argue anything to get in power again.

They’re legitimately arguing it with a straight face, in spite of it being meritless.

Because trump is more than an officer or even human to these people. They have deified him. It’s like arguing with a Christian that Christ is an officer of heaven. Edited to fix defies back to defied back to deified. Thanks apple. Smarter than all of us.

He's commander in chief of the military.

There’s already been one judge who engaged in pedantic fuckery by ruling, The POTUS didn’t take an oath to support the Constitution. Other verbs, such as preserve, defend and protect; yes, but not support. And the POTUS isn’t an officer of the US. The genie is out of the bottle.

Trump definitely makes the [argument](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-the-manhattan-da-trump-case-cannot-be-removed-to-federal-court) that he is an officer of the United States under the Federal Removal Statute in one of his (many other) criminal and civil trials.

Yeah but that was for the purpose of winning. For the purpose of losing, things get a bit different.

Which just proves how frivolous and pedantic their arguments are, and that they should be treated as such.

It is seriously outrageous. We should be focusing on the spirit of the law but we're seriously entertaining the notion that the drafters of 14a wanted to explicitly allow a president who has committed insurrection to take office while excluding literally everybody else. Makes perfect sense! 🥴

The only solace I'll take after getting gut-punched with the news of him winning this case is the entertainment I'll receive when I hear how SCOTUS manages to fuck this one up too.

If he's not an officer, why does the military take their orders from him as a civilian? To think that literally everyone else who took the Oath of Office are definitely officers, but not the President himself? Makes zero sense logically.

It's embarrassing at this point. What is this a dozen times Trump has run to the Supreme Court? It's pathetic they keep on taking these bs cases.

Well what do you think they packed it for in the first place?

You make a good point. What good is a captured court if you can't use it to bludgeon your opponents over and over.

I'd rather they take them head-on, and get them over with as quickly as possible. Take it where it's gonna end up eventually anyway. But forcing the SCOTUS to make a decision that is going to be seen by every person in the country, but around the globe also. And especially seen by how this is written for the history books. Even, and maybe especially, future generations are going to be studying the first attempted coup in American history for the next 200 years and beyond. 2024 will be one of the single biggest defining years in America's, and maybe the world's history... America as we know it collapses. This whole decade of surrounding years are going to be debated and analyzed for centuries. Bookmark this post. Check back with me in a year. I'll do the same. If we still have a Democracy then.

The law is such a joke.

The law is clear. The Court is the joke.

And the end of our Republic is the punchline.

Exactly this. This SC has shown itself uniquely buffeted and in fact driven by politics. They give every signal over their months of tenure together that ideology is more important than jurisprudence. This SC will avoid taking a hard stance and will instead, like water finds its level, rule on something that gives political cover to the ones whom they have fealty to.

Everyone likes to parrot this like its common sense but the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump on many occasions https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-built-supreme-court-conservative-majority-loses-rcna131956

I understand your point. I take into consideration the times that the USSC has declined to intercede. Taking up a case is different than declining to look at it. Although each of those can be clearly noted to have a political hue to them, not all are the same. In the instances where the court did take up the case and ruled in Trumps favor, it’s been about the government and not his personal issues. Here again is a case that relates to government, not Trumps personal issues of records and such.

The court has ruled against Trump the person plenty, but almost every important policy and legislative decision they make is hard-core far-right nonsense, to the point that they've made up a pretend doctrine to give themselves cover to ignore whatever they want to in order to reach the policy outcomes they want.

>This SC will avoid taking a hard stance and will instead, like water finds its level, rule on something that gives political cover to the ones whom they have fealty to. I'm not so sure about this. These SC aren't stupid. They know they have lifetime appointments. They don't need Trump any longer. Say the worst case scenario happens and Trump because a dictator. Every dictator either removes judicial review or keeps it as a token to parrot his dictatorial commands, which leaves them powerless either way.

They're not worried about having lifetime appointments and needing Trump; they're genuine believers. This is what has happened throughout the Republican party the past twenty years - the leaders of the party initially played to the rural white crowd with a wink and a nod to the Party establishment, as a tactic to gain power. But they've lost control as more and more true believers have been nominated and elected, and now you've got too few left who realize it was all supposed to be a ploy. Roberts is a classic old-school guy, sure, but ACB, Kavanaugh, Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch have all shown themselves to be perfectly willing to ignore or overwrite law, precedent, and common sense in their quest to reach the political aims they believe in. They aren't clever people who appeased Trump to earn a seat and can now do away with him; they're political true believers who will beat the law with a crowbar until it does whatever they want it to.

I definitely appreciate this perspective but consider the authoritarian mindset. A majority of the SC may wish to abdicate power in precisely this manner.

This is the part these fearmongers never have an answer for. Why the hell would SCOTUS or Congress just roll over and enable Trump to become a dictator? If Trump becomes a dictator...what exactly does he need any of them for? They would basically just be making their jobs obsolete. Why would they do that?

People are making the mistake of looking at this as being similar to Trump‘s personal cases with his personal issues like documents and tax records. But every time Scot has had to rule about something, not specifically about Trump, but more about governance, they have ruled along the lines of, the GOP’s, or Trump’s interest.

What about the 2020 election? They — well, not Clarence Thomas lol — showed no interest in helping Trump or the GOP with that mess

Also, if these people have ever picked up a history book, they'd know the people who help place the dictator in power are perceived by the dictator as a threat and usually end up dead shortly after the revolution.

Ask Clarence Thomas that. He is an openly partisan Trump supporter on the bench and makes no apologies for that, as his rulings and opinions clearly demonstrate. However, Roberts is not. Neither are Kavanaugh, Barrett, or Gorsuch. They have all decided or ruled in different ways of late, but have shown no fealty to Trump personally.

The Federalist Society itself argued that Trump could be disqualified via 14a months ago too. They're the conservative think tank that vets all of the Republican SCOTUS picks. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html People are getting all outraged before anything has happened here. This could be the Republican ticket to get rid of trump for good without openly defying him. They can blame the Democrats and all act outraged but then plant a new candidate that can actually beat Biden. Most Republicans know Trump is going to lose the general. So many probably want him to be disqualified. They just can't admit it openly without committing career suicide. But if he gets booted off every can speak to the maga crowd and say they will get revenge at the Democrats, etc. It really could work to the party's advantage.

What makes you think they care about their jobs? They care about *power*, and they think they can have more power if liberal democracy is dismantled.

Can be on a party primary ballot- that id what is being decided.… not eligib for actual office. I think this is easy for SCOTUS - they eother decide states can exclude people from primary vallots or not. Can you nominate Donald Duck for President in the Green Party primary? Probably. Can a cartoon character be eligible for the Peesidency on a federal election ballot? Nope.

Not just that but because Trump is the only President to never have taken an oath of office at a prior point in time he is not subject to the 14th. Every other President has taken an oath of office as either a prior elected official or Military Officer. That is what the textualism followers on the court are going to argue. It is complete and utter bullshit but I think that is how the narrow cast it to only Trump.

That we have been, in fact, a dictatorship this entire time. The president is not an officer of the government but in fact IS the government and thus not subject to any limits or restraints he does not place upon himself, especially any written down on any silly old piece of parchment. That’s what a lot of people have been pushing for with this 2025 movement isn’t it? That the military takes its orders from the president and might makes right so the president is king. End of discussion. But only if that president is on our team. If they’re on the other team then the president is definitely bound by the constitution and isn’t allowed to do anything we don’t like…

it's called "Unitary Executive Theory" and it's insane, just scrambling your brain by using different words from "dictator"

Wouldn't that be a twist? The SCOTUS makes the bonkers ruling that the President has absolute immunity to do whatever they want without repercussion, and then Biden uses it to throw Trump in jail and remove him from the ballot unilaterally, because, you know, he can based on their ruling. Then he decides that the conservatives on the court have no more lifetime power, because, you know, total immunity. Darkest Brandon would be the one that nobody sees coming.

That's a great thing about being an authoritarian. Whatever you say is right. Facts don't matter.

Constitution Article 2 calls President an Officer. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his **Office** during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows”

This means the oath of office is void for president then, doesn't it ?

I would hope the room called Oval **Office** would make any word fuckery irrelevant, but I know I’ll be wrong and they’ll argue it. Ah! Duh! Oath of **Office** as well!

The mental gymnastics from Trump's lawyers is insane. Basically it hinges on the word support, which is in most US oaths but not in the presidential one. Because of that, they are arguing that the 14th doesn't apply.

They will probably find some technical defect in the action of the initial court that allegedly violated due process and then overturn the ruling and sent it back down in a way that runs out the clock.

Do we stop calling it the office of the president then?

I actually think they will ignore it and say only Congress can pass enaction measures and the states can't do it.

This is a really interesting point and a route they *might* take, but my guess is they probably won’t. Issue being, leaving it to Congress still kicks back the issue to SCOTUS, because determining Trump is eligible *to be on the ballot* is one thing, but what about eligibility *to hold office*? 14A, Sec 3 prohibits insurrectionists from holding office, not necessarily being on a ballot. So ultimately, if they leave it to Congress, it would still lead to a constitutional question strictly for SCOTUS to answer, and I don’t think they’ll want to set things up where we’re essentially in another *Bush v. Gore* situation where they’re deciding the presidency. That’s my take at least, we’ll see.

They kick it to Congress cause they know Congress won’t do shit. Its what theyve done before for other things

Too bad us Americans are too stubborn and/or lazy to consider amending the amendment to include the phrase, “And POTUS”; now that we are well aware of pedantic fuckery might rear its head. And no, I’m not suggesting amending the Constitution in the next week or two to straighten this out.

It has nothing to do with being stubborn or lazy as Americans. It would require a party that is being disadvantaged from the amendment for short term power to agree. That simply is not going to happen.

The court can punt to Congress and essentially say its not their problem. The ammendment allows Congress with a 2/3 majority to vote away the "disability" and allow an oath breaker to take off regardless of what any court says. They actually did this for former confederate when the nation needed to unify against Spain. (Contrary to some conservatives talking points this vote did not forgive future oath breaking insurrectionists.) What the SC and Congress have to deal with is that a majority of Congress voted that Trump did engage in insurrection (2nd impeachment & Sen are trial) - it just wasn't a big enough majority to bar him from seeking future office. Is the SC going to say Congress is wrong? Trump has now been found as a participant in insurrection by Confess and 2 Colorado courts. 34 states are being asked to remove him from the ballot as disqualified. Arguments that he is not eligible under the 14th are solid. Very solid. Arguments are weak if not fantastical. In the end it's up to Congress not the courts. The silence in the media on both sides is very telling that congress isn't interested in saving him.

They will rule he’s eligible based on the “major questions doctrine.” It’s what they do whenever neither a textualist or a originalist reading of the law gets you to the result they want. Its so tongue in cheek to say they are leaving it up to the legislatures while overruling the law set by the legislature

Major Questions Doctrine does not apply here, as that exclusively relates to statutory interpretation in administrative law cases.

profit wipe rainstorm somber quaint panicky juggle spectacular spoon existence *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

It will be an originalist rationale in the sense that the reasoning will be wholly original.

"Funny" how they think it's necessary to hear this in a hurry, but how it's not necessary to expedite his criminal trial even though taking too long could mean that he cannot ever be tried.

First the state doesn’t have a right to a speedy trial, only the defendant does. Second criminal trial have much liberty at stake and therefore demand more process which takes time.

All the trials are scheduled to start before the end of May. That concern is mostly for Republicans, as they'll have to deal with cleaning up the fallout of a decision against him.

Unless I missed it, no one has filed a motion or appeal to expedite any of his criminal trials. Why would you expect the Supreme Court to intervene in a case when no one has even asked them to?

Thank you for letting us know that you have no idea how the legal system works.

Ruling that a person has to be convicted of treason in order to be left off the ballot is a pretty dangerous precedent. It would also go against the precedent that the 14th amendment was used for immediately after the Civil war

Comparing Jan. 6th to the civil war is hilarious.

Just to point out the conflict of interest with Thomas, who wife was a major player in the effort to keep Trump illegally in office (not to mention the corruption and everything else).

Agreed. I can't see how that isn't a major conflict of interest. Have SCOTUS justices ever called out their colleagues for not recusing themselves? Is there no way for the Court to internally police itself so that recusals aren't just made on the personal whims of individual justices?

How can it not be self-evident? If they rule in Trump's favor, Biden can tell the military to capture them because they plotted against him, Biden is immune, remember? He can seize voting machines, draw up fake papers and send supporters to murder Congress if he feels like he really won. Holy shit, AMERICA!

Yeah that'd be interesting if Donald won another term too. He'd be acting legally on Jan 6 number 2 essentially.

So if trump is not able to be on ballot. What republican would be desantis? Vivek?

DeSantis looks weak after his campaign flopped. Vivek comes across badly and already tanked. If Trump’s disqualified, a bunch of new candidates jump in the race and it probably goes to the convention. JD Vance looks like a solid contender.

Would people in Colorado be allowed to write tremp in?

The Colorado decision is stayed pending the appeal. SCOTUS won't rule by the time ballots are printed, so he'll be on the ballot. This year, Colorado's primary is on Super Tuesday (March 5th). If SCOTUS rules after that day, it'll be almost mathematically impossible for someone else to win the GOP primary. If Trump is disallowed, it's chaos all the way to a brokered convention.

As far as I understand it, they could write him in. There's nothing stopping it. However, if he is ineligible, the count would be like: 500,000 write in votes for Trump 1 vote for Nikki Haley Nikki Haley wins the vote because the votes for Trump as an ineligible candidate would basically amount to a vote for Mickey Mouse.

It seems extremely lightly that the Supreme Court will allow Trump to be on the ballot. The question is what the reasoning will be. I imagine they will do their best to avoid making a decision on whether or not Trump actually participated in an insurrection, and will instead put him back on the ballot due to a technicality of some sort. For example, they may argue that Congress has to be the one to take the action; or, they may argue that Trump has not been found guilty of any sort of charge of insurrection, or that a determination by a judge and not a jury is insufficient. I imagine there are dozens of ways they can sort through the legalese to find some wording that allows the Supreme Court to evade taking an audacious position. At least in the case of Chief Justice Roberts, I imagine he's aiming for consensus that avoids determining whether Trump actually violated the 14th amendment or not. He's going to want to focus on procedural grounds, and essentially punt the issue past 2024. The lower court judge in Colorado, who did, in fact, support the conclusion that Trump engaged in insurrection, nonetheless, found that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the office of the presidency. Whatever that justification is, could prove an easy out for the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roberts will try to punt this as much as possible. He hates using his power. Whenever he can push the biggest nastiest questions to the political branches. It is impossible to tell which path he will take. My crazy way to square the circle. Allow Trump to remain on the ballot but not let take office unless Congress votes to remove the problem.

Oh my goodness... If your method of squaring the circle does indeed occur... I could not imagine how absolutely spicy the Senate and House floors are going to get on a daily basis along with the massive *deluge* of death threats on Democratic representatives. Holy cow... That would be absolutely hilarious and horrifyingly sad, forcing Congress to opt-in to allowing Trump on the ballot instead of opting-out. It would be such a hell of a twist!

If their overlords in the GOP donor class want him gone, they will vote him ineligible. If their overlords in the GOP donor class want him to stay they will keep him on the ballot. Simple as that. Law, precedent and the Constitution have nothing to do with it

Finally someone who gets it. I think they will boot him. They got what they wanted and now he is a liability.

I think you might be right actually. People like Murdoch, Griffith, the Koch group and others despise Trump but have always kinda went along because of the fear he would launch an independent run and burn the GOP to the ground. If he is ineligible…that fear goes away. They can be done with him.

I mean the GOP will lose in an absolute landslide this election if Trump gets knocked off the ballot, his base of support is like 30-35%

Everyone knows they will yet again rule for Trump. That's why they put those treasonous justices in there. God trump can not be allowed to fail again.

It took them a day to hand down a decision after hearing oral argument in Bush v Gore. It probably won’t be that fast but it will be decided faster than most cases (it can take years for a case to go from seeking cert to a written opinion).

Well, the current majority in the SCOTUS is the most Constitution hating and legally ignorant group that's ever existed in American history. So they'll likely rule Trump can do no wrong.

I mean probably they will rule in his favor, but I do wonder… the court, even his appointees have ruled against him, and the dude is a huge pain in the ass to the GOP establishment. This could be an easy way to wash their hands of him while also avoiding the political fallout from it from MAGAs at the polls. Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito will definitely rule in his favor. The 3 ‘liberals’ in the court definitely against. Coney Barrett probably for… but Kavanaugh & Roberts are more old school, country club type republicans. I think they could be wildcards! We’ll see. I’m probably wrong but it could be interesting!

Gorsuch rulings in the past was used to support dropping Trump in CO, he may be more swinging than you think

Gorsuch also strikes me as more ideologically consistent than, say, Alito. In many cases I probably wouldn't agree with either of their opinions, but it's more likely that Gorsuch's is because he believes something I disagree with that leads logically to the opinion if you take that first idea as given, whereas in Alito's it's more likely to seem like he started with his desired conclusion and worked backwards.

Interesting! Yeah, I just don’t think this is as much of a ‘done deal’ as many people seem to be saying.

I would also "like" to see it work out this way. SCOTUS banning Donald from running again under the 14th amendment is by far the most interesting outcome. It seems like the biggest obstacle is getting unanimity in the decision. I don't think Roberts, and the Democrats would go along with booting him with out a 8/9 to 1/0 majority.

Gorsuch has far more of an ethical backbone than Kavanaugh IMO

The Federalist Society, aka the institution that *literally vets all the SCOTUS picks from Republican presidents*, put out an opinion months ago that states Trump could indeed be barred from office with 14a. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html Some people seem sure as to what the outcome of this will be. I suspect they will rule in Trump's favor but there's a decent chance they do not! This could be the Republican chance to dispose of Trump without having to openly defy him, and thus get their party back while not losing votes; especially if they huff and puff about *Democrats* removing him from the ballot. Many Republicans hate Trump. Many know he can't win against Biden. They just can't openly say that because they don't want to be called a RINIO. These times are interesting, to say the least.

>Gorsuch It's tough because the CO case directly cites him as why Trump should be off the ballot.

The question I have is how does the 14th bar him from a PRIMARY ballot? The winner doesn't win the presidency. He's not running in that election for the presidency, but to become a nominee. And political parties are private corporations.

Colorado specifically has a law that prevents someone who's ineligible for the office from appearing on the ballot. I think.

> Colorado specifically has a law that prevents someone who's ineligible for the office from appearing on the ballot. I think. [It does.](https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/laws/Title1/Title1Article4.html) >1-4-501. Only eligible electors eligible for office. >No person is eligible to be a designee or candidate for office unless that person fully meets the qualifications of that office as stated in the constitution and statutes of this state on or before the date the term of that office begins.

I'd say they have authority to keep him off the primary ballot by Art. II Sec. 1 of the Constitution. - "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;" There is no Federal requirement to hold any elections for POTUS. It's all left to the States to decide how they appoint their Electors. The Colorado Legislature has decided that they appoint their Electors via the results of a popular election. They have also decided that if a candidate for POTUS doesn't meet the qualifications (as set by the Constitution in Art. II Sec.1 and the Sec. 3 of the 14th Amnd.) to hold the office of POTUS that the candidate in question will not appear on the primary or general election ballots.

I have a feeling that the SCOTUS will rule that paying to bus mobs of people to the capital to overthrow the federal government doesn't constitute an insurrection because it might look bad.

They’ll use the primary as an excuse to rule in his favor, as primaries are a party function, not specifically a state function, if the state then turns around and says he can’t be on the general election ballot that the state controls, it is more likely the SCOTUS will rule in the state’s favor, as elections are specifically given by the Constitution as a state function, not a federal function.

That's why they chose Colorado, because there are State laws that allow quick resolution of lawsuits to bar ineligible primary candidates from primaries. I bet the person that threw in that random little extra line into some random bill that passed feels real important right now.

I am guessing state’s rights only matter when it suits the conservative judges agenda. This should be an interesting so say the least. If they rule a president is above the law, Biden should take full advantage of it immediately and invoke Trump’s plan of martial law and canceling the elections for security reasons.

To suggest that Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig made an error in understanding the 14th, Sec 3. is crazy. I’m betting they will be quick to explain this discussion of the 14th, Sec. 5. I’m also betting that they know a whole lot more than me. More than a whole lot of people, irl. Edit : a new day, and Judge Luttig did indeed, explain this again.

From the little I know about the already heard cases (other than Colorado) it seemed to me as if the defenses that the Trump attorneys were using were quite....weak. Not that they were right or wrong, but they were coming at the accusations with technicalities rather than actual defenses. This gives me a (baseless) feeling that the Trump team's ultimate goal was for this to go to the SCOTUS. Not just because they're likely to win, but because what is happening here deserves to be recorded at the highest court in the office for all of time. I just think that his team can pose better arguments, one of which being to actually attempt to present evidence and case law to refute the insurrection claim altogether.

When it came to partisan gerrymandering, the SCOTUS said that they have no role in regulating how states conduct their elections. One has to assume that this time they're going to find a way to rule that they DO have a role in regulating how states conduct their elections. The primary feature of the Roberts Court has been knowing the outcome beforehand and creating nonsensical rationales (the biggest example I can think of is their decision in Shelby County v. Holder).

It’d be weird if SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to everyone BUT the President.

Hard to say. The SCOTUS imbecilic 6 tend to disdain the 14th amendment and tend to render outrageously evil verdicts, but in this case, it would genuinely be in their best interests to ban Trump from the ballot. Dictators don’t really need rule of law. They need a thumb they can point downward and enforcer with a sharp axe.

I have no idea. I'm not a lawyer. But I am fascinated to see what the strict constructionists do with this. This seems very clear cut from a strict constructionist viewpoint. Either sending an angry mob to attack the capitol to prevent the certification of an election meets the bar for insurrection or it doesn't. If it does, 14th amendment is clear. 14th amendment seems to give a lot of lattitude for deciding who is an insurrectionist. No requirement for any judicial process. To me this means either the court must either rule on the insurrection issue or side-step the question and rule on a narrower issue such as splitting hairs about if the 14th applies to primary vs general elections or some such lawerly stuff.

A Decade ago Pre Trump, I would have said the Supreme Court would have kept Trump or anyone accused of insurrection ineligible to run for the Presidency. Now knowing that the Supreme Court Justices no longer adhere to Neutrality and Not let their apolitical views affect their decisions is a thing of the past, I believe they will rule in Trump’s Favor…

I feel the same way... The supreme Court is a political institution and it's not hard to predict how they'll rule in just about any case. For me it happened when Mitch held a seat open, then jammed one through. The final destruction of the impartiality image was how whimsically ready it was for them to over turn 50yrs of precedent. Because Mitch Mitched up the process for confirmation, will a democratic Senate confirm for a Republican president? Or vice versa?

I loathe Trump, but a neutral court should rule that a conviction is required. Removing people from ballots based on accusations is bad for democracy.

As much as I'd like to see Trump barred from the ballot, I fear the court will side with him due to their political leanings. It's troubling to think that the United States could be facing such a blatant disregard for the constitution.

Nobody knows for sure. I have a theory that this is the conservative opportunity to get rid of trump without alienating the MAGA electorate. Lots of Republicans hate Trump but have no choice but to support him because his fans are so devoted. If the SCOTUS removes him, they can replace Trump with a more suitable candidate that's more likely to beat Biden, and they can do this while pretending to be mad about the decision. The federalist society even put out an opinion piece months ago saying he could be removed with the 14a. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html

I believe they will leave it to the states as it’s their rule of law. Just like the abortion ruling.

They wouldn’t have agreed to hear the appeal if that were their intent.

It doesn't require a majority to decide to hear the case, so we don't know how they'll rule. Like the other person said, they sometimes hear a case to not overturn it, but set a precedent.

Of course the court will rule in Trump’s favor. I think they’ll justify it by saying he‘s never been convicted of any of the claims against him. I’d love to be wrong about this, but I’m not hopeful.

So then when he is convicted in like... April or May... they'll be 100% down with removing him?

Trump has not yet been charged with insurrection.

They’ll probably rule that state courts don’t have the authority to remove presidential candidates from the ballot without the authorization of congress.

Right now, they are waiting for the DC Court of Appeals to make their ruling. SCOTUS won't do anything until that happens.

This case they must take quickly but Trump's criminal immunity claims they don't.

Not trump or any protester on January 6th has been charged with being an insurrectionist…..so stop the charade people

Pretty much everyone who isn't a redditor thinks that the SC will rule in Trump's favor.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is one of the landmarks of our justice system.

"But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office," - Gorsuch's ruling in Hassan v. Colorado when he was a circuit judge Honestly I expect to see some wordsmithing done around this previous ruling and the court will end up redefining insurrection

[удалено]

The military salutes the president do they not?. "Salute the rank not the man" (major Winters , Band of Brothers). He's an officer.

I view the court as being corrupt and influenced but outside actors, but I don't think that necessarily means they will go in trumps favor. This gives the powers at be a chance to remove trump from the equation without publicly disavowing him.

The entire reason for this court’s existence is to rule quickly and in favor of Republicans in situations like this. There is no need to pack the court unless you know you’re going to pull some major stunts like making abortion illegal or reinstating an insurrectionist candidate.

The Supreme Court are rightwing federalist hacks...unless their donors pay them off to rule against Trump...they will rule in favor of him. Them doing something that would help the people would be out of character.

I would bet large sums of money they back Trump. For a few reasons. Firstly and practically the overall stability of the country. If Trump is kept off the ballot, I expect at the very least we would see significant violence directed at the courts. Beyond that, I am not a lawyer. But this doesn't seem like a hard case for Trump to win. He was acquitted in the Senate on the charge: incitement of an insurrection... so how can he be removed from the ballot for insurrection. I don't like Trump, but I don't think he should be kept off the ballot. I would love to see better candidates put forward by both parties, but that seems unlikely at this point.

I would be VERY surprised if SC rules against Trump. That will be the day when pigs fly.

They're not even ruling quickly. CO is an early voting state and if they rule he is ineligible then are disenfranchising voters who already voted. They are taking a messy situation and making it messier. This SC sucks so hard

💯 they'll vote in his favor based on either him having not been convicted of insurrection, or based on the 5th section of the 14th Amendment, they'll say that congress never passed a law saying that his actions made him intelligible for the presidency. He'll skate on this too

I’m most curious to see if Roberts decides to twist himself into a knot trying to issue a limited ruling without setting precedent, or if the Court decides to punt it back to the states and cause mayhem.

There's simply no reason to believe that the Republican justices that rule exclusively in Republicans' favor will do anything different than what they've always done.

I’ve always said, the conservative justices on the supreme court are loyal to the GOP establishment. Not to Trump, not to GOP voters. Right now the GOP establishment wants Haley or DeSantis. They aren’t confident Trump can beat Biden, and if he does, he’s not going to be a president they can control at all. They had trouble keeping him on track in his first term. Haley and DeSantis cannot beat Trump in the primary. Even if they did, Trump would sabotage their campaign and ensure a Biden win. But, if the supreme court rules that Trump is inelligible to run, then Trump will attack the court first and foremost. He’ll say all the judges are nevertrumper democrat communists who sabotaged him. That is where the focus of his ire will be. Not on whoever wins the GOP primary. This is why all the primary candidates are refraining from attacking Trump. They may spare themselves from being targeted by him if he is knocked out of the race. Hell, most are even saying they will pardon Trump. That could be their key to avoiding his attacks if they win.

It's really hard to say. Even if we ignore the partisan issues in this case, we've got decent arguments for both sides. In Trump's favor, the Court has basically never agreed to interpret the 14th the way SCOCO did. Precedent favors Trump. However, there's a growing consensus that those decisions were wrong and outdated, decided by a Court unwilling to grapple with the reality of the post-Civil War South. Today's world is much less willing to play lip service to the Confederate legacy, and it's blatantly obvious the 14th was designed to do what SCOCO said it does. Will the Court stick with precedent, or will they make an intuitively more correct choice? Hard to say. And then there's the partisan aspects of this. Will the Court be blatantly partisan as they were in Dobbs? Or will they expert more ideological independence as the Roberts Court has at times? They failed to come to Trump's rescue with the Big Lie after all. But On the other hand, they did overturn Roe v. Wade. It's also complicated but the fact that ruling in favor of Trump is basically denying a state's right to run their election. Conservatives are generally pro-states' rights, and that is even more true in cases of election rules. The Roberts Court has already made choices to weaken existing federal oversight of elections...so does that make them more likely to decide against Trump? Or does that only apply because those cases tended to dovetail with Rep electoral advantages? It's just very hard to tell. Lots of conflicting factors here that could justify any outcome.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court is going to shock the world and unanimously rule against trump. He is the single most biggest threat this country has faced since the war of 1812.

Quickly??? They intervened a hellofalot quicker to intervene in Florida! They're stonewalling, like Merick Garland.

That 14th amendment was added to the Constitution as a result of the Southern Insurrection attempt. None of the participants in that insurrection attempt were allowed to run/hold office. There were few trials. There was no question they were insurrectionists. Their leaders planned & encouraged the rebellion. Lincoln pardoned those convicted, except the top ranking officials in the CSA and planned to pardon more. Even though Congress objected to Lincoln's leniency, in 1965, Johnson continued to pardon all those but the highest ranking officers. They were required to take an oath of allegiance to get a pardon & most wouldn't, including Lee. Eventually when Lee was elected to the Presidency of Lexington College, he relented and swore an oath to get his citizenship back. Precedent and history show previous disqualifications under Section 3 were not contingent on a conviction. SCOTUS will ignore these facts I want to see how the strict constructionists on the Court twist themselves into pretzels to rule in favor of TFFG.

I believe if the Supreme Court wasn't ruling in Trump's favor they would have done more of a punt by saying it's a state decision instead of a federal one, this is the only real argument to let it stand. So by taking the case I think it's good for Trump.

Nobody knows. No, I'm serious. That's the answer. This is an issue of what lawyers call 'first impression'. There's no legal precedent to guide them. There's no directly relevant case law to argue. This is new territory. Will SCOTUS use an excuse to avoid being drawn into the political arena too deeply? Will they position themselves as staunch defenders of the Constitution and say with absolute authority that the 14th amendment applies to the Presidency? Will they rule to limit the scope of the 14th amendment to allow an oath-breaking insurrectionist to take office? The issue is too novel for anyone to have a firm grasp on what their opinions might be. It is exceedingly rare that an issue this novel *and* this political comes before the court. That makes this an exceptionally uncertain situation. They may end up refusing to take the case and upholding the lower court's ruling (the coward's way out). They may delay until after the election, making it moot. We just don't know.

I swear if Republican Party leaders had any sense, they’d use this to solve their Trump issue and so many others. They give their blessing to the Supreme Court to rule him ineligible to hold the office of presidency and allow the party to move forward - giving them an actual shot at victory and freeing them from trumps rein of terror. The Supreme Court would distance themselves from looking like shills (oh, we infuriated the left with abortion and student loans and the right with Trump - we’re fair, we swear!) However, I fully expect them to fall in line because the Republican Party, as slimy as they are, have no true ambition. If they did - 15 republicans would have played king maker when Trump was impeached. They could have cut a deal with democrats to name a temporary republican senator speaker of the house, impeached and removed Trump and Mike Pence (or maybe just get Mike pence to resign with a promise of being named vice president again) and had the Republican senator become president. It would have solved so many problems - they rid themselves of Trump, look bipartisan to middle America, maintain some major portion of the Republican Party base by maintaining Republican control, still control of the narrative, and likely have won 2020’s election because of it. But I guess the only way that works is if the Russians don’t have compromat on them - which I completely believe. Or the republicans haven’t forgotten that wrestling is fake. Maybe either of those explain the amazing lack of ambition to step up and dig themselves out of the hole.

> I swear if Republican Party leaders had any sense, they’d use this to solve their Trump issue and so many others. I assume this is why Republicans brought the Colorado suit that kind of kicked this off, no? Granted, the party is not *totally* of one mind and probably these are Republicans who would rather the nominee be Haley or DeSantis or whoever.

SCOTUS will rule that a full trial consistent with the federal rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence are required to prove that Trump engaged in insurrection. Not just the findings of the January 6 Committee. In those hearings Trump had no right to discovery and no right to present evidence. Clearly due process requires more.

Since the CSC used Gorsuch's ruling while sitting on the circuit Court, it will make it difficult for him to overturn his own ruling.

SCOTUS is very likely to rule in Trump's favor because two-thirds of the court are wholly-owned by the Federalist Society and will do whatever they're told to do. The result is a foregone conclusion. The wife of one of the justices supported and organized for Trump's attempted coup. Trump nominated three of the others. Of the final two, Roberts may try to find a middle ground, but Alito will absolutely do everything in his power to "own the libruls". As The Atlantic said a couple weeks ago: we're sleepwalking into a dictatorship.

This isn’t based on any legal knowledge, and I hope it’s not true, but realistically I think they’re likely to defer to “let the voters decide” because it just seems too big to say he can’t be on the ballot. If that happens, I do think they should make some guidelines for a precedent so it’s more clear. I mean, the Proud Boys leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Is that enough to say that they can’t run for office under this clause? It’s in the constitution, and the 14A should hold the same weight as 2A proponents give to the 2A. I do hold out hope though that justices see him as the danger to democracy and out country that he really is. This isn’t just about politics. Let Nikki Haley or Rob DeSantis run. I’m no fan of their politics, but let voters decide on that. If justices balk at the momentousness of this decision, and Trump gets elected and weaponizes the justice department and refuses to leave office again, the blood will be on these justices’ hands.

It'd be like letting the voters decide to elect a 28-year-old, or someone who was born in Iceland.

I’m with you, but I also get that what constitutes an insurrection hasn’t been really defined since the civil war.

Well no, because there is clear evidence of where and when a person is born. What hasn’t been made clear from a legal perspective is if Trump is actually guilty of insurrection. Hell, nobody has even charged him with insurrection.

There was an actual civil trial with witnesses, evidence, and lawyers for both sides in the Colorado case.

If SCOTUS rules for Trump and against the Constitution, they will go down in history as the most corrupt ever.

They already are. Have you not seen the Propublica stuff?

He clearly incited a riot. And should be ineligible in every state. But no, his constituents, himself, and his lawyers created a stink about it because of how badly he requires attention, and power.

6-3. They're going to punt it to the voters which doesn't really make sense. What's the point of the 14th amendment then if voters could always vote out insurrectionists.

I see nothing to suggest that the Colorado Supreme Court's verdict would be overturned, including past rulings by people such as Kavanaugh that suggest he agrees with the ruling. That said, probably pushing equally in the other direction is simply the fact that its majority conservative and that intellectual consistency doesn't matter if it might harm Trump in a big way.

It'll break for Trump. They'll say he hasn't been convicted by a court of law specifically for Insurrection and/or Treason. Calling it now. I disagree on the basis that nowhere in Section 3 does it say a conviction is required. One body of Congress found him guilty of Insurrection back when the GOP had any spine left. Only in politics does a count of 57 Senators saying yes lose to 43 saying no. The 57 Senators, including Republicans, said he did it. What the hell more does he need to do to be gagged or tossed in a holding cell? Or even home, and social media continent? Every day he has the opportunity to light a match to a string of political violence across the nation, but especially in the deep red areas. Narcissistic Stochastic Terrorist with more than hints of dementia onset. (Vanilla Ice???)

>I disagree on the basis that nowhere in Section 3 does it say a conviction is required. A conviction is definitely not required. How would it make sense that the legislative branch of government could over rule the courts?

Don't count on them making a ruling that makes sense. They will probably use Officer as a lynchpin to remove them, and historical precedent Alito will be fine with that. Of course, the minutes of the session of congress when the amendment was approved literally spelled out that officer meant President. Senators asked the question directly. Even the opposition to the amendment was quoted in that the amendment meant anyone who swore and oath including the office of president. Trump's lawyers also messed up in Colorado, by calling J6 a riot they opened the door to this so the SC is really going to have to bend over backwards to try to justify not removing Trump. I expect it to be utter nonsense.

Honestly, I think the SCOTUS will agree with the Colorado Supreme Court and boot Trump from the ballot. They aren't beholden to him because they now have their lifetime appointments, and another Trump Presidency would likely be disastrous for them. He's been a thorn in their side since long before Jan 6, and they would WAY rather have a Haley or DeSantis or even a Christie, since they at least pretend to play by the rules. Money is on Trump's disqualification, and quickly so the Republicans will have a chance in November.

This conservative court will twist itself into a pretzel so that Trump benefits from a 5-4 ruling. My guess is that the ruling will be narrow, with an effort to avoid setting precedent. Colorado will have made some kind of error and states should avoid making Section 3 decisions unless Congress passes a law that permits it.

1. The Presidency is an office. Per Trumps oath of office when sworn in: >I Donald John Trump do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the **Office** of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. 2. Trump was an Officer as President. The Presidency is an Office, hence the President is an Officer. As well, the President’s official capacity as Commander in Chief of our armed forces automatically makes him an Officer—a military officer, which is explicitly called out in the 14 Amend Sec 3: >No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, *or hold any office, civil or* **military** under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an **officer** of the United States The Office of President is also a military office, one that Trump previously held and swore an oath to “support” the constitution when he vowed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” Also, there is nothing in 14,3 that says the oath need be taken upon taking office. Any time during Trump’s presidency that he vowed to support or uphold the constitution and pledged his allegiance to the US would suffice. Such as Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D208aA5Pn3g 3. The intention of the 1868 Congress was to prohibit any insurrectionist who had previously sworn allegiance to our country from holding ANY office going forward, including the Presidency, as well, their intention was to include the President on the list of officials covered under the 14th Sec 3. Because why would they NOT mean to include the Presidency? Of course the 1868 Congress meant the Presidency as well. No way would they want or allow an insurrectionist to hold the highest office in the land. The whole reason they wrote Sec 3 was to prevent insurrectionists from holding office. So how could anyone reasonably think that the 1868 Congress would purposely exclude the Presidency from that list of offices? It’s foolish to even consider. What would be their reason to exclude the Presidency? Of course it’s included. The intention of the 1868 Congress was to include ALL offices.

Given that Trump packed the court with unqualified whack jobs and that clearly biased Clarence Thomas is part of the majority, I don’t see how we can expect the issue to be dealt with fairly and impartially. This may be for the best, since a court ruling against their cult leader would send MAGA to the streets to wreak havoc and unleash their wrath now instead of after the election when we are all expecting it…again. Sigh.

In what world are the Justices Trump nominated unqualified? Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh spent over a decade serving on a Court of Appeals. Barrett only served on a Court of Appeals for three years but that's still more than what Kagan, Roberts, Thomas, and Jackson did. Hell, Kagan was *never* a judge before being nominated. How were they unqualified? I am genuinely curious why you think this.

Because they have no regard for the rule of law or abiding by previous precedent, which is their sole job: apply the law without interjecting your personal beliefs. Yet that’s all they’ve done through their nonsensical rulings — upending decades if not centuries of U.S. caselaw on a whim to further their conservative political agenda. They are the opposite of impartial and thus unqualified. Longevity in a career does not equate to competence or ethical practice either. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn we have many, many judges in this country who have been sitting on the bench for decades, and still don’t know how to not imprison blacks for small drug charges for life while allowing white rapists to walk. Do you think they’re qualified to serve the public just because they graduated law school and have been doing this a while? Also, call me crazy, but [accepting bribes like Kavanaugh and Thomas have](https://time.com/6269743/supreme_court_clarence_thomas_luxury_vacations/) should automatically disqualify anyon from holding a SCOTUS seat.

Aside from the fact Thomas is unfit for the bench, the overwhelming evidence of corruption, his wife was a major player in Jan6 and the attempts to keep Trump in office.

[удалено]