I commented previously on the topic of Trump being disqualified from the ballot for his insurrectionist activities. (See link below)
Based on what I heard that day, the tone and nature of the questions, and the comments delivered by various legal experts since then, it is clear that SCOTUS will overrule the Colorado ruling (and negate Maine's decision as the Secretary of State of Maine has indicated she will follow the SCOTUS decision).
While this is not unexpected, I said as much in the post referenced above, I am extremely disappointed with the process I listened to last week. And, while I expected that certain conservative justices might be reluctant to entertain the disqualification of Trump, I am especially disheartened by the liberal judges who also appeared to have already made up their minds before oral arguments commenced.
What was particularly galling was the seriousness of the questions and answers surrounding the concept that the president (and vice president) were not officers of the United States, and that therefore the 14th amendment did not apply to Trump.
Now, I understand that at the time of the Civil War, when the 14th amendment was ratified, focus was on the Congress, and to a lesser extent, those electors who chose who would be on the party's presidential ticket. As I mentioned in my previous post, it was of paramount importance to prevent those who engaged in insurrection (in other words, the Civil War), from either serving in Congress or choosing those who would serve (at the time, Senators were not voted on by the electorate, but were chosen by state legislators) in Congress or in the White House.
But, and this is a BIG BUT, when pressed for why the amendment didn't mention the president or vice president, there is historical evidence that those positions were assumed in the words "or hold any office", and that the concept that an insurrectionist would be tolerated on a presidential ballot after such a horrific and devastating war was ridiculous. Certainly, anyone who actually thinks about it, would conclude that the creators of the 14th amendment would want to make sure that anyone who actively fought against America would be prevented from running our country, none more so than the two offices at the top of the pyramid.
So, while we don't know precisely why the offices were not specifically mentioned, I find it hard to believe that the advocates of the 14th Amendment would have been against an insurrectionist in Congress but not in the White House. Isn't that common sense, or am I missing something?
This is just another in a myriad of examples of Donald Trump finding loopholes in our Constitution and our other laws and norms, to excuse his aberrant behavior. He pushes the limits of the spirit of our laws with impudence, lies incessantly because we allow our politicians to do so, and uses intimidation to bully those who disagree without actually threatening violence.
And, at least in this case, the justices of the Supreme Court will most likely allow him to get away without accountability, again!
I at least hope that, when the ruling comes down, they at least acknowledge that an insurrectionist should be disqualified from running for president. Perhaps they might rule that only Congress can determine an insurrectionist, or that one must be convicted of such to be disqualified, thereby taking the task from the hands of individual states, and placing it in the hands of the judicial system or entire Congress.
Should they, however, rule that the 14th Amendment, article 3 does not apply to the presidency, I believe that will mark this court, Robert's court, as a failure by future historians, to preserve our constitution and our democracy.
Speaking of democracy, why wasn't Mitchell asked if his client acknowledges that he lost the 2020 election, since one of the other parts of the disqualification clauses of the constitution is that no one shall be elected to the presidency three times? They should have pushed the issue to counter Trump's claim that he won "in a landslide" in 2020, so that the American electorate can begin to discount that obsession, and so that, should he and his acolytes try to press for a third term if he wins in November, they will have it on record.
This also gets to the point of denying election results. To me, anyone who claims that they only honor an election when they win, should be disqualified as a candidate, for any office. Again, it is one of the foundations of our democracy, the peaceful transition of power between presidents, and another of the unspoken rules that Trump trampled upon after the 2020 election.
It is one thing to be a sore loser, to refuse to congratulate the victor when one loses, but another when you spend the next 3 years travelling around the country spreading lies about our country's elections. Lies that led to the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, lies that resulted in Fox Business paying Dominion Voting Machines almost three quarters of a billion (that's billion) dollars, lies that resulted in a libel decision against Rudy Giuliani for $148 million, lies that have convinced more than half of Republican voters that President Biden is illegitimate, enabling GOP reps in Congress to justify not working with him to solve our nation's problems.
It seems to me that SCOTUS completely missed that point, instead focusing on technical details, placing their ivory tower opinions over the reality of Trumps threat to democracy.
Finally, there was the point made by one of the justices, one which I made in the post I've mentioned already, that should Colorado's decision to remove Trump from their ballot, might that not cause other states to remove Biden from their ballots? A situation that might result in a handful of states determining the results of the 2024 presidential election.
Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but that is already the case in America, due to the electoral college. Just look at the last two elections. The results in five states decided the outcome, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Biden won those five states in 2024, Clinton lost them in 2020. All the other states, that's 45 out of 50, were won by the same party in each election and had literally no effect on the outcome of either of those elections.
So, in effect, the terrible possibility proffered as a reason not to allow Colorado remove Trump from the ballot, is the reality of our elections at this very moment. There is every reason to believe that whomever wins those 5 states this November, or four of the five, or perhaps even three of the five, if those three happen to be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia, will win the 2024 election. So much for worrying about disenfranchising voters!
If we assume that we don't want a handful of states to decide future presidential elections, perhaps we should be having a serious discussion about eliminating the electoral college?
Finally, there also seems to be an assumed reluctance for this court to take positions that would change the course of our country, that those kind of choices should be up to the legislative and executive branches. That a decision to remove Trump might possibly lead to strife in our streets even though that didn't seem to stop SCOTUS from removing a right for the first time in history. (The Dobbs decision).
Well, perhaps it is time for the court to show some balls, the female justices included. When the Warren Court overruled Plessy in the Brown vs Board of Education rulings, finding the sanctioned segregation of our public school systems as unconstitutional, all hell broke loose, to use a phrase. Federal troops had to be sent to multiple southern states to escort frightened African American children into desegregated schools, to the outrage of certain racist Americans. Talk about having balls!
Clearly, the Roberts Court will have whiffed on this one, if the consensus is correct as to how they will rule. Perhaps they will do better in the immunity case, should they agree to hear it. Should they fall short on that one as well, I expect that historians will have even more evidence of this court's failure to defend our democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment