Under Maine law, when I qualified Mr. Trump for the ballot, any registered voter had the right to challenge that qualification. Five voters did so, including two former Republican state senators. And then I was required under the statute, under the law, to hold a hearing and issue a decision, and do so within a very compressed timeline. So this wasn't something I initiated, but it's something that's required under Maine election law.
(Trump has appealed that ruling because of course he would. Bellows has put her ruling on hold while a Maine court reviews the case.)
I love me some rule of law, but I have a difficult time removing my disgust for SCOTUS (crooked, unqualified, and pathologically conservative), as well as the ire I feel for the former president (see my description above, but I could go on) to think clearly about this. I do not want to see him on the ballot. I’d prefer to see him sent jogging through the streets covered in tar and feathers, but that’s not much of an embrace of the rule of law, now, is it?
SCOTUS is presented with 7,000 cases every session, and that body agrees to hear (grants a writ of certiorari) just 150 or so of those. Please, baby Jesus, don’t let them punt, but there is a possibility that could happen. So: Will SCOTUS leave this to the voters to decide? Should SCOTUS do that? What do you think?
This from Professor Richardson's Substack today is not only revealing of the MAGA takeover but clearly shows how the deep divide seriously jeopardizes women's health. "The decision of the right-wing Fifth Circuit today illustrated what the Trump leadership of the MAGA party means for the majority of the country. Three Republican judges, two appointed by Trump, ruled that hospital emergency rooms don’t have to perform life-saving abortions in states that have passed antiabortion laws." Don't pin any hopes on the SCOTUS to rule for the common good and the preservation of the rule of law!
By refusing Jack Smith’s request to rule on Trump’s immunity the court managed to avoid that tough decision by painting themselves into a corner. The issue of insurrection is the linchpin here. Their decision regarding Colorado will endorse the idea that Trump is an insurrectionist or he isn’t. It will indicate whether they are jurists or they are cult members. A third choice, should they accept Trump’s feeble procedural arguments, would be cowards. I want to be optimistic but I’m not holding my breath.
I think they (the SC) should say, "Since states run elections, including local primaries to determine who can run for President on the state ballot [after all states are sending electors to choose a president on behalf of the state, technically, based on the votes of the state's populace] then states should determine who can be on their ballots. Maine, for example, seems to have a good system for determining who should and should not be on the ballot. Thus, the Court is disinclined to disrupt those local practices, even for a national election. We adjure, therefore, that states determine ballot decisions, including this one for the 2024 Presidential Election." Says this non-lawyer and anti-Trump advocate! Makes perfect sense to me, and it should to that paragon of "states rights," Nikki Haley!
I agree of course with your preferred outcome, but I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS majority can find room in the 14th to do whatever they want. The text disqualifies anyone who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" but does not define engagement, insurrection, or rebellion, nor does it say who or what entity would make that determination. Seems unlikely they would find without trial of evidence that this disqualifies Trump; but they could easily rule it does not apply becaue the action as not been determined legally, or just ignore it and let Trump hash it out state by state.
Thanks for the tar and feather image! He represents everything Democracy is not. If they’re going to hide with the Constitution for guns, they have to face the other Amendments as well.
I can't imagine those corrupt s.o.b.s deciding this. What are they going to say, that the 14th Amendment doesn't count anymore?
If that’s the case, let’s run Obama again. Let’s dig up Roosevelt, and run him.
Different amendment 😉 -- but I would happily vote to re-elect FDR or Obama (I sure miss that guy...).
Or Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Why. The hell. Not?
This from Professor Richardson's Substack today is not only revealing of the MAGA takeover but clearly shows how the deep divide seriously jeopardizes women's health. "The decision of the right-wing Fifth Circuit today illustrated what the Trump leadership of the MAGA party means for the majority of the country. Three Republican judges, two appointed by Trump, ruled that hospital emergency rooms don’t have to perform life-saving abortions in states that have passed antiabortion laws." Don't pin any hopes on the SCOTUS to rule for the common good and the preservation of the rule of law!
I haven’t hoped for much from them in a while, sadly.
$&@!?)$.
That’s all I have to say.
$&@$)($
Well, that too.
Eloquent response and I agree.
By refusing Jack Smith’s request to rule on Trump’s immunity the court managed to avoid that tough decision by painting themselves into a corner. The issue of insurrection is the linchpin here. Their decision regarding Colorado will endorse the idea that Trump is an insurrectionist or he isn’t. It will indicate whether they are jurists or they are cult members. A third choice, should they accept Trump’s feeble procedural arguments, would be cowards. I want to be optimistic but I’m not holding my breath.
I fear the cowardice option. Get some hair on you and make the hard decision. That's what the rest of us grownups have to do.
I think they (the SC) should say, "Since states run elections, including local primaries to determine who can run for President on the state ballot [after all states are sending electors to choose a president on behalf of the state, technically, based on the votes of the state's populace] then states should determine who can be on their ballots. Maine, for example, seems to have a good system for determining who should and should not be on the ballot. Thus, the Court is disinclined to disrupt those local practices, even for a national election. We adjure, therefore, that states determine ballot decisions, including this one for the 2024 Presidential Election." Says this non-lawyer and anti-Trump advocate! Makes perfect sense to me, and it should to that paragon of "states rights," Nikki Haley!
Well done.
I agree of course with your preferred outcome, but I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS majority can find room in the 14th to do whatever they want. The text disqualifies anyone who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" but does not define engagement, insurrection, or rebellion, nor does it say who or what entity would make that determination. Seems unlikely they would find without trial of evidence that this disqualifies Trump; but they could easily rule it does not apply becaue the action as not been determined legally, or just ignore it and let Trump hash it out state by state.
And without Trump's cases going through the courts, he hasn't been convicted...
Thanks for the tar and feather image! He represents everything Democracy is not. If they’re going to hide with the Constitution for guns, they have to face the other Amendments as well.
Interesting how the 2nd has become preeminent, isn't it?
A judge decrying ethics? This where the GOP has taken us to.