I read where most jurists employ the “plain meaning” approach, meaning the words as written and understood by a reasonable person are what they are—with one exception. If a given application of the “plain meaning” leads to a cruel or absurd outcome, even the strictest textualists may hold their noses and conclude that the law clearly intended something, whether or not it explicitly states it.
I’d think that a ruling that a given candidate could run for president, win the election, but don’t expect an invitation to the inauguration falls cleanly in the “absurd” category.
If they prevail in that theory, that’d still be a big victory for the Republicans. If Trump were to run and win election, but then be declared ineligible to actually be the President, the result wouldn’t be a Democrat in the White House. It’d be Trump’s running mate in the White House. The Republicans would still get to run on the Trump brand that appeals to their base, would still get Republican president (and one easier for the moneyed interests to manage), and would have a big pile of fuel for their outrage machine.
I agree that it is highly unlikely that they would come up with such a response, but I could imagine the following (still probably unlikely) scenario. Roberts, thinking about his legacy is trying (and mostly failing) to tamp down the impression that his court is a influenced by partisan politics. The last thing he wants is for them to be in the position of deciding who gets to be president. So they might grab onto this line of reasoning to agree that under this reading of the amendment, he can be on the ballot whether or not he was and insurrectionist so he gets on the ballot and the election goes forward. As to the real question of whether Trump can hold office, that isn’t an actual issue until he has won, and so no one has standing. Then Roberts sits back and crosses his fingers in hopes of a Biden victory so that the whole question becomes moot.
But could you imagine Trump’s reaction to this? He’s spent three years now whining about being denied the presidency based on an election he lost; imagine what he’d do to protest being denied the presidency based on an election he actually won.
The problem with that is, in unprecedented times, he’s going to have a legacy no matter what he does. All he can really influence is what kind of legacy that is.
Even if he kicks the can down the road in the manner you suggest, all he’s really done is leave the mess for the next Supreme Court to clean up. At some point, we’ll have a non-eligible candidate running again, based on the precedent Roberts set, and then have that person win, and the Court of that day will have to make another choice. And they’ll curse Roberts’ name the whole time they’re watching that juggernaut bearing down on them.
It would basically set the stage for a violent civil unrest throughout the country, with the most violent faction being declared the winner. Or whoever gets control over the military. I hope the SC does not want to go full banana republic.
If the Republican ticket were to win (in a given state) with a candidate who is clearly ineligible to hold office, the electors would essentially be free to cast their votes for whosoeverthefuck they want to. That would be interesting.
Reminds me of the case where the cops were accused of violating the Miranda rights of a suspect by ignoring his requests for a lawyer. What he said to the cop was “I want a lawyer, dawg”.
The cop claims he asked for a lawyer dog, not a lawyer.
The Louisiana Supreme Court sided with the cop. The mind boggles.
