# SCOTUS hears the case on Trump's eligibility on February 8, 2024 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [February 6, 2024, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204 "2024-02-06T20:25:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/21 "2024-02-08T03:30:40Z")
> [@Ulysses](#): > > The justices who might presently sign on to a decision that the 14th Amendment applies only to assumption of office and not to ballot appearance would not necessarily be predisposed to the same outcome in a later decision on the substantive questions. FWIW, I’ve heard a number of legal experts (e.g., Barbara McWade) say that this is the weakest of Trump’s weak arguments, and SCOTUS will spend little time dismissing it. Even the most strict textualists don’t sign off on a “plain meaning” interpretation when a specific application leads to a cruel or absurd outcome, or so says the experts I’ve heard. I’d agree that a ruling that concludes, “Sure, you can be elected, but not so fast in expecting an invitation to the inauguration” clearly crosses the boundary into absurd-land. ---
**Author:** ![excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e8c25b/32.png) [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/excavating_for_a_mind)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/22 "2024-02-08T04:06:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The main argument I think would be used that whatever Trump did was too weak to qualify as **true** insurrection. What this would be saying is that the actions Trump took to overthrow the election are perfectly acceptable. To cross that line, you will have to do more. Bigger crowd. More weapons. Kill more people, perhaps a legislator or two. This is telling the next guy to try harder. Is that where anyone sees the SC going? ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/23 "2024-02-08T04:20:15Z")
They will find that the Presidency is not an “office of the United States” and therefore is not covered by the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/24 "2024-02-08T08:10:34Z")
“Harlan told me to” Or isn’t that considered a legal argument? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/25 "2024-02-08T11:14:01Z")
The Constitution does not bar Trump from running for president as a candidate is not an officer. ---
**Author:** ![Ulysses](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulysses/32/16083_2.png) [@Ulysses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulysses)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/26 "2024-02-08T12:31:04Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > FWIW, I’ve heard a number of legal experts (e.g., Barbara McWade) say that this is the weakest of Trump’s weak arguments, and SCOTUS will spend little time dismissing it. Even the most strict textualists don’t sign off on a “plain meaning” interpretation when a specific application leads to a cruel or absurd outcome, or so says the experts I’ve heard. > > I’d agree that a ruling that concludes, “Sure, you can be elected, but not so fast in expecting an invitation to the inauguration” clearly crosses the boundary into absurd-land. I actually agree as well. To clarify, I wasn’t arguing the merits but responding to the OP’s question as to how might the Court rule. The core canons of textual interpretation are apply the plain meaning and avoid absurd or unjust results. However, several Supreme Court justices have evinced a willingness to disregard those canons so as to reach desired outcomes. For example, see King v. Burwell, in which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented and sought to apply a hyper-literal textual interpretation that would have rendered entire sections of the ACA superfluous, rather than examine the broad structure and purpose of the law. Here, I could see Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch doing the same and potentially persuading Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh to go along with them. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/27 "2024-02-08T12:50:56Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > The Constitution does not bar Trump from running for president as a candidate is not an officer. Trump started the insurrection when he _was_ and officer. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/28 "2024-02-08T13:19:04Z")
Trump hasn’t been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty. Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/29 "2024-02-08T13:26:07Z")
Correct. Just because people want him to be accused of being an insurectionist doesn’t mean he will be. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/30 "2024-02-08T13:29:32Z")
> [@Ulysses](#): > > …absurd or unjust results. Aye, there’s the rub. ---
**Author:** ![Cardigan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardigan/32/187_2.png) [@Cardigan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardigan)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/31 "2024-02-08T13:32:11Z")
I’m guessing they’ll hang their hat on due process. Trump was never _convicted_ of engaging in insurrection. Sure there’s nothing in the Constitution to indicate a criminal conviction is needed, but the bottom line is there’s no way for the Supreme Court to disregard the 14th Amendment without looking stupid in the process. So since you ask what argument they’ll cite, this stupid one is as good as any other and would result in less chaos than leaving it up to the individual states to decide. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/32 "2024-02-08T13:39:15Z")
Didn’t read the whole thread, but worth remembering that – in an earlier role – Gorsuch already weighed in. I’ll be very interested in hearing from him today: > **[Colorado court used Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's ruling to justify...](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/colorado-court-used-supreme-court-justice-neil-gorsuchs-ruling-to-justify-disqualifying-trump/articleshow/106162198.cms)** > > The Colorado State Court said the state has the authority to disqualify Trump thanks in part to a ruling by now-Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/33 "2024-02-08T13:52:36Z")
Interesting. That ruling won’t prevent him from making up a myriad of other excuses for allowing Trump to be on the ballot, but it _should_ (operative word there) prevent him from saying that he can be on the ballot even if he is disqualified from actually serving. Maybe if the other justices use that argument he could write a minority concurrence agreeing with the decision but for a different reason. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/34 "2024-02-08T14:18:02Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Trump started the insurrection when he _was_ and officer. (IMHO he started his insurrection before 2016, but anyway…) To answer this, yes you are correct, but that does not negate my point, there is no legal disqualification from candidacy for insurrection while being an oath taking officer. As a candidate is not an officer. So again Trump can run, he just can’t get the prize. And since the candidates are really left up to the states, it’s not a SCOTUS issue but falls on each state and their laws. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/35 "2024-02-08T14:53:36Z")
The Supreme Court has acted before to protect the Political process and election. They took a lot of heat for the Gore ruling. It was done to prevent the election from ending up in Congress for a decision. Perhaps the Supreme Court will rule against Trump regardless of the political heat. Electing someone that isn’t eligible to hold office would be much worse than ruling they can’t run now. Gorsuch already made that ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/36 "2024-02-08T14:59:41Z")
> [@What argument will the Supreme Court use to keep Trump on the ballot (2/8/24)?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-argument-will-the-supreme-court-use-to-keep-trump-on-the-ballot-2-8-24/997272/26): > > Trump hasn’t been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty. > [@Cardigan](#): > > I’m guessing they’ll hang their hat on due process. I think this is the most likely tack. The “candidates aren’t officers” route leads to madness. The “the President isn’t an officer” is just stupid. But they can probably cobble something together that says that you can’t enforce the 14th without some form of due process that requires a court to affirm that the candidate violated the 14th. So then they need to explain why Colorado’s process wasn’t just. They may also put in a bit of “Congress should have passed enabling legislation defining the process for disqualification, but they didn’t so we have to error on the side of Democracy and allowing candidates to appear on the ballot”. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/37 "2024-02-08T14:59:41Z")
My vote is on them finding it a political question and leave it to Congress to decide through passage of a resolution declaring him ineligible. The key is that he needs to be (in)eligible in all states because the 14th Amendment applies across the country. Do you want a system when a few states decide that a candidate did not meet **their** definition of 14 year residency or being an NBC? ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/38 "2024-02-08T15:12:28Z")
could the court say trump is off the ballot unless congress votes otherwise? there is a portion that states congress can lift the ban. ah, mr mitchell is touching on this now. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/39 "2024-02-08T15:16:55Z")
Currently the argument is a Secretary of State cannot declare someone is ineligible as it is a FEDERAL office. Implies it is up to Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204/40 "2024-02-08T15:17:40Z")
“My colleagues generally”… That sounded like a dig. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-hears-the-case-on-trumps-eligibility-on-february-8-2024/997204.md?page=3)