Heard on CNN the judges are getting threats now. Wonderbar.
If there’s one thing Trump supporters believe in, it’s democracy.
No, scratch that. If there’s one thing Trump supporters believe in it’s threatening judges to get your way.
Except that they don’t restrict their threats to just judges.
I’ve got $20 that says the answer is yes.
Very informative article, especially the relevant historical stuff.
Re this:
In taking up Trump’s appeal, the US supreme court cannot review the basic facts. It cannot call witnesses on its own. It cannot hear new witnesses. It cannot declare the Colorado court’s conclusions erroneous on the facts.
Is this actually true? I know that courts of appeal do not usually review findings of fact in lower courts. But is that technically true of the U.S. Supreme Court?
Not that I’m seriously suggesting that the way forward here is for the USSC to call witnesses and conduct a trial of Trump for insurrection, but I’m unsure what (if any) their theoretical constraints are.
The U.S. Supreme Court As Fact Finder? - Constitutional Law
Larson shows that some justices have used “in house” fact finding, beyond the crucible of the adversary process and cross examination, in 90 of 120 of the most important cases decided in the last 15 years.
More realistically, it seems to me that although their job shouldn’t be to act as the finder of fact, there job should certainly be to establish the procedure for fact-finding for the purposes of 14A disqualification. It hardly seems right that a lower Colorado court could be the fact-finder for a decision that is binding on all states; and even more ridiculous (even if consistent with the Constitution) that different states should do so independently and potentially come to contradictory findings of fact for a national election. If the SC decides that there should be some other procedure for establishing insurrection for 14A purposes, that seems like it inevitably ends up as a de facto potential change in the finding of fact that he is an insurrectionist.
Blumenthal is probably correct that the Supreme Court decision, in the Colorado case, will not be an A+ law student sort of job should they rule for Trump. But I don’t see how the way the Supreme Court writes up their justification, for any particular decision, creates a crisis of legitimacy.
Blumenthal Is too sure of things. Consider his take on Ted Cruz. I was personally convinced that Cruz is ineligible to be President due to being born in Canada. Maybe I, and my link, are wrong. But this wrongness isn’t so absolutely certain as Blumenthal says.
Most Americans probably sense, as I do, that the decision in the Colorado case was not the only one possible for a competent judge. That’s why there were dissenters.
I agree with everything you wrote. My response was to the first lines of the article, which weren’t included in the quote. To wit:
The court can only rescue Trump from the Colorado ruling by shredding originalism and textualism. Will it?
Worth repeating.
I agree with this completely. I understood Mijin the first time they posted in this thread, and I find it odd some are having trouble getting this.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court of my state of Michigan, which as a swing state would have had more impact on the election, rejected the ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and will keep trump on the ballot.
A rough analogy might be the Nov. ‘24 election itself. I fully support that the election take place, freely and fairly, exactly on time, and in full compliance with all relevant laws.
And I’m worried about the consequences.
(While fully acknowledging that the consequences of not complying with the law would be much, much worse).
It’s more a lament that this contradiction exists, rather than a “worry” with any possible actionable resolution.
The Michigan courts rejected the challenge on the grounds of state law, though. According to the courts, there are no laws in Michigan to enforce any sort of eligibility requirements for office. So that’s not a precedent for any state where there are such laws.
The Supreme Court has found that states can enforce eligibility requirements, but that just means that the Michigan legislature could, if they choose, pass such a law. It doesn’t require them to.
Yep, agreed, and thanks.
It’s true that with the election the absolute best case is the status quo. Plus I guess taking the House if we can dream.
Then on the other side we have not just losing the election, and the Senate, but all the violence, disinformation and tears in the fabric of democracy that we might see along the way. And I just mean the election itself…obviously “tears in the fabric of democracy” would be a hell of an understatement for a second Trump term.
I thought Michigan was specifically about the Primary - and not the General, which could be re-litigated if Trump wins the primary.
Or am I thinking of a different state?
Which case is that, please?
I saw it mentioned in another thread, but I don’t remember which one, unfortunately. Possible, of course, that I (or the post I read it in) am mistaken.
Was that from this ruling?
The case was Moore v. Harper.
trump also claims that his indictments will help him at the polls.
It’s not Colorado but the same case (basically) in a different state:
The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”