In arguments Thursday, the justices will, for the first time, wrestle with a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from reclaiming power.

The case is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively delivered the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. It comes to a court that has been buffeted by criticism over ethics, which led the justices to adopt their first code of conduct in November, and at a time when public approval of the court is diminished, at near-record lows in surveys.

The dispute stems from the push by Republican and independent voters in Colorado to kick Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    This illegitimate “supreme” court is notoriously extreme-right and has a history of deciding in whatever way they think will benefit their political party. The opinions published by the conservative injustices do not need to be based in reality, and frequently are not.

    Conservatives are not able to engage in any deliberation in good faith as honesty and equity are not conservative traits.

    If this court believed they had the power to install a conservative into office, they would do it. I am confident they will not rule in a way that prevents Trump from being on any ballot.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      9 months ago

      They did. They unconstitutionally directed FL to use the existing counts instead of recounting districts in a uniform manner. Roger Stone and the rioters got what they wanted.

      Adults in 2000 should have done a massive protest, a general strike, something. Now here we are.

  • lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    9 months ago

    The 14th Amendment, Section 3, was written to prohibit anyone who participated on the losing side of the Civil War from holding office. None of those prohibited were convicted of insurrection. This is very much like the age requirement for the President. It’s a qualification - must not have committed insurrection or given comfort to those who did. You might argue that Trump himself did not directly participate, but he’s certainly given plenty of comfort to those who did, with promises of a Presidential pardon.

    As a qualification, it requires no judicial intervention unless challenged. Trump is free to challenge the grounds on which he is disqualified from the ballot, but being convicted for insurrection is not a requirement. These were things discussed during the ratification of the 14th, as was whether the amendment applied to the President (it does). I guess we’ll see just how principled the “originalist” conservative judges are.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m not expecting much from them, but when I played devil’s advocate with myself to find loopholes or excuses they might say he must remain, I can’t find one. I suppose the only loophole is if they say it wasn’t an insurrection, but everything else seems tighter than a drum.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago
      • it is up to Congress to rule that he did engage and since the second impeachment failed they did so already

      • The president isn’t an officer of the US

      • Being on the ballet is a state level issue and the states have no mechanism for removal as the constitution is written

      • It wasn’t insurrection it was a riot

      • He really isn’t on the ballet, the electors are

      See it is easy if the truth doesn’t matter.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        All of those things are wrong. They’ve been directly addressed and none of those arguments are winnable except maybe a definition of insurrection, but storming the Capitol violently qualifies by any laymen’s understanding of the word.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well, considering they’ve made rulings based on entirely fabricated evidence, I’m not very confident.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Cool so I am sure the Supreme Court cares that someone said that they were wrong and will do the right thing. Which is why a fetus has more rights than a woman does.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      They could just say “fuck you” and rule 7-3 in Trump’s favor. They don’t need to actually make arguments.

      The argumentation they do is mostly just propaganda to keep people from rioting about bad decisions.

    • Orbituary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      There are a few choices they have in my eyes.

      • A) he’s not an insurrectionist.
      • B) “it’s too close to an election”
      • C) the Constitution doesn’t matter
      • D) ???
      • E) Profit.

      I doubt they’ll do the right thing.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The one major issue I see with this whole endeavor is who gets to make that determination that there was an attempt at insurrection. Yeah, I get it, we all saw it happen in real time. We know he’s guilty.

      But this court may say “if some is suspected of being disqualified due to Amendment 14, someone should challenge and have a court decide”. And you know what will happen next. Some idiot Texas judge will declare that Biden and Harris are both leading an insurrection at the border. And Poof! Mike Johnson in now President.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        He’s off the ballot in CO because someone challenged and a court decided, and now the case has risen to the Supreme Court because an appeal was made. This is as judicial a process as possible.

        Now if the Supreme Court accepts a lower court’s ruling that Biden is ineligible, then it’s a constitutional crisis and people will need to decide who they believe is faithfully executing their duties.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The nice thing about the 14th Amendment is that nobody has to decide what insurrection is, because there is another option that was clearly breached on Jan 6th.

        shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        A court didn’t decide when the amendment was created and applied. It applied to people without trial. However I agree with the chaos such a ruling could create and it would probably be worse than having Trump on the ballot.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I hate holding out hope, too. If it helps I’m sure I’m wrong. They will find some excuse, and it will be horrible precedent.

        • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          On the plus side, then Biden could organize a mob to storm the court. And no coy subterfuge this time. Man up and get shit done right.

          /s of course

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Here is one: the constitution says nothing about being on the ballot. Only about serving.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Having someone on the ballot who is ineligible to serve has already been tried (before Gorsuch before he was on the SCOTUS) and it turns out if you can’t serve you can’t be on may be excluded from the ballot. This from following legal blogs so apologies if I don’t have that quite right.

        • Cuberoot@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Really? What about Nicaraguan-born Roger Calero who was the SWP nominee in 2004 (his VP candidate was a citizen by birth, but was only 28). Several states had the SWP run an eligible candidate instead, but at least 5 of them listed Calero/Hawkins.

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Back in 2012, Gorsuch was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In that capacity, he wrote the panel opinion in Hassan v. Colorado. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, sued Colorado, arguing it was required to put him on the presidential ballot even though he was not a natural-born citizen and was therefore not constitutionally qualified to run for president. The Tenth Circuit ruled against him, with Gorsuch writing that states have “a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” and that because of that, they can “exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” It’s that quote that makes its way into the Colorado Supreme Court opinion.

            I googled the situation and that’s what comes up. I’m not qualified to explain it any better.

            Edit: it appears my version was slightly wrong. It’s not that he can’t be on the ballot, it’s that there is no requirement that he be on the ballot if the state wants to exclude him based on ineligibility.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah the Bush v. Gore decision is such a flaming bag of shit, let’s compare this one to it, sure. Not tone-deaf at all.

    Perhaps the corporate news outlet is unaware of the subtext. Sure, that’s it.

  • brognak@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    Everyone else has the serious threads of conversation handled, I’m just here to ask if it was entirely necessary to say “quarter-center ago” about something that to a lot of people wasn’t THAT long ago. I was in highschool. Going to go oil my creaky joints now.

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s pretty easy to predict, he hasn’t been convicted of any of the crimes that would bar him from running.

    • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      And yet some courts (CO supreme court,for example) have decided that he committed them. The constitution says nothing at all about conviction. It doesn’t even say he needs to have been charged. It’s obvious that the clause has no meaning at all if the states can’t decide for themselves, using whatever process they wish, who qualifies as an insurrectionist.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        yeah and that ruling was immediately put on hold and now it’s at the supreme court, because of course that’s their jurisdiction for deciding on federal crimes. And then they’re gonna defer to the ongoing federal case that is specifically deciding whether or not he committed the crimes.

        Because frankly, otherwise we no longer have a democracy as state courts decide who gets to run for office with rulings that have no need to be substantiated, it’s not a court case with convictions or sentencing.

        • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          State courts and secretaries already decide who gets to run for president. That has always been our system.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The guys who this amendment was actually made for weren’t convicted either. Not every rule about wrongdoing in politics involves a criminal conviction.