Maine's Secretary of State has barred Trump from the primary ballot
December 29, 2023 3:06 PM Subscribe
Maine has now joined Colorado in finding Trump ineligible for primary ballot. (NY Times article, Internet Archive link.) Maine's Secretary of State Shenna Bellows speaks to CBS News about her decision. Maine becomes the second state to bar Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
It seems like such an obviously correct conclusion that I genuinely can't believe the U.S. Supreme Court will allow it to stand.
On the one hand, disqualifying Trump from the ballot would be the proper course of action if the supermajority are indeed the strict constructionists they pretend to be (clearly it was an insurrection; clearly the President is an officer of the U.S. government vs. spoiler: strict constructionism is actually just a philosophical figleaf used to support whatever decision favors cishet white supremacy). And allowing Maine's and Colorado's decision to stand would even be the correct course of action if the Supreme Court truly does believe in states' rights as much as they claim to (again: no, q.v. cishet white supremacy) or if the Supreme Court wants to preserve their own authority (last time was clown-car fascism; this time it'll be revenge against the DOJ and its courts and "dictator from day one").
But then, on the other hand, striking this down would stick it to the Democrats and serve in furtherance of cishet white supremacy, and would also avoid the ever-present threat of political violence from MAGAts....
I'm fully expecting them to strike it down on the theory that Trump might be a fascist but he's their kind of fascist. (He's not; he has no loyalty to anyone except himself.) I really, really hope I'm wrong. The U.S. can't survive another four years of him. The U.S. might not even survive another four years without him, given the preponderance of guns in the U.S.
Best money Putin ever spent, putting that fucker in office....
posted by johnofjack at 3:28 PM on December 29, 2023 [27 favorites]
On the one hand, disqualifying Trump from the ballot would be the proper course of action if the supermajority are indeed the strict constructionists they pretend to be (clearly it was an insurrection; clearly the President is an officer of the U.S. government vs. spoiler: strict constructionism is actually just a philosophical figleaf used to support whatever decision favors cishet white supremacy). And allowing Maine's and Colorado's decision to stand would even be the correct course of action if the Supreme Court truly does believe in states' rights as much as they claim to (again: no, q.v. cishet white supremacy) or if the Supreme Court wants to preserve their own authority (last time was clown-car fascism; this time it'll be revenge against the DOJ and its courts and "dictator from day one").
But then, on the other hand, striking this down would stick it to the Democrats and serve in furtherance of cishet white supremacy, and would also avoid the ever-present threat of political violence from MAGAts....
I'm fully expecting them to strike it down on the theory that Trump might be a fascist but he's their kind of fascist. (He's not; he has no loyalty to anyone except himself.) I really, really hope I'm wrong. The U.S. can't survive another four years of him. The U.S. might not even survive another four years without him, given the preponderance of guns in the U.S.
Best money Putin ever spent, putting that fucker in office....
posted by johnofjack at 3:28 PM on December 29, 2023 [27 favorites]
Some of the legal background for disqualifying Trump traces back to two conservative law profs, including former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts, William Baude:
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 3:29 PM on December 29, 2023 [18 favorites]
Efforts to rely on Section 3 to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 gained momentum after the release in August of an upcoming article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review by two conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen.Disqualifying Trump isn't a radical leftist idea, it has conservative bonafides.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 3:29 PM on December 29, 2023 [18 favorites]
I, an extremely angry leftist, want the Supreme Court to rule against these moves. Why? Because if these stand, every R-controlled state will take Biden off the ballot for insane made-up reasons, and that'll be that: the end of federal democracy.
posted by riotnrrd at 3:31 PM on December 29, 2023 [26 favorites]
posted by riotnrrd at 3:31 PM on December 29, 2023 [26 favorites]
It seems like such an obviously correct conclusion that I genuinely can't believe the U.S. Supreme Court will allow it to stand.
Even if you do believe that the conservative Supremes are purely partisan hacks (which I do not), it's not a sure thing that they'll rule in favor of Trump. The Colorado case was brought by Republicans---in fact, it was brought by members of the Federalist Society, who are essentially responsible for the conservative takeover of the Court to begin with. The "respectable" Republicans have at best a purely transactional relationship with Trump, and they may feel that he's outlived his usefulness.
To speculate: a lot has been made of the possibility that, if Trump is elected, he and his cronies will come prepared this time (see Project 2025). If successful, this would allow Trump to wield personal power in a way that he couldn't before. The conservative establishment wouldn't necessarily benefit from this. Trump was useful precisely because he depended so much on the conservative establishment; if he stopped depending on them, things could get dicey. He's certainly not a "true conservative" in the same way they are. They might be just as scared of that possibility as we are.
posted by nosewings at 3:36 PM on December 29, 2023 [15 favorites]
Even if you do believe that the conservative Supremes are purely partisan hacks (which I do not), it's not a sure thing that they'll rule in favor of Trump. The Colorado case was brought by Republicans---in fact, it was brought by members of the Federalist Society, who are essentially responsible for the conservative takeover of the Court to begin with. The "respectable" Republicans have at best a purely transactional relationship with Trump, and they may feel that he's outlived his usefulness.
To speculate: a lot has been made of the possibility that, if Trump is elected, he and his cronies will come prepared this time (see Project 2025). If successful, this would allow Trump to wield personal power in a way that he couldn't before. The conservative establishment wouldn't necessarily benefit from this. Trump was useful precisely because he depended so much on the conservative establishment; if he stopped depending on them, things could get dicey. He's certainly not a "true conservative" in the same way they are. They might be just as scared of that possibility as we are.
posted by nosewings at 3:36 PM on December 29, 2023 [15 favorites]
How many states will need to make TFG ineligible for the primary ballot to make it impossible for him to become the Republican nominee?
posted by orange swan at 3:46 PM on December 29, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by orange swan at 3:46 PM on December 29, 2023 [5 favorites]
It is a really difficult situation. And it doesn't make it easier that Ginny Thomas is an insurrectionist.
Still, I agree with nosewings that it is not a given that the Supreme Court will aid Trump in his attempt to overthrow US democracy. If they do it, it will more likely be by stalling the decision until after the election than by making a postive decision for Trump. Which would be cowardly, but none of the majority seem particularly brave.
Obviously, there is a huge pressure from all sides on them to make a decision soon, but hey, they can't be fired. The whole world can scream and shout, but they can just shrug and go on a yacht with some billionaire.
posted by mumimor at 3:47 PM on December 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
Still, I agree with nosewings that it is not a given that the Supreme Court will aid Trump in his attempt to overthrow US democracy. If they do it, it will more likely be by stalling the decision until after the election than by making a postive decision for Trump. Which would be cowardly, but none of the majority seem particularly brave.
Obviously, there is a huge pressure from all sides on them to make a decision soon, but hey, they can't be fired. The whole world can scream and shout, but they can just shrug and go on a yacht with some billionaire.
posted by mumimor at 3:47 PM on December 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
I, an extremely angry leftist, want the Supreme Court to rule against these moves. Why? Because if these stand, every R-controlled state will take Biden off the ballot for insane made-up reasons, and that'll be that: the end of federal democracy
You should be more worried about letting the guy who already tried to end federal democracy regain control.
Your worry that "If try to legitimately enforce the Constitution, our political opponents will respond with illegitimate maneuvers" is a reason to never enforce the Constitution, to bow down to bad-faith actors in perpetuity.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 3:50 PM on December 29, 2023 [141 favorites]
You should be more worried about letting the guy who already tried to end federal democracy regain control.
Your worry that "If try to legitimately enforce the Constitution, our political opponents will respond with illegitimate maneuvers" is a reason to never enforce the Constitution, to bow down to bad-faith actors in perpetuity.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 3:50 PM on December 29, 2023 [141 favorites]
I, an extremely angry leftist, want the Supreme Court to rule against these moves. Why? Because if these stand, every R-controlled state will take Biden off the ballot for insane made-up reasons, and that'll be that: the end of federal democracy.
What's stopping them now? this kind of thinking "we'd better not enforce the law, they might revenge" never works against the powerful and the corrupt. they will do the maximum of what they will do at any time, without provocation.
We are either a nation of laws or not.
Did TFG fit the following description of article 14, section3 : ".. shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same"?
If so, disqualify the fucker.
posted by lalochezia at 3:52 PM on December 29, 2023 [95 favorites]
While I agree that the Supreme Court is unlikely to fully back Trump, I also suspect that they are going to want to try and shut down this as a point of controversy (including the possibility of tit-for-tat blue/red states pulling the other's candidate off the ballot). So I'm expecting some kind of narrow ruling that one way or another says that the 14th applies to Civil War-level insurrectionists only, or that this is a decision to be made by the House of Reps, rather than an anything-goes decision to be made at the state level.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:52 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 3:52 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
On one hand, it is good to see Americans take a stand against allowing an avowed Fascist run for office.
On the other, Maine and Colorado are not really swing states that could even marginally support Fascism in a general election (even with gee-shucks Fascists like Boebart and Collins). The lack of support from Michigan, say, is a clear signifier of a larger problem for democracy in the United States.
This is even more so the case when all you have to do to buy off the Supreme Court is jingle keys to an RV in front of a judge.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:56 PM on December 29, 2023 [8 favorites]
On the other, Maine and Colorado are not really swing states that could even marginally support Fascism in a general election (even with gee-shucks Fascists like Boebart and Collins). The lack of support from Michigan, say, is a clear signifier of a larger problem for democracy in the United States.
This is even more so the case when all you have to do to buy off the Supreme Court is jingle keys to an RV in front of a judge.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:56 PM on December 29, 2023 [8 favorites]
It sucks that the only description of the what SCOTUS will do is I-mean-we-ARE-a-nation-of-laws-but-like-maybe-not-this-one-right-now-it-would-really-suck-to-have-the-country-fragment-and-then-we-wouldn't-get-cool-vacations-and-stuff-and-our-friends-money-would-be-worth-less
Or is that just oligarchy, where the rules are there but only sometimes and once they have full control the fig leaf isn't really required.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:57 PM on December 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
Or is that just oligarchy, where the rules are there but only sometimes and once they have full control the fig leaf isn't really required.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:57 PM on December 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
Because if these stand, every R-controlled state will take Biden off the ballot for insane made-up reasons, and that'll be that: the end of federal democracy.
That part is quite simple. In spite of what the insurrectionists in Congress say, one guy was part of an insurrection and the other wasn't. There has already been enough decisions made over large parts of the nation, and also by conservative judges, that frivolous claims have a very short life in court.
The reason this is difficult is that it is not frivolous, it is absolutely fact-based. Sienna Bellows was really good at explaining it. I haven't read their decision yet, but it seems well-thought and structured.
posted by mumimor at 3:59 PM on December 29, 2023 [13 favorites]
That part is quite simple. In spite of what the insurrectionists in Congress say, one guy was part of an insurrection and the other wasn't. There has already been enough decisions made over large parts of the nation, and also by conservative judges, that frivolous claims have a very short life in court.
The reason this is difficult is that it is not frivolous, it is absolutely fact-based. Sienna Bellows was really good at explaining it. I haven't read their decision yet, but it seems well-thought and structured.
posted by mumimor at 3:59 PM on December 29, 2023 [13 favorites]
The lack of support from Michigan, say, is a clear signifier of a larger problem for democracy in the United States
My understanding is that Michigan and Minnesota have said they won't keep Trump off the primary ballot, but that his qualification for the general is an open question.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 4:00 PM on December 29, 2023 [9 favorites]
My understanding is that Michigan and Minnesota have said they won't keep Trump off the primary ballot, but that his qualification for the general is an open question.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 4:00 PM on December 29, 2023 [9 favorites]
While I'm grateful for Internet Archive links, this one goes to an early capture of the story, which has since been updated with more details. Here's a more recent capture, and the actual NYTimes link for those who can read it.
Even in the updated story, I didn't find the details I really wanted on what standard of evidence the Maine SoS used to rule that Trump had engaged in insurrection. We all know he did it, but in the absence of a conviction, what's the bright line that keeps other states from taking Biden off their ballots for (as riotnrrd says) made-up reasons?
The Supreme Court overturning this isn't the outcome I want, but it wouldn't be as bad as a ruling that states can run their elections however they please. After seeing the result in Moore v. Harper, I don't think the Court will plunge us into that nightmare, but I'm not as sure of that as I wish I were.
posted by aws17576 at 4:21 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
Even in the updated story, I didn't find the details I really wanted on what standard of evidence the Maine SoS used to rule that Trump had engaged in insurrection. We all know he did it, but in the absence of a conviction, what's the bright line that keeps other states from taking Biden off their ballots for (as riotnrrd says) made-up reasons?
The Supreme Court overturning this isn't the outcome I want, but it wouldn't be as bad as a ruling that states can run their elections however they please. After seeing the result in Moore v. Harper, I don't think the Court will plunge us into that nightmare, but I'm not as sure of that as I wish I were.
posted by aws17576 at 4:21 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
Even in the updated story, I didn't find the details I really wanted on what standard of evidence the Maine SoS used to rule that Trump had engaged in insurrection. We all know he did it, but in the absence of a conviction, what's the bright line that keeps other states from taking Biden off their ballots for (as riotnrrd says) made-up reasons?
If you haven't yet, see the Shenna Bellows clip posted in the FPP. Anyway, she and her office argue that there is clear evidence that Trump premeditated to rouse protesters long before Jan 6th, that he further encouraged them on that day, and that he failed to take any measures to stop them. All things that are objectively true and proven during the congressional Jan 6th indictment. Remember McConnell did not claim Trump was innocent, just that the courts should take care of it, rather than congress.
Bellows also has a part about how POTUS is obviously an officer.
posted by mumimor at 4:33 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
If you haven't yet, see the Shenna Bellows clip posted in the FPP. Anyway, she and her office argue that there is clear evidence that Trump premeditated to rouse protesters long before Jan 6th, that he further encouraged them on that day, and that he failed to take any measures to stop them. All things that are objectively true and proven during the congressional Jan 6th indictment. Remember McConnell did not claim Trump was innocent, just that the courts should take care of it, rather than congress.
Bellows also has a part about how POTUS is obviously an officer.
posted by mumimor at 4:33 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
I think there will be a decision quickly and I don't think it will have anything to do with Trump. The states are claiming their right to interpret the Federal Constitution and I'm 99% sure the Supreme Court will have none of that.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:47 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:47 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
18 USC 2383 is the (1994) federal law defining insurrection and punishments allowed.
posted by BWA at 4:50 PM on December 29, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by BWA at 4:50 PM on December 29, 2023 [3 favorites]
I think there will be a decision quickly and I don't think it will have anything to do with Trump. The states are claiming their right to interpret the Federal Constitution and I'm 99% sure the Supreme Court will have none of that.
This is exactly how it will land. I also think SCOTUS is waiting to see how the Georgia state trial pans-out. They may well be waiting to see if Trump is found guilty there, at which point they could then consider him to have committed insurrection. They’re in need of tried-in-a-court-of-law proof, not simply opinion.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:58 PM on December 29, 2023
This is exactly how it will land. I also think SCOTUS is waiting to see how the Georgia state trial pans-out. They may well be waiting to see if Trump is found guilty there, at which point they could then consider him to have committed insurrection. They’re in need of tried-in-a-court-of-law proof, not simply opinion.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:58 PM on December 29, 2023
34-page SOS decision.
Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions (Maine.gov link) [The Secretary of State’s Office received three challenges to the nomination of Mr. Trump... A consolidated hearing was held at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 15 in Augusta. The hearing was livestreamed to the Department’s YouTube and is still available to view online.]
As detailed in the decision, Secretary Bellows concluded that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid. Specifically, the Secretary ruled that the declaration on his candidate consent form is false because he is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the decision, Secretary Bellows said,
“I conclude… that the record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power. I likewise conclude that Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it.
“Mr. Trump’s occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions. A brief call to obey the law does not erase conduct over the course of months, culminating in his speech on the Ellipse. The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match.” [...]
Secretary Bellows concludes the decision saying:
“I do not reach this conclusion lightly. Democracy is sacred… I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws, when presented with a Section 336 challenge, is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek.
“The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic. They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act in response.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:04 PM on December 29, 2023 [18 favorites]
Maine Secretary of State Decision in Challenge to Trump Presidential Primary Petitions (Maine.gov link) [The Secretary of State’s Office received three challenges to the nomination of Mr. Trump... A consolidated hearing was held at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 15 in Augusta. The hearing was livestreamed to the Department’s YouTube and is still available to view online.]
As detailed in the decision, Secretary Bellows concluded that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid. Specifically, the Secretary ruled that the declaration on his candidate consent form is false because he is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the decision, Secretary Bellows said,
“I conclude… that the record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power. I likewise conclude that Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it.
“Mr. Trump’s occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions. A brief call to obey the law does not erase conduct over the course of months, culminating in his speech on the Ellipse. The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match.” [...]
Secretary Bellows concludes the decision saying:
“I do not reach this conclusion lightly. Democracy is sacred… I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws, when presented with a Section 336 challenge, is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek.
“The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic. They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act in response.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:04 PM on December 29, 2023 [18 favorites]
On the one hand, disqualifying Trump from the ballot would be the proper course of action if the supermajority are indeed the strict constructionists they pretend to be (clearly it was an insurrection; clearly the President is an officer of the U.S. government vs. spoiler: strict constructionism is actually just a philosophical figleaf used to support whatever decision favors cishet white supremacy)
Not exactly.
So what I expect SCOTUS to find, if they're being ethical is that:
1) It is constitutionally permissable to keep insurrectionists who violate their oath off of the ballot under the 14th amendment.
2) As currently applied, the definition of insurrectionist is overbroad, particularly when being applied to people who have not been convicted of insurrection. This is partially because post-Civil-War statutes, in the wake of an extremely contentious war, was just chock-full of "we fucking know it when we see it" law, which is...not really good for application. Statutes need to be clear enough that people can expect consistency under the law.
I thus expect SCOTUS to say that while states *can* keep people off the Presidential ballots as a result of 14th amendment violations, that they will need to create clear guidance for how this will be intepreted. (Possibly kicking it to the legislatures to create such guidance). They will then argue that in the absence of such guidance, all people not convicted of insurrection or treason must be permitted to stand on the ballot.
Do I think that Trump participated in insurrection? Absolutely. But also, I don't want other potential candidates to be disqualified for participating in mass, say, BLM protests. What precisely constitutes a violent rebellion against government is, short guidance, in the eye of the beholder, and I think it's absolutely possible this could be used against any protest that turned violent in the same way that, for example, current protesters are having domestic terrorism charges levied against them for resisting cop complexes being built.
posted by corb at 5:31 PM on December 29, 2023 [29 favorites]
Not exactly.
So what I expect SCOTUS to find, if they're being ethical is that:
1) It is constitutionally permissable to keep insurrectionists who violate their oath off of the ballot under the 14th amendment.
2) As currently applied, the definition of insurrectionist is overbroad, particularly when being applied to people who have not been convicted of insurrection. This is partially because post-Civil-War statutes, in the wake of an extremely contentious war, was just chock-full of "we fucking know it when we see it" law, which is...not really good for application. Statutes need to be clear enough that people can expect consistency under the law.
I thus expect SCOTUS to say that while states *can* keep people off the Presidential ballots as a result of 14th amendment violations, that they will need to create clear guidance for how this will be intepreted. (Possibly kicking it to the legislatures to create such guidance). They will then argue that in the absence of such guidance, all people not convicted of insurrection or treason must be permitted to stand on the ballot.
Do I think that Trump participated in insurrection? Absolutely. But also, I don't want other potential candidates to be disqualified for participating in mass, say, BLM protests. What precisely constitutes a violent rebellion against government is, short guidance, in the eye of the beholder, and I think it's absolutely possible this could be used against any protest that turned violent in the same way that, for example, current protesters are having domestic terrorism charges levied against them for resisting cop complexes being built.
posted by corb at 5:31 PM on December 29, 2023 [29 favorites]
I, an extremely angry leftist, want the Supreme Court to rule against these moves. Why? Because if these stand, every R-controlled state will take Biden off the ballot for insane made-up reasons, and that'll be that: the end of federal democracy
This is where I'm afraid this will end up as well.
Time and time again we've seen the GOP retaliate against any attempt to hold them accountable by turning that same punishment into a cudgel against their opponents, no matter if its appropriate or not. This is going to be the impeachment of Joe Biden but happening in every heavily conservative state.
And you know the NYT is going to report on these attempts to accuse Democrats of insurrection for the crime of disagreeing with Donald Trump as though its a totally valid point of view and just the other side of the coin.
posted by thecjm at 5:51 PM on December 29, 2023 [5 favorites]
This is where I'm afraid this will end up as well.
Time and time again we've seen the GOP retaliate against any attempt to hold them accountable by turning that same punishment into a cudgel against their opponents, no matter if its appropriate or not. This is going to be the impeachment of Joe Biden but happening in every heavily conservative state.
And you know the NYT is going to report on these attempts to accuse Democrats of insurrection for the crime of disagreeing with Donald Trump as though its a totally valid point of view and just the other side of the coin.
posted by thecjm at 5:51 PM on December 29, 2023 [5 favorites]
They may well be waiting to see if Trump is found guilty there, at which point they could then consider him to have committed insurrection.
How was the 14th Amendment used in the 19th century? There wasn't a Civil War equivalent of the Nuremburg Trials. You didn't need a conviction to be declared an insurrectionist - you just had to have participated in active rebellion against the republic or gave aid or comfort to insurrectionists. Did they hold trials against every southern Democrat who held federal office only to quit and join the Confederacy? No. So why is the expectation now that Trump has to be found guilty before the amendment applies to him?
posted by thecjm at 5:57 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
How was the 14th Amendment used in the 19th century? There wasn't a Civil War equivalent of the Nuremburg Trials. You didn't need a conviction to be declared an insurrectionist - you just had to have participated in active rebellion against the republic or gave aid or comfort to insurrectionists. Did they hold trials against every southern Democrat who held federal office only to quit and join the Confederacy? No. So why is the expectation now that Trump has to be found guilty before the amendment applies to him?
posted by thecjm at 5:57 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
> So why is the expectation now that Trump has to be found guilty before the amendment applies to him?
Perhaps because the standards of jurisprudence that guide the choice and application of precedent have evolved since then, and it is no longer considered legitimate to find someone to be an insurrectionist without trial.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:02 PM on December 29, 2023 [5 favorites]
Perhaps because the standards of jurisprudence that guide the choice and application of precedent have evolved since then, and it is no longer considered legitimate to find someone to be an insurrectionist without trial.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:02 PM on December 29, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't want other potential candidates to be disqualified for participating in mass, say, BLM protests.
Again, not enforcing the Constitution because you're worried about bad-faith responses: (a) ignores the greater worry of Trump regaining power; (b) cedes all power to the disingenuous.
It's fine for SCOTUS to offer guidance on interpreting a vague phrase like "engage in insurrection". But it's clear the 14th amend. did not require conviction for disqualification - Section 3 doesn't say so, and scores of 19th century Oath-breakers were disqualified who weren't convicted. So that's just out. Now maybe consider how the CO Supremes and Maine SoS interpreted Section 3 and drew lines concerning its application, relying on contemporary and historical context. Where's the flaw?
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 6:12 PM on December 29, 2023 [14 favorites]
Again, not enforcing the Constitution because you're worried about bad-faith responses: (a) ignores the greater worry of Trump regaining power; (b) cedes all power to the disingenuous.
It's fine for SCOTUS to offer guidance on interpreting a vague phrase like "engage in insurrection". But it's clear the 14th amend. did not require conviction for disqualification - Section 3 doesn't say so, and scores of 19th century Oath-breakers were disqualified who weren't convicted. So that's just out. Now maybe consider how the CO Supremes and Maine SoS interpreted Section 3 and drew lines concerning its application, relying on contemporary and historical context. Where's the flaw?
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 6:12 PM on December 29, 2023 [14 favorites]
Remember that CO held an actual trial and found that Trump engaged in insurrection, the appeals court agreed (but disagreed on whether he was an 'officer' of the US, that's the part that the CO Supreme court overturned).
Maine on the other hand has not held a trial (their Sec of State said that she didn't need that).
Anyone got any idea whether or not CO state precedent (the finding of having engaged in insurrection) can be carried over into other states?
posted by mbo at 6:19 PM on December 29, 2023 [3 favorites]
Maine on the other hand has not held a trial (their Sec of State said that she didn't need that).
Anyone got any idea whether or not CO state precedent (the finding of having engaged in insurrection) can be carried over into other states?
posted by mbo at 6:19 PM on December 29, 2023 [3 favorites]
it is no longer considered legitimate to find someone to be an insurrectionist without trial
The CO Supreme Court had a hearing, it lasted a full week where they considered evidence from both sides. 7 state supreme court justices deliberated and found Trump's actions fit-the-bill for the plain meaning of "engaged in insurrection". Why isn't that legitimate again?
Trump's not being deprived of life, liberty, or property, he's not entitled to a trial. He's only being disqualified from appearing on a ballot, like tens of millions of other Americans who're also disqualified but not entitled to a trial, even if they vehemently disagree.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 6:23 PM on December 29, 2023 [26 favorites]
The CO Supreme Court had a hearing, it lasted a full week where they considered evidence from both sides. 7 state supreme court justices deliberated and found Trump's actions fit-the-bill for the plain meaning of "engaged in insurrection". Why isn't that legitimate again?
Trump's not being deprived of life, liberty, or property, he's not entitled to a trial. He's only being disqualified from appearing on a ballot, like tens of millions of other Americans who're also disqualified but not entitled to a trial, even if they vehemently disagree.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 6:23 PM on December 29, 2023 [26 favorites]
let justice be done though the heavens fall
posted by glonous keming at 6:28 PM on December 29, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 6:28 PM on December 29, 2023 [12 favorites]
As goes Maine so goes the nation…
posted by interogative mood at 6:33 PM on December 29, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 6:33 PM on December 29, 2023 [3 favorites]
Whenever you find yourself saying "but if we do x, Republicans will do the same thing but for illegitimate reasons," take a moment to remember that Republicans will do x even if we don't do it. Once they have thought of a terrible thing they could do, they're gonna do it, whether or not somebody else does the legitimate version of it first.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 6:34 PM on December 29, 2023 [74 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 6:34 PM on December 29, 2023 [74 favorites]
The federal lawsuit that's likely to be filed over this will be fascinating. This may be the very rare case where the Supreme Court takes original jurisdiction over a trial matter. The last trial the Court held was, to my knowledge, in 1962.
posted by 1adam12 at 6:35 PM on December 29, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 6:35 PM on December 29, 2023 [3 favorites]
So why is the expectation now that Trump has to be found guilty before the amendment applies to him?
it's a political expectation from many of his supporters - that he actually be tried and found guilty of something before he's banned from the ballot
this is going to be an utter clusterfuck if this goes through - the legitimacy of our system will be at stake - and perhaps it isn't legitimate, but people need to look very carefully at what could happen here
there are those who say that the supreme court has an all or nothing choice here - if he's not eligible in one state, he's not eligible in ANY - and declining to hear the case is no longer an option
the real problem is that trump never does what's good for the country, just himself - nixon had the grace to leave for the good of the country - trump doesn't
he'd rather be "right" in a bitterly divided country than accept a loss - he'd rather be the president of a dumpster fire than a private citizen in a funcitoning country
sow the wind, reap the whirlwind
posted by pyramid termite at 7:45 PM on December 29, 2023 [6 favorites]
it's a political expectation from many of his supporters - that he actually be tried and found guilty of something before he's banned from the ballot
this is going to be an utter clusterfuck if this goes through - the legitimacy of our system will be at stake - and perhaps it isn't legitimate, but people need to look very carefully at what could happen here
there are those who say that the supreme court has an all or nothing choice here - if he's not eligible in one state, he's not eligible in ANY - and declining to hear the case is no longer an option
the real problem is that trump never does what's good for the country, just himself - nixon had the grace to leave for the good of the country - trump doesn't
he'd rather be "right" in a bitterly divided country than accept a loss - he'd rather be the president of a dumpster fire than a private citizen in a funcitoning country
sow the wind, reap the whirlwind
posted by pyramid termite at 7:45 PM on December 29, 2023 [6 favorites]
Arnold Schwarzenegger is disqualified from being president despite having never been convicted of being a naturalized citizen.
Taylor Swift is disqualified from being president despite having never been convicted of being under 35 years old.
The same document disqualifies Donald Trump from being president because he’s obviously an insurrectionist, but for some reason he needs a trial.
Ol’ Donny Trump gets all the breaks.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 7:48 PM on December 29, 2023 [37 favorites]
Taylor Swift is disqualified from being president despite having never been convicted of being under 35 years old.
The same document disqualifies Donald Trump from being president because he’s obviously an insurrectionist, but for some reason he needs a trial.
Ol’ Donny Trump gets all the breaks.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 7:48 PM on December 29, 2023 [37 favorites]
it's a political expectation from many of his supporters - that he actually be tried and found guilty of something before he's banned from the ballot
It is today. Then once it happens the goalposts will get moved again.
posted by VTX at 7:55 PM on December 29, 2023 [17 favorites]
It is today. Then once it happens the goalposts will get moved again.
posted by VTX at 7:55 PM on December 29, 2023 [17 favorites]
i know you think this is impossible - but let's just say he is banned from the ballot as an insurrectionist and then his trials go through and he is found not guilty
what then?
the problem is there are many people who think that being right and justified is enough, that people will automatically follow the correct point of view
they won't
but maybe if it's proven to them in a court of law at least some of them may just walk away from it
due process is important
posted by pyramid termite at 8:08 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
what then?
the problem is there are many people who think that being right and justified is enough, that people will automatically follow the correct point of view
they won't
but maybe if it's proven to them in a court of law at least some of them may just walk away from it
due process is important
posted by pyramid termite at 8:08 PM on December 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
Would being found not guilty mean that he's not an insurrectionist? Hell no. It would only mean that the court did not find enough evidence to be sure enough to send him to prison for it.
We're not trying to send him to prison, we're trying to stop his insurrectionist ass from taking over the country.
posted by tigrrrlily at 8:26 PM on December 29, 2023 [12 favorites]
We're not trying to send him to prison, we're trying to stop his insurrectionist ass from taking over the country.
posted by tigrrrlily at 8:26 PM on December 29, 2023 [12 favorites]
Although, to be fair, we're also trying to send him to prison.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 8:29 PM on December 29, 2023 [23 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 8:29 PM on December 29, 2023 [23 favorites]
ooh hey, I know Taylor Swift was born in 1989, so she WILL be 35 this year. We could do way worse.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:30 PM on December 29, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:30 PM on December 29, 2023 [6 favorites]
So why is the expectation now that Trump has to be found guilty before the amendment applies to him?
He doesn't. But there needs to be a clear understanding of what it means, I would think, before it does.
We understand what the age disqualifications mean; nobody is Pirates of Penzancing things. It is very clear how that provision applies.
It is less clear what 'insurrection' entails, and it is very clear that a significant majority of the country disagrees on it. This is bad for laws. It should be clear. That clarity does not need to mean convicted, but it should be something that can be pointed to as a legal standard that other people can know and interpret. I would also say that it would be best for the country if there was a reasonable national standard because it's a national constitutional amendment. Thus I really hope SCOTUS just comes out and gives a standard for what insurrection means, though I don't think they will want to do that because of how fraught it is.
I think we can all agree that convicted *would* be an automatic application. What the disagreement is about is the unconvicted nature of things. Just like after the Civil War - what constituted 'engaging in insurrection', and how does that need to be shown?
Do the specifics of the alleged insurrection need to be argued? (United States v. Hammond, 26 F. Cas. 99, 101: answer, yes)
Does insurrection count if pardoned? (Ex parte Tenney, 63 Ky. 351, 352: Answer, no)
posted by corb at 8:42 PM on December 29, 2023 [8 favorites]
He doesn't. But there needs to be a clear understanding of what it means, I would think, before it does.
We understand what the age disqualifications mean; nobody is Pirates of Penzancing things. It is very clear how that provision applies.
It is less clear what 'insurrection' entails, and it is very clear that a significant majority of the country disagrees on it. This is bad for laws. It should be clear. That clarity does not need to mean convicted, but it should be something that can be pointed to as a legal standard that other people can know and interpret. I would also say that it would be best for the country if there was a reasonable national standard because it's a national constitutional amendment. Thus I really hope SCOTUS just comes out and gives a standard for what insurrection means, though I don't think they will want to do that because of how fraught it is.
I think we can all agree that convicted *would* be an automatic application. What the disagreement is about is the unconvicted nature of things. Just like after the Civil War - what constituted 'engaging in insurrection', and how does that need to be shown?
Do the specifics of the alleged insurrection need to be argued? (United States v. Hammond, 26 F. Cas. 99, 101: answer, yes)
"The "insurrection or rebellion against the United States" extended over a period of five years and over a vast territory. The prosecution is entitled to be informed by the plea when and where the juror took up arms and joined the rebellion and insurrection against the United States. The plea gives no information upon these points. It lacks the precision and certainty required in all criminal pleading, and is in this respect fatally defective."Does 'criminal syndicalism' and being a member of the Communist Party count as insurrection? (People v. Ruthenberg, 229 Mich. 315, 346 answer: yes because they suck)
Does insurrection count if pardoned? (Ex parte Tenney, 63 Ky. 351, 352: Answer, no)
"A conviction of treason would have subjected the applicant to the statutory denunciation of forensic disfranchisement; but a confession of treason, without conviction, would not have that penal effect, and the amnesty oath, and the consequent executive pardon, relieved the applicant from all liability to conviction of treason, and, so far, reinstated him in the legal status he previously occupied."I think it's clear that it's definitely a question of fact on whether he engaged in insurrection, and the states should have one unified standard on that. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of caselaw that I can find on this, probably because everyone understood it at the time and it didn't get appealed that often.
posted by corb at 8:42 PM on December 29, 2023 [8 favorites]
ooh hey, I know Taylor Swift was born in 1989, so she WILL be 35 this year. We could do way worse.
Wow, she'd be the first billionaire president.
posted by stet at 8:46 PM on December 29, 2023 [29 favorites]
Wow, she'd be the first billionaire president.
posted by stet at 8:46 PM on December 29, 2023 [29 favorites]
I see what you did there, @stet, nice one. My fam visited ME today to scoop for minerals at Deer Hill USFS Mineral Site. Thanks Maine for the rocks and some hope.
posted by drowsy at 9:00 PM on December 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by drowsy at 9:00 PM on December 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
My sense is this disqualification issue would've gotten nowhere without being endorsed by prominent legal conservatives, especially former Roberts clerk William Baude. For those interested, a debate transcript on "Insurrection & the 14th Amendment" between Baude and Michael McConnell.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 10:47 PM on December 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 10:47 PM on December 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
Trump is literally running to save his life -- or at least his fortune and freedom. He will stop at nothing. He should be stopped, because he will go for insurrection again if he looses at the ballots in November. Heck, he might even go for violence if he loses the Republican nomination, he is already threatening Republicans who stand up against him, and they are already getting serious death threats from his followers.
His followers, 20-30% of the US electorate are rabid. They are caught up in a violent frenzy where reality means nothing to them. There is nothing politicians or jurists can do to stop them. Part of the task is to keep the rest of the electorate aware that the Trumpists are a rabid minority, not half the population, and that is proving to be hard, not least because of the immoral irresponsibility of the Republican Party and its leadership. On the other hand, that ship probably sailed when the Republicans took over the racist flag from the Southern Democrats a generation ago. The Trumpists may be less than 30 % of the electorate, but they are more than half of the conservative-leaning electorate. Without them, there is no viable Republican Party.
Another part of the task of stopping Trump is to make it clear that violence and threats of violence are unacceptable in a democratic political system. The government, any government needs to preserve the monopoly of power or there can be no democracy, and the powers of government need to be committed to the constitution, not partisan goals. The judiciary needs to uphold this basic principle. As far as I can see, this is mostly the case right now, but only just so. There are weak links everywhere in the system.
Republican leaders and conservative judges are faced with a moral and existential dilemma. Doing the right thing will mean the end of their influence, let alone power, perhaps for decades. Doing the wrong thing can mean the end of democracy (and then also their individual power/influence but some are gambling they can hold on). They need to be saved from themselves by liberals and socialists, which was basically what happened in those countries that avoided fascism between the wars, including the US.
IMO, the US Supreme Court can only do the right thing if one of the hard right judges goes with Roberts and the liberal judges to save democracy in the US. I can't see who that would be, but that may in part be because I don't really know the Trump appointed judges. They are clearly not Trumpists, and on the other hand, they are clearly not afraid of lying in front of congress about Roe v. Wade so they can't be deeply moral people. But what else are they? Do they believe in democracy? Alito and Thomas are corrupt as fuck and don't give a shit about democracy, so it won't be them. And Ginny Thomas is an insurrectionist.
Maybe the Supreme Court are not only biding their time because they are protecting Trump, but also because they can't figure out how to do this.
posted by mumimor at 2:13 AM on December 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
His followers, 20-30% of the US electorate are rabid. They are caught up in a violent frenzy where reality means nothing to them. There is nothing politicians or jurists can do to stop them. Part of the task is to keep the rest of the electorate aware that the Trumpists are a rabid minority, not half the population, and that is proving to be hard, not least because of the immoral irresponsibility of the Republican Party and its leadership. On the other hand, that ship probably sailed when the Republicans took over the racist flag from the Southern Democrats a generation ago. The Trumpists may be less than 30 % of the electorate, but they are more than half of the conservative-leaning electorate. Without them, there is no viable Republican Party.
Another part of the task of stopping Trump is to make it clear that violence and threats of violence are unacceptable in a democratic political system. The government, any government needs to preserve the monopoly of power or there can be no democracy, and the powers of government need to be committed to the constitution, not partisan goals. The judiciary needs to uphold this basic principle. As far as I can see, this is mostly the case right now, but only just so. There are weak links everywhere in the system.
Republican leaders and conservative judges are faced with a moral and existential dilemma. Doing the right thing will mean the end of their influence, let alone power, perhaps for decades. Doing the wrong thing can mean the end of democracy (and then also their individual power/influence but some are gambling they can hold on). They need to be saved from themselves by liberals and socialists, which was basically what happened in those countries that avoided fascism between the wars, including the US.
IMO, the US Supreme Court can only do the right thing if one of the hard right judges goes with Roberts and the liberal judges to save democracy in the US. I can't see who that would be, but that may in part be because I don't really know the Trump appointed judges. They are clearly not Trumpists, and on the other hand, they are clearly not afraid of lying in front of congress about Roe v. Wade so they can't be deeply moral people. But what else are they? Do they believe in democracy? Alito and Thomas are corrupt as fuck and don't give a shit about democracy, so it won't be them. And Ginny Thomas is an insurrectionist.
Maybe the Supreme Court are not only biding their time because they are protecting Trump, but also because they can't figure out how to do this.
posted by mumimor at 2:13 AM on December 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
Will Thomas be recused?
posted by eustatic at 5:10 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by eustatic at 5:10 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
To expand on @riotnrrd's point, we extremely angry leftists want the Supreme Court to rule against this, because in functional terms these selective state bans do basically nothing. Banning Trump from a state ballot, when Trump was never going to win that state's ballot, has approximately the same effect as banning Trump from winning the vote on Jupiter. It doesn't actually affect the outcome of the election, and it just makes a lot of people extremely mad.
If you want to put Trump in jail, sure, completely justified.
If you want to ban Trump from *every* state ballot, sure, completely justified.
If on the other hand you only want to ban Trump from states that he would not win anyway, all that is happening is we are precipitating a giant political crisis for no real gain.
posted by Balna Watya at 5:41 AM on December 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
If you want to put Trump in jail, sure, completely justified.
If you want to ban Trump from *every* state ballot, sure, completely justified.
If on the other hand you only want to ban Trump from states that he would not win anyway, all that is happening is we are precipitating a giant political crisis for no real gain.
posted by Balna Watya at 5:41 AM on December 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
> If you want to ban Trump from *every* state ballot, sure, completely justified.
In the best case, the Supreme Court could uphold the finding that Trump is ineligable to be president, and apply the ruling nationally, thus removing him from all ballots in every state.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:03 AM on December 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
In the best case, the Supreme Court could uphold the finding that Trump is ineligable to be president, and apply the ruling nationally, thus removing him from all ballots in every state.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:03 AM on December 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
I cannot imagine a combination of venue, judge(s), and/or jury that could convict Donald Trump of insurrection in a way that would be admitted to be valid to a single Trump voter or Republican politician.
A panel of judges in Colorado did find that he engaged in insurrection. He did get due process. It means nothing to them. They still don’t believe it and they’re still threatening to remove Biden from ballots. Trump is at the very least a saint in their version of the civic religion and he can do no wrong.
We have to move on as if they don’t even exist or there’s no future. They live in a parallel universe with which we cannot communicate.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 6:04 AM on December 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
A panel of judges in Colorado did find that he engaged in insurrection. He did get due process. It means nothing to them. They still don’t believe it and they’re still threatening to remove Biden from ballots. Trump is at the very least a saint in their version of the civic religion and he can do no wrong.
We have to move on as if they don’t even exist or there’s no future. They live in a parallel universe with which we cannot communicate.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 6:04 AM on December 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
As an extreme centrist*, I want Trump banned from all state ballots because it says he should be banned in the US Constitution. Regardless of which fancy reason you invent for ignoring this, you are giving in to violence and fascism. And people are both giving in and holding on to the rule of law on both sides of the aisle and in the middle. It isn't a partisan position. See airing nerdy laundry's comment.
*actually, I am pretty far left for a European. But since I studied the Weimar Republic as part of my PhD, I am also strongly convinced that we need to stick together and defend the rule of law in the face of fascism.
posted by mumimor at 6:07 AM on December 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
*actually, I am pretty far left for a European. But since I studied the Weimar Republic as part of my PhD, I am also strongly convinced that we need to stick together and defend the rule of law in the face of fascism.
posted by mumimor at 6:07 AM on December 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
If on the other hand you only want to ban Trump from states that he would not win anyway, all that is happening is we are precipitating a giant political crisis for no real gain.
I may have missed the point already being raised, but wouldn't a ban of Trump from any given state have a big impact on Republican turnout? One way or the other? Despite the Republican anger, I actually suspect it would suppress their turnout somewhat and put down-ballot Republican candidates at risk.
So yes, there would be a very real effect on other races - plus a widening gap between the popular vote result and the Electoral College result.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:11 AM on December 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
I may have missed the point already being raised, but wouldn't a ban of Trump from any given state have a big impact on Republican turnout? One way or the other? Despite the Republican anger, I actually suspect it would suppress their turnout somewhat and put down-ballot Republican candidates at risk.
So yes, there would be a very real effect on other races - plus a widening gap between the popular vote result and the Electoral College result.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:11 AM on December 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
Yeah, it was brought up. I don't think we can easily predict how it would affect turnout. It could just as easily suppress democratic turnout, since the galvanizing threat that needs to be voted against has been removed. Exact same logic as for Trump voters, but in reverse. Why should it be one way and not the other. If Trump is a big driver of voter turnout, he is so for both parties, and who could possibly guess the magnitude of that effect.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:30 AM on December 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:30 AM on December 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
I cannot imagine a combination of venue, judge(s), and/or jury that could convict Donald Trump of insurrection in a way that would be admitted to be valid to a single Trump voter or Republican politician.
Other than, presumably, "Former Republican U.S. representative from Rhode Island Claudine (Cmarada) Schneider, who now lives in Colorado; former Colorado House and Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, an unaffiliated voter who recently left the Republican party; Denver Post columnist and Republican activist Krista Kafer; Michelle Priola, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian."
You know, the Republicans who filed the Colorado suit to remove Trump from the ballot.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:44 AM on December 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
Other than, presumably, "Former Republican U.S. representative from Rhode Island Claudine (Cmarada) Schneider, who now lives in Colorado; former Colorado House and Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, an unaffiliated voter who recently left the Republican party; Denver Post columnist and Republican activist Krista Kafer; Michelle Priola, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian."
You know, the Republicans who filed the Colorado suit to remove Trump from the ballot.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:44 AM on December 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
Two States Ruled Trump Off the Ballot. Will It Help or Hurt Him?
Some critics say the battles over the former president’s ballot status are turning him into a martyr and eroding faith in American elections.
posted by hermanubis at 6:58 AM on December 30, 2023
Some critics say the battles over the former president’s ballot status are turning him into a martyr and eroding faith in American elections.
posted by hermanubis at 6:58 AM on December 30, 2023
idle conspiracy theory musing: Republicans file suits to take Trump off the ballot in "safe" states in order to precipitate a political crisis that makes it look like Democrats are trying to rig elections.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:00 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:00 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
It doesn't actually affect the outcome of the election
And to that point, so far much of the activity has been around primary elections. Now, any rulings or precedents will be interesting if they affect access to the general election ballot, or if they're applied nationwide.
But removing Trump from the primary ballot in a small number of individual states? So far, he's likely to sweep up enough delegates nationwide to get nominated anyway. Nobody else within the Republican party has shown any ability yet to challenge him. If he's not nominated at the party convention on the first ballot, there's plenty of room for him to get the nomination anyway on subsequent ballots.
Checking the summary of rules for Republican convention delegates at Ballotpedia:
Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner for at least one round of balloting, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters or delegates bound to a candidate that withdraws from the presidential race.
Note that last clause. A proxy candidate could file for the primary on Trump's behalf, get delegates bound to them based on the primary election, then withdraw from the race before the convention, releasing their candidates to vote for Trump on the first ballot, all within party rules.
Ballotpedia also mentions that a concept has been out there for a few years that party delegates shouldn't really consider themselves to be bound by state law or primary outcomes anyway. The party rule quoted above appears to clarify that a bit, by making it a party rule that delegates will be bound on the first ballot by a primary election--but in the current atmosphere there's a decent chance that the convention could simply change the rules to get what they want. Maybe through follow-the-leader consensus, maybe through an ugly floor fight. The convention might vote to throw everything else out the window and nominate Trump by acclamation. Remember that we're talking about Republican officials and activists here, so a motion brought to the convention floor based on a flimsy or crackpot theory may almost have a built-in advantage over a rational one.
Anyway, taking Trump off primary ballots doesn't guarantee that he won't get the Republican party nomination.
In that scenario, would a precedent set by taking Trump off the primary ballot be enough to keep him off the general election ballot as well? And at that point, would we still be talking about individual states, or are we talking about a nationwide ruling?
posted by gimonca at 7:01 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
And to that point, so far much of the activity has been around primary elections. Now, any rulings or precedents will be interesting if they affect access to the general election ballot, or if they're applied nationwide.
But removing Trump from the primary ballot in a small number of individual states? So far, he's likely to sweep up enough delegates nationwide to get nominated anyway. Nobody else within the Republican party has shown any ability yet to challenge him. If he's not nominated at the party convention on the first ballot, there's plenty of room for him to get the nomination anyway on subsequent ballots.
Checking the summary of rules for Republican convention delegates at Ballotpedia:
Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner for at least one round of balloting, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters or delegates bound to a candidate that withdraws from the presidential race.
Note that last clause. A proxy candidate could file for the primary on Trump's behalf, get delegates bound to them based on the primary election, then withdraw from the race before the convention, releasing their candidates to vote for Trump on the first ballot, all within party rules.
Ballotpedia also mentions that a concept has been out there for a few years that party delegates shouldn't really consider themselves to be bound by state law or primary outcomes anyway. The party rule quoted above appears to clarify that a bit, by making it a party rule that delegates will be bound on the first ballot by a primary election--but in the current atmosphere there's a decent chance that the convention could simply change the rules to get what they want. Maybe through follow-the-leader consensus, maybe through an ugly floor fight. The convention might vote to throw everything else out the window and nominate Trump by acclamation. Remember that we're talking about Republican officials and activists here, so a motion brought to the convention floor based on a flimsy or crackpot theory may almost have a built-in advantage over a rational one.
Anyway, taking Trump off primary ballots doesn't guarantee that he won't get the Republican party nomination.
In that scenario, would a precedent set by taking Trump off the primary ballot be enough to keep him off the general election ballot as well? And at that point, would we still be talking about individual states, or are we talking about a nationwide ruling?
posted by gimonca at 7:01 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
> And to that point, so far much of the activity has been around primary elections.
The Colorado ruling was that Trump is not eligible to be President. That implies he can not be on the primary election ballot, but that result is implied by the core finding, not the core finding itself. He also can't be on the general election ballot, because he is not eligible to be president.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:03 AM on December 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
The Colorado ruling was that Trump is not eligible to be President. That implies he can not be on the primary election ballot, but that result is implied by the core finding, not the core finding itself. He also can't be on the general election ballot, because he is not eligible to be president.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:03 AM on December 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
> Republican leaders and conservative judges are faced with a moral and existential dilemma.
So many aspects of American society have wound up at inflection points which could be endpoints, and all over this stupid fucking failure clown of a human being.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:09 AM on December 30, 2023 [21 favorites]
So many aspects of American society have wound up at inflection points which could be endpoints, and all over this stupid fucking failure clown of a human being.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:09 AM on December 30, 2023 [21 favorites]
And I know Trump is a symptom rather than the cause, but if American democracy ends by suicide with him as the implement of choice it'll be like somebody suffocating themselves with a whoopie cushion, i.e. the dumbest possible way to go.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:11 AM on December 30, 2023 [23 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:11 AM on December 30, 2023 [23 favorites]
Some critics say the battles over the former president’s ballot status are turning him into a martyr and eroding faith in American elections.
Trump's whole thing is undermining the faith in institutions. He wants to undermine the institutions so he can take control. The solution is not to undermine the rule of law and by default the institutions by inventing more or less well-considered reasons Trump should be allowed on the ballot in spite of fermenting and aiding and abetting an insurrection (and committing multiple other crimes).
Politicians are not and should not be above the law.
posted by mumimor at 7:25 AM on December 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
Trump's whole thing is undermining the faith in institutions. He wants to undermine the institutions so he can take control. The solution is not to undermine the rule of law and by default the institutions by inventing more or less well-considered reasons Trump should be allowed on the ballot in spite of fermenting and aiding and abetting an insurrection (and committing multiple other crimes).
Politicians are not and should not be above the law.
posted by mumimor at 7:25 AM on December 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
I'm just fucking tired of talking about laws in terms of strategy. As I understand it, states are in charge of running the elections in the state. Any reasonable person can see he incited his followers in an attempted insurrection.
As long as the laws are just, as these seem to be, just enforce the law. I don't care that it would be better if he were struck from the ballets in all states, that's not happening now, this is. If you're thinking it will end up helping his chances, then you're not really supporting the rule of law, you're just thinking in terms of strategy and power.
If you do an insurrection, you don't get to be part of the government anymore. If you're in a position to enforce that, then enforce it. Not enforcing laws that have been clearly broken is half of how we even got here.
If enforcing just laws is the thing that breaks the country then break it. Delaying the inevitable will only make it worse. But I don't think that's what will happen, I think we'll get stronger.
posted by VTX at 8:57 AM on December 30, 2023 [17 favorites]
As long as the laws are just, as these seem to be, just enforce the law. I don't care that it would be better if he were struck from the ballets in all states, that's not happening now, this is. If you're thinking it will end up helping his chances, then you're not really supporting the rule of law, you're just thinking in terms of strategy and power.
If you do an insurrection, you don't get to be part of the government anymore. If you're in a position to enforce that, then enforce it. Not enforcing laws that have been clearly broken is half of how we even got here.
If enforcing just laws is the thing that breaks the country then break it. Delaying the inevitable will only make it worse. But I don't think that's what will happen, I think we'll get stronger.
posted by VTX at 8:57 AM on December 30, 2023 [17 favorites]
i mean this is a drum i bang on far too much, but everyone (everyone!) knows deep down that the whole "rule of law" thing is super double fiction, has never existed anywhere ever except in the fevered imaginations of the middle aged middle class, and wouldn't really be that great even if it were ever to actually exist
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:06 AM on December 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:06 AM on December 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
On the other hand, as Karl Rove pointed out, when it comes to politics reality is whichever fiction we choose to reinforce and maintain. Rule of law is like a Terry Pratchett-style god that requires believers, as many as possible, in order to exist.
posted by trig at 9:21 AM on December 30, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by trig at 9:21 AM on December 30, 2023 [14 favorites]
as banning Trump from winning the vote on Jupiter. It doesn't actually affect the outcome of the election, and it just makes a lot of people extremely mad.
It sets up a pretty good constitutional crisis if TFG wins though as Colorado has found he isn't eligible to be president.
That is the reason I think the Supreme Court will rule sooner rather than later; though maybe not till after he wins the nomination. The stakes will be so much higher once he is actually elected.
posted by Mitheral at 9:26 AM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
It sets up a pretty good constitutional crisis if TFG wins though as Colorado has found he isn't eligible to be president.
That is the reason I think the Supreme Court will rule sooner rather than later; though maybe not till after he wins the nomination. The stakes will be so much higher once he is actually elected.
posted by Mitheral at 9:26 AM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
It sets up a pretty good constitutional crisis if TFG wins though as Colorado has found he isn't eligible to be president.
That is the reason I think the Supreme Court will rule sooner rather than later; though maybe not till after he wins the nomination. The stakes will be so much higher once he is actually elected.
I agree. And, I think they'll find some way to rule that doesn't leave it where some states have him on the ballot, others don't, just because of the ensuing chaos.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:29 AM on December 30, 2023
That is the reason I think the Supreme Court will rule sooner rather than later; though maybe not till after he wins the nomination. The stakes will be so much higher once he is actually elected.
I agree. And, I think they'll find some way to rule that doesn't leave it where some states have him on the ballot, others don't, just because of the ensuing chaos.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:29 AM on December 30, 2023
Here, I serve you the Corruptions Perception Index. What characterizes the palest countries on the map? Adherence to the rule of law. And as a consequence, shared prosperity.
Karl Rove is a dick and should be rolled in tar and feathers for his part in promoting the war in Iraq.
posted by mumimor at 9:30 AM on December 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
Karl Rove is a dick and should be rolled in tar and feathers for his part in promoting the war in Iraq.
posted by mumimor at 9:30 AM on December 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
So many people seem to think that Trump might not be on the ballot in some states but would be in others. I really think that's misunderstanding the situation. Sure, you could imagine some weird contrived ruling that would allow that to happen but it really seem unlikely.
Either Trump will appear on the ballot in every state (because SCOTUS overrules these states who are removing him) or he's ineligible to be President (because SCOTUS upholds these states), and it doesn't matter if he's on any ballots. The idea that SCOTUS could punt and let some states declare him ineligible while other states let him go forward just seems so unlikely as to be not worth worrying about.
Spoiler: they'll overrule.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 AM on December 30, 2023
Either Trump will appear on the ballot in every state (because SCOTUS overrules these states who are removing him) or he's ineligible to be President (because SCOTUS upholds these states), and it doesn't matter if he's on any ballots. The idea that SCOTUS could punt and let some states declare him ineligible while other states let him go forward just seems so unlikely as to be not worth worrying about.
Spoiler: they'll overrule.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 AM on December 30, 2023
I'm of the opposite tack on "hoping SCOTUS defines insurrection". I play 40k, and have played in some narrative events. The organizers typically don't tell anyone how the scoring occurs because there are people who will IMMEDIATELY game out the best way to score rather than to play in the narrative.
Defining "past this point means insurrection" means that everyone and their dog will walk up to that line and maybe try dipping a toe across every now and again.
Leaving insurrection undefined means you risk the wrath of every state court or AG so empowered if you try anything at all.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:42 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Defining "past this point means insurrection" means that everyone and their dog will walk up to that line and maybe try dipping a toe across every now and again.
Leaving insurrection undefined means you risk the wrath of every state court or AG so empowered if you try anything at all.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:42 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Karl Rove is a dick and should be rolled in tar and feathers for his part in promoting the war in Iraq.
Yes, sorry, I did not mean to endorse him in any way whatsoever.
That cynical thing he said about "reality", though - that, unfortunately is true, though unlike him I think the fact that it's true is terrible.
posted by trig at 9:55 AM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yes, sorry, I did not mean to endorse him in any way whatsoever.
That cynical thing he said about "reality", though - that, unfortunately is true, though unlike him I think the fact that it's true is terrible.
posted by trig at 9:55 AM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm just fucking tired of talking about laws in terms of strategy.
As a law student I have some really bad news for you about laws and jurisprudence.
posted by corb at 10:09 AM on December 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
As a law student I have some really bad news for you about laws and jurisprudence.
posted by corb at 10:09 AM on December 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
Oh yeah, I'm well aware. I don't like it.
posted by VTX at 10:12 AM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by VTX at 10:12 AM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
“People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.”
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:23 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:23 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Rule of law is like a Terry Pratchett-style god that requires believers, as many as possible, in order to exist.
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."posted by mikelieman at 10:30 AM on December 30, 2023 [10 favorites]
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
I don't see why upholding or overturning the Colorado or Maine actions would be determinative for other states on a ballot issue. Suppose the following were true (with the large caveat that I am not an attorney and have no idea how plausible any of these really are):
[1] States determine qualification for the purpose of appearing on ballots.
[2] A state needs to have some uniform, clear, and established process for making qualification determinations.
From [1], it seems to me that a disqualification from the ballot in one state need not affect disqualifications in other states. Just because Colorado finds that Trump is ineligible does not mean that Illinois will. Think about it this way: If I want to run for President, I have to do work in every state -- in each state independently -- to actually get on the ballot. Just because I satisfy Illinois doesn't mean that I satisfy Colorado. And ballot access requirements vary from state to state without that fact striking people as a crisis. So far, we have a ballot access question with respect to determination of eligibility.
From [1] and [2], it could easily be the case that one state's disqualification stands and another state's disqualification is overturned -- on the grounds that there wasn't an adequate process in the second state or that the process was different from ordinary disqualifications or some such. I don't know how things are usually done in Maine, so I don't know if we already have the possibility of, say, Colorado being upheld and Maine being overturned, but it seems possible to me.
The really sticky point, I think, is when we move past ballot access to the following:
[3] The Supreme Court and not the states determines qualification for the purpose of serving in the office.
Suppose that several states say that Trump is ineligible. Suppose that following [1], the Supreme Court lets all of those decisions stand so long as they respect [2]. Suppose further that Trump wins the election anyway. Now, there is a further question as to whether Trump is actually eligible to serve. I would expect the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction on that question and that only the Supreme Court could make that determination, though its determination could be made much easier if the Congress passed a resolution to the effect that Trump was an insurrectionist.
Aside from the fact that no one should trust the Supreme Court today, the big problem with [3] is how one goes about unwinding the effect of having elected someone who is ineligible to serve -- provided the Court determined, ultimately, that Trump is ineligible. I would guess that the result would be that Trump is forced out but that the Republicans still win the election and that Trump's Vice President takes over. But again, all of that seems unlikely speculation, given that our current illegitimate Court would not, I think, ultimately determine that Trump is ineligible.
Ain't federalism grand?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:38 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
[1] States determine qualification for the purpose of appearing on ballots.
[2] A state needs to have some uniform, clear, and established process for making qualification determinations.
From [1], it seems to me that a disqualification from the ballot in one state need not affect disqualifications in other states. Just because Colorado finds that Trump is ineligible does not mean that Illinois will. Think about it this way: If I want to run for President, I have to do work in every state -- in each state independently -- to actually get on the ballot. Just because I satisfy Illinois doesn't mean that I satisfy Colorado. And ballot access requirements vary from state to state without that fact striking people as a crisis. So far, we have a ballot access question with respect to determination of eligibility.
From [1] and [2], it could easily be the case that one state's disqualification stands and another state's disqualification is overturned -- on the grounds that there wasn't an adequate process in the second state or that the process was different from ordinary disqualifications or some such. I don't know how things are usually done in Maine, so I don't know if we already have the possibility of, say, Colorado being upheld and Maine being overturned, but it seems possible to me.
The really sticky point, I think, is when we move past ballot access to the following:
[3] The Supreme Court and not the states determines qualification for the purpose of serving in the office.
Suppose that several states say that Trump is ineligible. Suppose that following [1], the Supreme Court lets all of those decisions stand so long as they respect [2]. Suppose further that Trump wins the election anyway. Now, there is a further question as to whether Trump is actually eligible to serve. I would expect the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction on that question and that only the Supreme Court could make that determination, though its determination could be made much easier if the Congress passed a resolution to the effect that Trump was an insurrectionist.
Aside from the fact that no one should trust the Supreme Court today, the big problem with [3] is how one goes about unwinding the effect of having elected someone who is ineligible to serve -- provided the Court determined, ultimately, that Trump is ineligible. I would guess that the result would be that Trump is forced out but that the Republicans still win the election and that Trump's Vice President takes over. But again, all of that seems unlikely speculation, given that our current illegitimate Court would not, I think, ultimately determine that Trump is ineligible.
Ain't federalism grand?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:38 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
There is no mechanism of "forcing out" beyond impeachment and impeachment of a Republican will not occur in this or any future congress. The Court can try another Marbury to keep him out of office after an election and seeing them, as an institution, get hit very hard in the nose for overstepping would be some consolation in the event of Trump 2.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:12 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Slackermagee at 11:12 AM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
One interesting thing here is that the courts are clearly pitching to Roberts and Gorsuch, who wrote an opinion that seems to support removing Trump from the ballot - though how he'll rule on *this* issue is hardly certain.
"Writing for a three-judge panel in 2012, Gorsuch dismissed the idea that Colorado was required to place Abdul Karim Hassan’s name on the presidential ballot even if he was ineligible to assume the presidency. A state’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process,” Gorsuch wrote, “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”posted by corb at 12:03 PM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yes, Trump should be removed from the ballot By Perry Bacon Jr., WaPo gift link
posted by mumimor at 12:04 PM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by mumimor at 12:04 PM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
There is no mechanism of "forcing out" beyond impeachment ...
I don't think that's right. If the Court found that someone was, in fact, ineligible, that person would be forced out. Take a hypothetical (and less controversial) case. Suppose Smith was elected to the House but it turns out that Smith's birth records were screwed up and Smith is actually 24 years old. Smith's eligibility is challenged, and if the Court is convinced that Smith is actually 24, Smith loses the seat. If Trump had actually shown (insert hearty laugh here) that Obama was not a native born citizen, Obama would have been ineligible to serve and would have lost his office without impeachment. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump refused to abide by a finding of the Court that he was ineligible, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he just ignored a Congressional impeachment and conviction vote. Either way, it would be a coup.
Anyway, if the Court acted quickly enough (again, insert laugh here), it would be more of a "fail to be inaugurated" than a "forced out," and maybe that makes a difference here.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:10 PM on December 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
I don't think that's right. If the Court found that someone was, in fact, ineligible, that person would be forced out. Take a hypothetical (and less controversial) case. Suppose Smith was elected to the House but it turns out that Smith's birth records were screwed up and Smith is actually 24 years old. Smith's eligibility is challenged, and if the Court is convinced that Smith is actually 24, Smith loses the seat. If Trump had actually shown (insert hearty laugh here) that Obama was not a native born citizen, Obama would have been ineligible to serve and would have lost his office without impeachment. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump refused to abide by a finding of the Court that he was ineligible, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he just ignored a Congressional impeachment and conviction vote. Either way, it would be a coup.
Anyway, if the Court acted quickly enough (again, insert laugh here), it would be more of a "fail to be inaugurated" than a "forced out," and maybe that makes a difference here.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:10 PM on December 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
There wasn't a Civil War equivalent of the Nuremburg Trials.
there was "reconstruction'
posted by clavdivs at 12:55 PM on December 30, 2023
there was "reconstruction'
posted by clavdivs at 12:55 PM on December 30, 2023
Police investigate swatting call at home of Maine secretary of state
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:20 PM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:20 PM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
there was "reconstruction'
At least until enough people got tired of it and let former confederates serve in office again and we got all the Jim and Juan Crow nonsense.
Heather Cox Richardson wrote "How the South Won the Civil War" (ISBN: 978-0197581797) is an excellent book about it for anyone that hasn't yet read it.
posted by VTX at 2:47 PM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
At least until enough people got tired of it and let former confederates serve in office again and we got all the Jim and Juan Crow nonsense.
Heather Cox Richardson wrote "How the South Won the Civil War" (ISBN: 978-0197581797) is an excellent book about it for anyone that hasn't yet read it.
posted by VTX at 2:47 PM on December 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yes the 14th amendment explicitly left an out for that (a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress) - Trump's not going to get that any time soon
posted by mbo at 2:51 PM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by mbo at 2:51 PM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
He also can't be on the general election ballot, because he is not eligible to be president.
That's my personal opinion as well, but my personal opinion won't have an influence on any eventual ruling, or its enforcement. We're still waiting on that.
posted by gimonca at 2:56 PM on December 30, 2023
That's my personal opinion as well, but my personal opinion won't have an influence on any eventual ruling, or its enforcement. We're still waiting on that.
posted by gimonca at 2:56 PM on December 30, 2023
There wasn't a Civil War equivalent of the Nuremburg Trials.
No, but there were a lot of people who signed papers and took oaths. While it cast a wide net, the 14th amendment was about denying the leaders of the South the ability to continue their political lives. I suspect the reason insurrection is defined so poorly is that there was plenty of clear evidence for everyone that was truly cared about.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:37 PM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
No, but there were a lot of people who signed papers and took oaths. While it cast a wide net, the 14th amendment was about denying the leaders of the South the ability to continue their political lives. I suspect the reason insurrection is defined so poorly is that there was plenty of clear evidence for everyone that was truly cared about.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:37 PM on December 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
If SCOTUS cared to avoid constitutional crises they would never have appointed GWB to the presidency nor seated Gorsuch.
Laws are excuses.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 4:44 PM on December 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
Laws are excuses.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 4:44 PM on December 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
Colorado, Maine.
That's two.
Forty-eight more to go.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 12:14 AM on December 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
That's two.
Forty-eight more to go.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 12:14 AM on December 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
Hmm...
https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/law/2023ElectionLaw.pdf
posted by mikelieman at 2:11 AM on December 31, 2023
https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/law/2023ElectionLaw.pdf
§ 6–122. Designation or nomination; eligibility, restrictions(emphasis mine)
A person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who (1) is not a citizen of the state of New York; (2) is ineligible to be elected to such office or position; or (3) who, if elected will not at the time of commencement of the term of such office or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof or, with respect to judicial office, who will not meet such qualifications within thirty days of the commencement of the term of such office.
posted by mikelieman at 2:11 AM on December 31, 2023
> (emphasis mine)
Could you elaborate please? The clause doesn't appear to say anything substantive. It just says you can't nominate someone who can't hold office, which we knew already.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:37 AM on December 31, 2023
Could you elaborate please? The clause doesn't appear to say anything substantive. It just says you can't nominate someone who can't hold office, which we knew already.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:37 AM on December 31, 2023
If I'm understanding that statute correctly, "designate" is a term of art for making someone a formal candidate for nomination (see e.g. § 6–160, which provides that a primary shall be held iff more candidates are "designated" for an office than there are positions to fill). So it seems like under NY law you probably can't be on the primary ballot if you won't be eligible to hold the office. Maybe some NY folks can clarify how that provision would be enforced.
posted by Not A Thing at 10:38 AM on December 31, 2023
posted by Not A Thing at 10:38 AM on December 31, 2023
idle conspiracy theory musing: Republicans file suits to take Trump off the ballot in "safe" states in order to precipitate a political crisis that makes it look like Democrats are trying to rig elections.
The lead plaintiff for the Colorado ruling is no Republic and her lawyer is no Republic.
The Sec't of State of Maine is a Democrat. She is being threatened with violence by Republics in her home, and also with impeachment by colleagues in the Republic Party.
Republics were already accusing Dems of rigging elections, while getting caught committing election fraud in states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
No conspiracy is needed here. Republics do not respect rule of law or democracy and have made that more than clear since January 6, 2021, if not before.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:22 AM on December 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
The lead plaintiff for the Colorado ruling is no Republic and her lawyer is no Republic.
The Sec't of State of Maine is a Democrat. She is being threatened with violence by Republics in her home, and also with impeachment by colleagues in the Republic Party.
Republics were already accusing Dems of rigging elections, while getting caught committing election fraud in states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
No conspiracy is needed here. Republics do not respect rule of law or democracy and have made that more than clear since January 6, 2021, if not before.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:22 AM on December 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
Here’s Ken White (from Episode 76 of his Serious Trouble podcast transcript here) praising the Maine Secretary of State:
“Yeah. And the Maine Secretary of State held an administrative proceeding, a sort of administrative trial to make this decision. And here, I think the Trump team made a tactical error. They really did not show up very much for it. They submitted briefs. They made arguments, but they didn't take the opportunity to call witnesses. They presented only very limited evidence, and they really just sort of relied on their familiar legal and political arguments. And that means the record is very limited on their behalf, which could have an impact if there are court proceedings attacking this.
Courts would normally be inclined to say, "Look, you had an opportunity to present evidence and you didn't, so we're not hearing it from you now." So the Secretary of State determined that she's required and able to make this determination of whether a candidate is eligible for the office that they're running for and therefore whether they should be on the ballot.
My favorite part is that she takes very seriously but rejects a kind of trollish argument made, which is that Trump says that he was actually elected in 2020. He's actually the president. Therefore, since the president can only serve two terms, he can't be on the ballot. I love that argument because it's so trollish. She takes it deadly seriously and says, "No, actually, because the question is whether he's actually president, not whether he has a delusion that he's president."
I LOVE THIS! I hope Madame Secretary stays safe out there, and I claim her energy in 2024.
posted by edithkeeler at 4:21 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
“Yeah. And the Maine Secretary of State held an administrative proceeding, a sort of administrative trial to make this decision. And here, I think the Trump team made a tactical error. They really did not show up very much for it. They submitted briefs. They made arguments, but they didn't take the opportunity to call witnesses. They presented only very limited evidence, and they really just sort of relied on their familiar legal and political arguments. And that means the record is very limited on their behalf, which could have an impact if there are court proceedings attacking this.
Courts would normally be inclined to say, "Look, you had an opportunity to present evidence and you didn't, so we're not hearing it from you now." So the Secretary of State determined that she's required and able to make this determination of whether a candidate is eligible for the office that they're running for and therefore whether they should be on the ballot.
My favorite part is that she takes very seriously but rejects a kind of trollish argument made, which is that Trump says that he was actually elected in 2020. He's actually the president. Therefore, since the president can only serve two terms, he can't be on the ballot. I love that argument because it's so trollish. She takes it deadly seriously and says, "No, actually, because the question is whether he's actually president, not whether he has a delusion that he's president."
I LOVE THIS! I hope Madame Secretary stays safe out there, and I claim her energy in 2024.
posted by edithkeeler at 4:21 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
why dont we all make fake right-wing accounts on every platform and promote the idea that the real true patriots only move to call the liberals' bluffs is to boycott the election
posted by glonous keming at 5:10 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
posted by glonous keming at 5:10 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
The appeal was filed on Tuesday (NBC). The Superior Court has until Jan. 17 to decide whether to affirm or overturn SOS Bellows' decision. That ruling can then be appealed to the state's Supreme Judicial Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:49 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:49 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
People have mentioned that only blue states would remove Trump from the ballot, and those states wouldn't go for Trump anyway, so none of this matters. However, what a "blue state" is can be a subtle matter.
Minocqua Brewing Company owner files suit to keep Trump off of Wisconsin's ballot.
Wisconsin is extremely purple and is an important part of Trump's chances for an electoral college victory. But
Wisconsin's Supreme Court tipped to a liberal majority last November. The electorate doesn't need to be blue. Just the courts.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 2:49 PM on January 5 [5 favorites]
Minocqua Brewing Company owner files suit to keep Trump off of Wisconsin's ballot.
Wisconsin is extremely purple and is an important part of Trump's chances for an electoral college victory. But
Wisconsin's Supreme Court tipped to a liberal majority last November. The electorate doesn't need to be blue. Just the courts.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 2:49 PM on January 5 [5 favorites]
Justices to Decide Whether Trump Is Eligible for Colorado Ballot
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:42 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:42 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]
Does anyone want a spoiler for what the justices will decide?
posted by Justinian at 7:44 PM on January 5 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:44 PM on January 5 [3 favorites]
Does anyone want a spoiler for what the justices will decide?
I'm on the edge of my seat!
posted by Dip Flash at 7:54 PM on January 5
I'm on the edge of my seat!
posted by Dip Flash at 7:54 PM on January 5
I’m placing a bet for “states can restrict people from the ballot but must have a defined clear process of how and methods to challenge” now.
posted by corb at 7:56 PM on January 5
posted by corb at 7:56 PM on January 5
I’m placing a bet for “states can restrict people from the ballot but must have a defined clear process of how and methods to challenge” now.
Do you think so? States restricting people from the ballot has been around a long time in terms of age and place of birth. It seems a little late for that sort of thing.
My bet is that they will find that the Federal judicial system will have to have a clear finding of insurrection before the states are allowed to use it as a reason to keep someone off the ballot. Can’t have all of those state courts interpreting the federal constitution.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:30 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]
Do you think so? States restricting people from the ballot has been around a long time in terms of age and place of birth. It seems a little late for that sort of thing.
My bet is that they will find that the Federal judicial system will have to have a clear finding of insurrection before the states are allowed to use it as a reason to keep someone off the ballot. Can’t have all of those state courts interpreting the federal constitution.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:30 PM on January 5 [1 favorite]
“Maybe The Best Way To Oppose Fascism Is To Fucking Oppose It,” Noah Berlatsky, Everything Is Horrible, 29 December 2023
Stop with the appeasement, you quisling motherfuckers.posted by ob1quixote at 7:32 PM on January 6 [7 favorites]
Maine’s Secretary of State faces Impeachment over decision to disqualify Trump from primary ballot
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:25 AM on January 7
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:25 AM on January 7
« Older This article comes from NPR Sports | I'm okay with my tax dollars paying for this Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by robbyrobs at 3:26 PM on December 29, 2023