You can bet there are days when Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor who’s an authority on Donald Trump, is sick of hearing the man’s name. He’s likely tired of talking about him. But as one of the former president’s staunchest critics, it’s also likely he understands that now isn’t the time to stay quiet. So he talked to Newsweek, and no, the news wasn’t good.
He believes there’s every chance the U.S. Supreme Court may issue a “horrific ruling” that could allow Trump to appear on Colorado’s 2024 ballot after all.
Kirschner, who is a well-respected legal analyst told Newsweek in a Wednesday phone interview that he’s not optimistic that the SCOTUS will “disqualify” the former president from the state’s ballot if the high court decides to hear the case.
As you may remember, Trump, who’s currently the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nod was ruled ineligible to appear on Republican primary ballots in Colorado after a 4-3 ruling from the state’s Supreme Court. At the time the justices ruled in favor of petitioners who argued that the ex-president’s actions during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol made him ineligible for holding elected office based on a clause established in the Constitution’s 14 Amendment during the Civil War era.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits officials who have taken an oath to support the Constitution from serving in office in the future if they have engaged in “insurrection.” The clause was originally drafted to prevent former Confederates from seeking office after the Civil War and it has been cited in numerous Trump ballot changes. Colorado’s effort is the first to be successful, and Kirschner told Newsweek this doesn’t necessarily mean other efforts will also succeed. He noted that state laws and constitutions vary and ultimately, this will depend on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.
What’s discouraging here, is that the Court is largely conservative, and with Trump’s lawyers vowing to appeal the Colorado Supreme Court ruling to the high court, the state ruling stands a good chance of being overturned.
Kirschner, a legal analyst for MSNBC said he thinks the SCOTUS will agree to hear the former president’s appeal on the Colorado ballot ruling, and that, he said, likely won’t be a good thing for Trump’s critics who are spearheading efforts to strike him from state primary ballots. Although he did say there’s a chance the Supreme Court justices will accept the Colorado court rulings that Trump took part in the insurrection and therefore uphold the state ruling, he said he wasn’t confident about this.
“i’m not all that bullish on the supreme court disqualifyin him,” kirschner said. “i think they can find lots of ways to weasel their way through the words that do and do not appear and come up with what i think will be a horrific ruling, which is that everyone else in government who takes an oath would be disqualified from public office, except the president of the united states who launches an attack against his own government. but i’m not all that confident in the Supreme court making the right decision for the right reasons.”
This could turn out to be a terrible scenario because while Trump is bad enough, who knows if someone even worse might be standing in line later on.
CiPerish the thought.
It is possible that Colorado’s ruling could kindle a “ripple effect” that leads to other states barring Trump from their ballots, Kirschner noted, but he added that’s up the each secretary of state to determine a candidate’s eligibility based on their state’s laws.
Kirschner said it’s possible for the Colorado ruling to ignite a “ripple effect” with other states barring Trump from their ballots; however, he noted, each secretary of state will determine candidates’ eligibility based on their state’s laws.
“after the supreme court in colorado affirmed that factual finding and ruled that he is disqualified from the ballot, if i were a secretary of state in another state, and i had the responsibility of deciding whether to place somebody on the ballot or disqualify them from the ballot, i would be inclined to follow the constitution and that colorado ruling would weigh very heavily on me,” kirschner told newsweek. “so, i do thin there’s a chance that there will be a ripple effect.”
That’s not the news any of us wants to hear. It would be sad if such a ruling discourages other states from keeping this nightmare of a human being off the ballot and it lays the groundwork for someone who’s even worse to come along later on.
Bad news is never pleasant but this is especially the sort we can all do without.
BAD NEWS AMERICA! If anyone thinks a court packed with corrupt, rich, cult members will save democracy for all of us vermin…better think again. IT’S TIME TO GROW THE PHUCK UP AND SAVE OURSELVES LIKE THE FOUNDERS INTENDED!!!! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
The Supreme Court is could make a strong case for its restructuring and the impeachment of some of its members in the next few weeks. People are fed up with the rot at the top.
There is one very easy argument to make in drumpf’s favor: he has not been convicted of insurrection, etc. I imagine that is the go-to argument the s.c. would/will run with. Most courts will look upon that argument favorably if only because it kicks the ball down the road a bit. It doesn’t even need to be some broadly sweeping verdict either-just a verdict saying drumpf needs to be convicted of insurrection before the 14th comes into play. Our country says, often loudly , one is innocent until proven guilty. I expect that idea might take hold in much of the court system but will especially be the case in conservative courts/justices.
Except, Spike, the underlying constitutional question is whether or not the 14th Amendment is self-enacting. It is not a “trump derangement syndrome” issue at all. Mark Graber, a 14thA scholar, has written an extensive paper on this very subject.
There was a hearing with Trump’s lawyers present, and a finding of fact that Trump participated in an insurrection in the Colorado case. Honestly it’s a bit strange that the Supreme Court would have any say in how a state determines their ballot eligibility. The POTUS is elected by the States, via the electoral college process, not by the people of the United States at large. We have a right to democratic elections within our States, guaranteed by the federal government, so a State couldn’t skip an election without running afoul of disenfranchising US citizens, but they can and do enact their own rules for being listed on ballots.
Frankly I’d rather Trump run and lose by a landslide, again, than make it a common practice to disqualify candidates. But I hope the exceptional nature of Jan6 makes other suits just frivolous distractions that are eventually abandoned.