A few days ago a shocking ruling came out of Colorado. Judge Sarah Wallace ruled that Donald Trump could not be barred via the 14th Amendment from being on the primary ballot. She agreed as to the facts of the case, of Trump inciting a riot, but had a bizarre view of the law, namely that the founders did not intend for that law to apply to the office of president. Her rationale immediately caused constitutional law experts to go ballistics. And as the dust has settled, the view now is that this case is definitely headed for a higher court and that’s where it will conclusively lose. Neal Katyal’s overview is a good one and that’s below.
But first, you want to hear what a peacocking Donald Trump had to say. He thinks that he’s vanquished his enemies and he’s so cool. Wrong. All that is happening is that the can has been kicked down the road and it will be decided by a higher court, possibly the Supreme Court of the United States. And won’t that be a revelation if his stacked court throws him off the ballot? Or, if they decide to keep him on the ballot. Either way we’re headed for a revelation. So let Trumpty Dumpty have his moment of faux glory.
Now here’s Katyal’s analysis.
There you have it. The factual argument will hold sway over this ludicrous quasi-legal rationale. If you doubt how ridiculous the judge’s theory is, listen to these two top constitutional scholars.
Maybe this case is destined to go all the way to the Supreme Court. If that’s the case, it could wind up being the most significant ruling that those justices ever make. I’m of two minds about it: 1. I truly agree with Messrs. Tribe and Luttig. Trump is barred from running, for the reason that the 14th Amendment says so. But that said, 2. It would be good to see Trump defeated at the ballot box. Then he can’t carry on about how he was ill used and a frightened Joe Biden ganged up against Trump because he was terrified that Trump would win. If the people vote him down — again — then that will be the final word. Or, I suppose that Trump could claim his rightfully won election had been stolen from his twice and he plans to run again in 2028 at the age of 83. So it might be a good thing for SCOTUS to allow the election to take place.
Who knows? As usual, we sail through uncharted waters. We’ll simply have to see how it all plays out.
This will defenitely be appealed. SCOTUS has voted AGAINST Trump, especially right after Jan 6. CO is one state. If the highest state Court upholds the appeal, matter is moot.
The CO judge “punted the ball”. To say any president is NOT an “officer of the US” is beyond ludicrous.
So far SCOTUS Jas generally refused to hear the cases,, and punted it back to the appeals or trial.court. I don’t think they want their names associated with the precedent it would set.
She either missed the entire spirit of the clause, or she thought it was too big for her bench. The authors clearly meant any office-holder who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution, especially the President. I’m sure none of them in their wildest dreams thought that a traitor would ever be seated in that chair.
So, this will go to the highest court in the land and their decision will be the stuff for legal scholars to debate for generations.
the US Supreme Court judges will side with Trump. A majority of them are Trump supporters. Also, there is no precedent, as Neil Gorsuch once said.
I don’t think trump had anything to do with picking the Judges , he was too stupid to do it, these were picked by Mitch McConnel . they don’t give a crap about trump they just wanted the high positions and life time jobs .
I think she just may be afraid of Trump and I don’t blame her. A lot of people don’t have the stomach to get on his wrong side and risk the wrath of his maniac followers.
Finally a judge admits a traitorous president is ABOVE THE LAW!!!
He’s above what she’s willing to do, that much is clear.
That was my take. The judge doesn’t want a target on her back.
trump came to Texas today to spread his hate. His rally in Edinburgh drew a couple hundred people. gov abbott was also there. trump can’t seem to find much of an audience here in blood red Texas. His previous rally in Houston only drew 1000. I wonder what that means, how tired of trump are his supporters.
Next video of his rally, look at the people behind him. They are bored. They are not listening. They listen to the prompters who tell them when to cheer and when to raise their placards. But otherwise, they are bored stiff. He has lost their attention. They may be paid to be there. I don’t know. But I always watch his audience for their enthusiasm or lack thereof. It’s been interesting.
Keep watching and let us know …. I’ve heard that before …
Um, technically, the primaries are controlled by the PARTIES, not the state. The State only acts as a facilitator (printing ballots, providing polling places, etc) for primary elections.
I thought I heard or read somewhere that the judge was basing her ruling on the PRIMARY ballot but was open to revisiting the issue *IF* Trump were to prevail and win the primary, at which point it would be up to the Secretary of State (or whoever’s in charge of the general election process) to file a suit. Traditionally, courts have been reluctant to intervene or interfere with how the parties handle their primary processes.
Back in 1986, here in Alabama, the Democratic primary was beset with an issue that wound up in court (and would eventually lead to the party’s downward spiral in state politics). Democrats Bill Baxley and Charlie Graddick were the leading candidates for the party’s nomination for Governor (and, traditionally, whoever won the primary would be the Governor since the GOP had limited statewide success) and, after the primary, the two were forced into a run-off with Baxley having 37% to Graddick’s 29% (former Governor Fob James came in 3rd with 21% and would go on to run as a GOPer in 1994). The race was a very close one and Graddick wound up winning by fewer than 9000 votes. BUT, Baxley claimed that Graddick had reached out to GOP voters to cross over and vote in the Democratic runoff and challenged Graddick’s win in court because the Party ran a “closed” primary, meaning if you hadn’t voted in the Democratic primary, you weren’t allowed to vote in a Democratic primary run-off. The Alabama Supreme Court found that Graddick had inappropriately appealed to GOP voters to vote in the run-off and ordered the Party to either name Baxley their nominee or hold another run-off election. The Party’s leadership had tried to work things out and wanted to remain neutral but, when faced with those choices, they opted to name Baxley as the nominee. Due to the controversy, Republican Guy Hunt wound up winning by 13 points (or nearly 160,000 votes).
Interesting clarification, and back story. Thanks, Joseph.
The Constitution says:
“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It also says: “The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.” And it says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:…” And: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Not to mention: “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.” Plus this: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Finally: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” And: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.” Not to mention: “Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.” And: “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” And: “Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.” And: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.“
Members of the Senate and House, by the way, are not referred to this same way, which is consistent with the different wording
Is that not enough to say the President holds an “Office” under the United States government? There is quite a lot of usage of the word ‘office’ in there, enough to define the position.
Hey! Ex-prez dipshit, a judge ruled you are an insurrectionist. That is no win. It will catch up and bite you on the ass.
Either way, we all knew this was headed for the SCOTUS.
I think that the judge teed it up for them so that she wouldn’t have to deliver the “kill shot” For some reason I need to point out that the previous is metaphorical).