General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSCOTUS has 'no legitimate off-ramps' to tossing Trump from ballot: conservative ex-judge
The U.S. Supreme Court will undoubtedly look for some way to determine the Colorado ballot case without deciding whether Donald Trump is eligible to hold office, but a retired conservative judge doesn't see an "off-ramp" for them. The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified the former president from the ballot under the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause, and former federal judge Michael Luttig told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" the high court has no way to avoid ruling on his eligibility.
"The Supreme Court finds itself in a very precarious position today," Luttig said. "Undoubtedly, it doesn't want to decide this case, and it will be looking for all legitimate off-ramps to decide that the former president is disqualified, but there are no legitimate off-ramps to that decision. What you'll see this morning at the court is the court looking, plumbing all possibilities with counsel, as to how the court can resolve the case without deciding whether the former president was disqualified."
The reason that decision will be unavoidable, Luttig said, is the president clearly engaged in insurrection.
"Section 3 disqualifies any person who engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution," Luttig said. "There's no question whatsoever that the former president engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution when he attempted to remain in power beyond his constitutional term of four years and denied President Joe Biden the powers of the presidency to which he was entitled, having won the election by a vote of the American people. All of this prevented the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history. This is precisely the insurrection that disqualifies one under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, so, you're right, that is the only legal issue."
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-supreme-court-2667198816/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
montanacowboy
(6,714 posts)With deciding an entire election - yes John Roberts remember that one
jimfields33
(19,382 posts)
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,744 posts)
Emile
(42,293 posts)
SouthernDem4ever
(6,619 posts)
And they had the nerve to declare their decision applied to that election only. How corruptly convenient. If this SCOTUS didn't want to appear corrupt, they should have rejected taking the case and let the lower court ruling stand. But they don't care if they look corrupt anymore.
Attilatheblond
(8,880 posts)Three members of the current court worked to stop the FL recount and hand the WH to George W. Bush/Dick Cheney.
Marthe48
(23,175 posts)his reward for overturning the will of the people was the seat he disgraces every time he sits for a case heard by the (formerly) s.c.
beer bong and barbie were also part of the bush team in 2000.
dpibel
(3,944 posts)Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett were all part of the Bush v. Gore legal team.
ProudMNDemocrat
(20,897 posts)Especially with a wife who was part of the coup plot.
Judge Luttig is CORRECT here.
Ray Bruns
(6,362 posts)
cloudbase
(6,270 posts)
Johnny2X2X
(24,210 posts)I expect they'll define this as "convicted of insurrection." This court has no issues rewriting the Constitution in ordedr to push us towards a more fascist government.
Lovie777
(22,985 posts)wherein shithole has no immunity. That in itself is a clue.
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(661 posts)... is that they will say something like Trump has not been convicted of insurrection in any court, therefor is still eligible to hold the office. I think the Colorado court decision will be determined not to be a criminal conviction. If a president is convicted of such a crime in the future, he would no longer be eligible to hold office.
Of course, that might decide the immunity question as well, so maybe not.
Just my expectation.
patphil
(9,068 posts)But they will uphold the lower court ruling concerning immunity. If the President was immune from prosecution, then both the SC and the Legislature would become irrelevant. The President could simply ignore them.
sanatanadharma
(4,089 posts)Precedent was set after the Civil War when court trials and convictions were not required.
As I understand it; sorry!
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(661 posts)was that holding political or military office in the CSA was considered sufficiently overt an act that it was treated as a confession and accepted in lieu of conviction.
I do not know if anyone who simply supported the South, without fighting for them or holding office, was barred from office.
Trump has never confessed nor claimed to be president of the breakaway MAGA nation. While I agree that his acts reach the level of insurrection my opinion holds no legal sway. So, a conviction might be required.
But I could well be wrong.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)If it was adjudicated in lower courts (not sure), it's likely that any member of the Confederacy would have appealed it that far, knowing the eventual outcome.
It's not a stretch to believe the SCotUS will rule that someone needs to be criminally convicted in order to treat them as a person who has committed a specific crime. If the 14th said murderers or arsonists couldn't hold office, it's not outside the realm of posibility that they would need to be convicted of murder or arson.
Buckeyeblue
(6,352 posts)And that while what Trump did was reprehensible, it does not reach the level of a full insurrection. This will also give everyone who was convicted of Jan 6th activity a potential path to appeal.
Honestly, that is their best out.
The only other out is to say section 5 requires legislation to enforce section 3 and there is no such legislation. So while there may be a section 3 violation, since there is no law to enforce it, it just becomes a big so what.
I also think it would be interesting if Trump's 3 appointees recuse, along with Thomas, and give the decision to the 3 liberal members. Almost as an "I dare you" type of move.
Response to Tom of Temecula (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(661 posts)... but I am not sure I can agree.
TSExile
(3,363 posts)My apologies to Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. 💔
Puppyjive
(987 posts)He never transferred his power. So he isn't eligible to run again. Hah, wish that had some teeth.
Mr.Bee
(1,824 posts)the once Rush Limburger crowd is now listening to him as if he has a daily show.
He's a precedent, a meddler, commentator and a swindler!
bucolic_frolic
(55,143 posts)there is the remedy for "disability" as the amendment states, of a 2/3 vote in Congress. So far, we have not found the modern method that is used to disqualify. What everyone saw with their own eyes and the schemes and conspiracies DJT engaged in to remain in power are pretty good evidence. Will SCOTUS open their eyes to the evidence? It's either the states or SCOTUS. Not much else remaining. SCOTUS has nowhere in the Constitution to pass the ball to Congress other than 14A Sec. 3, and that is to remove disqualification.
AncientOfDays
(264 posts)... that tRump's impeachment, by majority of House and Senate, defined "insurrection", detailed his involvement, gave him Due Process, etc.
Emile
(42,293 posts)Justice matters.
(9,787 posts)On his smelly platform and at his fascist rallies...
Response to Tom of Temecula (Original post)
a kennedy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Carlitos Brigante
(26,848 posts)a kennedy
(35,994 posts)Gonna trash my post. 
Carlitos Brigante
(26,848 posts)
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)That not only does someone need to be convicted of insurrection to be removed under the 14ths3, this former potus could not be prosecuted because he is immune from prosecution for actions taken while he was in office.
So there.
underpants
(196,501 posts)Teleworking today.
Were confederates convicted? Seems to be the obvious question to the beginning of that argument.
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)But this is pretzel logic, hard to follow. Sometimes he was arguing officer vs office, then would jump to ballot access, then to what an insurrection is....
But no, after the Civil War they didn't stop to convict anyone.
Dr. Shepper
(3,236 posts)Ruler for life but still has immunity.
Make it make sense. 
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)Already smacked down by the court of appeals.
They ruled there is no presidential immunity for criminal acts, absolute or otherwise, while in office.
Mr.Bee
(1,824 posts)how can you convict when the person that needs to be convicted is presently in court battles, campaigning, and delaying court cases until after the election...
non-sense.
orangecrush
(30,261 posts)Does "legitimacy" have anything to do with this court?
Roe.
malthaussen
(18,572 posts)Hasn't stopped them in the past. The only question is whether they want to or not. I frankly think they don't, that they'd be happy to sink DJT and all of his tribe. He's got no leverage.
-- Mal
Initech
(108,783 posts)But orange man baby's power trip gets fast tracked. What the actual fuck. 
redqueen
(115,186 posts)The rich run everything
Zincwarrior
(73 posts)They can rule that this requires Federal Legislative action to be enabling.
They can rule that the candidate can run and then Congress will vote on the person (this has occurred).
They can rule a bunch of ways. Envisioning a legal out for the election, is unlikely.