US Supreme Court rebuffs long-shot candidate's bid to disqualify Trump in 2024

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Reuters, via Yahoo! News

Reuters

US Supreme Court rebuffs long-shot candidate's bid to disqualify Trump in 2024

John Kruzel
Mon, October 2, 2023 at 9:41 AM EDT · 2 min read

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a case involving whether former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from the 2024 election under a constitutional provision barring anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding public office.

The justices rejected an appeal by John Anthony Castro, a Texas tax consultant who has mounted a long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination, of a lower court's finding that he lacked the legal standing to sue seeking Trump's disqualification under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Castro has cited Trump's actions relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by the then-president's supporters as insurrection.

This may not be the final time that the Supreme Court is asked to weigh in on the subject. Other litigation on the 14th amendment and Trump is still playing out in lower courts. ... The justices announced their action on the first day of their new nine-month term.

The lawsuit, filed by Castro in federal court in Florida, sought to have Trump declared ineligible to pursue public office and block him from applying to appear on the ballot in any U.S. state.

{snip}

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-long-134149499.html

---

Hat tip, Joe.My.God.

SCOTUS Rejects Appeal To Bar Trump From Ballot
October 2, 2023

https://www.joemygod.com/2023/10/scotus-rejects-appeal-to-bar-trump-from-ballot/

[turbinetree]

1. Well I wonder if Democrats should file then what do they do, you know the 6 that have meet and ....

greets with the class of the ultra-rich that just buy judges and give plane rides and such ..... and since he is a republican from Florida maybe he should have filed under the MAGA shit show name, so that they are all on the same page .......just a thought....

[Ponietz]

2. "Standing" is a fail safe out for subversive fascist fact-finders

It’s a gate keeping doctrine — “you get to bring this claim, you don’t even if your claim has merit.” It means whatever SCOTUS wants it to mean and is used frequently to deny justice.

[onenote]

6. Were you this upset when all the birther cases were tossed on standing grounds?

[Ponietz]

8. Enjoy your day

[Ponietz]

9. FYI

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=nulr

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3710948

The standing doctrine envisions an ideal plaintiff who cares about the individual rather than the collective, concrete interests rather than social values, and the short-term rather than the long-term. Far from being a neutral procedural device to mandate judicial restraint, the standing requirement has proven a powerful tool to enshrine neoliberal values into law.

Neither the Constitution nor history mandates the standing doctrine. Early common law allowed plaintiffs to sue on behalf of the public in several contexts. Even after the standing doctrine developed in the twentieth century, courts often honored expansive statutory rights of action and sometimes applied collective principles to the Constitution.

Since the neoliberal turn in the 1970s, however, standing restrictions have played a crucial role in turning the courts into capital’s playground.

[peppertree]

3. Of course they did - they're only sorry it failed

Their policy (for the five fascists) is: if it's alt-right, it's all right.

[Polybius]

14. It would have been 9-0 if it had gone to the full Court

It was a good decision. Without conviction, he shouldn't be denied.

[Mz Pip]

16. I agree

Without a conviction it would open the door to people demanding candidates being removed from the ballot based on allegations alone. The GQP would want Biden removed because of the against him.

[slightlv]

19. The 14th doesn't mention ANYTHING about conviction however,

and therein lies the rub. We are so steeped in the process of arrest/trial/conviction/punishment that we don't see there were procedures for handling things that went beyond the pale. J6 was one of those things that went beyond the pale... just like the Civil War of the 1800's.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Either way, there would have to be proof of tRump malfeasance. Practically, conviction is main way

Practically speaking, a conviction is the best proof of malfeasance.

Otherwise, you have to prove a convictable action anyway in the case to disqualify for it to rise to the level of disqualifying someone. Same number of witnesses, exhibits, arguments, etc.

[cstanleytech]

22. True, it doesn't however just claiming someone engaged in it doesn't mean they did.

I mean imagine the nightmare of claims we would be seeing against people running for office if it did just to try and block them from running.

[NYC Liberal]

23. Who determines whether someone engaged in insurrection?

It has to be one of the three branches. So:

- Executive? The worst option. Conflict of interest and there’s only one person in charge (the president), so there would be no accountability for a president to declare his opponent disqualified
- Congress? Not as bad because there are 535 members, so you would have to get a majority to approve a disqualification. Conflict of interest is less likely unless the majority party tries to mass disqualify every candidate in the opposing party.
- Judicial? This is the best option because, a) there are appeals and b) conflict of interest is much less likely with any specific candidate. And also, insurrection is a crime, which the judicial branch already handles.

You have to consider what happens beyond Trump. The easier it’s made to disqualify someone, the more likely Republicans will abuse it.

[Zeitghost]

25. What procedure, specifically

Are you referencing that would make a finding in such a matter that would afford an accused insurrectionist/rebel their due process rights?

[Marthe48]

4. Of course they did

Things like this aren't in their fantasy konstitution.

[onenote]

5. This appeal was doomed from the start

Castro, the petitioner, was attempting to get the Supreme Court hear his case prior to the the 11th Circuit having an opportunity to rule on his appeal to that court The Supreme Court rarely jumps ahead of the Court of Appeals.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. Thank you. And good morning. NT

[msfiddlestix]

12. Fair point. Now the question I have is, why did SCITUS render an opinion they chose not to hear?

Isn't their standard mode of operation, to (metaphorically speaking) toss such cases in the compost bin?

[former9thward]

13. They are trying to send a signal to other cases which are in the pipe.

[onenote]

17. They didn't render an opinion.It was one in long list of cases they refused to hear

There was no discussion, no opinion. Just the name of the case and the docket number.

See page 40: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100223zor_5368.pdf

[msfiddlestix]

26. Wait. I guess I misread the report. Could have sworn SCOTUS decided the person brining the case

didn't have standing.

[onenote]

27. No. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of ripeness and standing

The plaintiff appealed to the 11th Circuit, which has not yet ruled on the appeal. The plaintiff then sought to have the Supreme Court bypass the 11th Circuit and grant "certiorari before judgment" -- something the Court rarely does. The Court doesn't explain when it denies certiorari and a denial of certiorari does not necessarily reflect agreement with the decision below.

[msfiddlestix]

28. Thank you for helping me understand this better. I've heard the "certiorari" a number of times,

though I simply never knew what the definition. I've never felt I would ever need to know.

The fact that the plaintiff sought an end around the 11th Circuit seems laughable and pathetic,

Desperate and faulty counseling, I guess.

[onenote]

29. I think he represented himself.

[Silent Type]

10. Hope this puts a damper on the 14th Amendment junk. It ain't gonna work and even if

it did work, we'd be running against DeSantis, Haley, etc. I'm not sure we'd be better off with that.

[Lonestarblue]

11. I'm no lawyer, but these cases seem dubious.

Our system of justice says that anyone is presumed innocent until found guilty. The DOJ has not charged Trump with insurrection. Nor has he yet been found guilty on any charges related to January 6. As a result, the charge of insurrection would seem to be merely an accusation, not a fact proved in a court of law.

I see using this as an excuse to keep Trump off the ballot as a slippery slope. What accusations would Republicans make against future Democratic presidential candidates—no doubt with manufactured “evidence”—to prevent a popular Democrat from becoming a candidate? I don’t want Trump to run, but I’d rather it be because he is found guilty of multiple crimes and is serving a years-long jail sentence.

[Polybius]

15. This should put to rest what some self-proclaimed "scholars" said was possible without a conviction

No, it's not possible, nor should it be.

[LeftInTX]

18. Yep

[melm00se]

20. This issue

is one that the Supreme Court will take and rule on when the time comes but they will not step outside the box to accelerate the process.

The importance, gravity and scope of taking up the case and making a ruling demands that the Court do everything by the numbers (to 23 decimal places) so when they rule, it can't be grabbed by wackadoodles, bent into an unrecognizable pretzel and applied in areas it never should be.

It's ruling needs to survive an examination down to the sub sub subatomic level so there can be no doubt from every side that the ruling was done to the letter of the law and there is no doubt.

My gut says that if they rule, it will be an unequivocal unanimous ruling with 1 single opinion with no competing concurrences to clutter or confuse.

My fear is that the Court will slap the "political question" label on the whole situation and declare the issue nonjusticiable thus kicking the can down the road.

[DownriverDem]

24. I don't want someone to replace trump.

No one says who the replacement would be. I think it would be best for Biden/Harris to run against trump. If you think trump shouldn't be on the ballot, who should be there? This is about Biden/Harris getting re-elected.

[MistakenLamb]

30. Can we be over this already?

All this time, money and resources on such an futile act. Only way Trump is going down in 13 months is good old shoe leather