Judge allows Trump on Michigan primary ballot as critics try to bar him

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

A judge on Tuesday ruled Donald Trump can appear on the primary ballot in Michigan, delivering the latest setback to those who contend Trump sparked an insurrection Jan. 6, 2021, and is barred from running for president again as a result.

An appeal is expected and could ultimately be resolved by the Michigan Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court. The case mirrors those in other states that contend Trump can’t run because of a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that bars officials from holding office if they engage in insurrection.

State Judge James Robert Redford wrote that courts don’t have the authority to determine whether someone is eligible to run for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In addition, Redford ruled that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) does not have the authority under state law to remove candidates from the ballot based on that provision.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/14/michigan-primary-ballot-trump-insurrection/

---

Didn't see that coming...

No, actually I did. Trump isn't going to be kept off the ballot anywhere.

[ColinC]

1. Had to dig a bit, but he is a Republican

Not in the crazy camp by any means, but I will certainly be interested in how the appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court goes.

[brooklynite]

2. Nothing in the ruling suggests a political bias.

[ColinC]

9. I haven't read it but I believe you

Still, it would be interesting to see how the Michigan Supreme Court differs from this opinion -if at all.

[brooklynite]

10. The ruling is pretty much the same as the Minnesota ruling...

Essentially, the Court can't rule on a POTENTIAL outcome (e.g. that Trump will the nominee) and that the Primary is essentially a Party selection facilitated by the State election process.

https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231114-opin-ord.pdf

[getagrip_already]

3. Primaries are seen as different than general elections

Primaries are considered private elections and not governed by the constitution.

General elections aren't.

I wouldn't put much stock in a decision about a primary.

But it does sound like the Colorado Court will rule against tiny. We will know soon.

[TwilightZone]

4. "the Colorado Court will rule against tiny"

What are you basing this assertion on?

[getagrip_already]

5. Just on her rulings to date and evidence presented...

CREW did an outstanding job presenting its case, and tinys keystone cops barely showed up.

I'm not a layer, constitutional or otherwise, but it just feels like he is gonna lose this one.

It will get to scotus either way I guess. No telling how they will rule, but if they side with him they are basically retiring. There won't be a role for them if he wins, and he m a y even have a score to settle.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Not surprised without a relevant conviction

But was surprised the judge ruled both the courts nor SOS had the authority to disqualify.

If there’s a conviction , hopefully this ruling will be appealed.

[3825-87867]

7. Well?

State Judge James Robert Redford wrote that courts don’t have the authority to determine whether someone is eligible to run for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

I guess that means the courts can't rule on any of those Articles or 27 other "items."

Kind of defeats the purpose of any legal judicial involvement or maybe he's saying we don't need a constitution? Just rule however he feels at the time!

[brooklynite]

8. "Insurrection" is a Federal crime...for which Trump has not been indicted.

You're asking 50 States who don't have Insurrection as a statutory crime to make a differing judgments on whether it occurred.

[moniss]

12. Judge Luttig went through all of this a couple of weeks ago

and gave the reasons why, under law, there did not need to be a conviction for insurrection. It is not just insurrection but also the phrase "rebellion against the Constitution" is in there and is applicable to anybody who has previously sworn to uphold the Constitution. The whole interview was very enlightening. I had previously thought a conviction would be necessary but Luttig goes into why that isn't the case. In any event the lower court judges are dodging by saying they have no jurisdiction to enforce the Constitution. That is pure gutlessness.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-14th-amendment-judge-luttig-rcna123336

[brooklynite]

15. He's entitled to his opinion...but he's not the decider of fact in this case.

[moniss]

17. Yes he's not the decider but he is a well recognized

authority on the Constitution and the reasoning by the deciders so far is gutless nonsense. Judges claiming the courts don't have the authority to review/enforce aspects of the Constitution is laughable. The judges so far are ducking even getting to the question of disqualification on the merits.

[moniss]

21. It is not about whether a state has insurrection enshrined in their

State Statutes/Constitution. The 14th is also about rebellion against the Constitution itself. The US Constitution has supremacy over all 50 states. Enforcement goes along with the other matters for state courts. This is what keeps states from being ala carte about your civil rights for example. The US Constitution says what it says about who is disqualified under the 14th. No judge has reached the merits yet and they have just sidestepped. It is similar to when a state judge says "Oh I can't rule on this aspect of the Constitution because there is no existing case law at the Federal level" which does happen frequently. That is a bullcrap argument because state judges rule all the time on cases that end up in Federal courts and get ruled on. It's how the system functions.

It harks back to Jim Crow when state judges used the same "I don't have authority" argument to sidestep enforcing the Constitution. Judges have egos and they don't like being overturned. That may well be at work here also. Judge Luttig went into this whole matter exhaustively on camera and in writing. The notion that you make a determination of qualification only after an election is nonsense and the judges know it. Rule on the merits of disqualification. So far they have not done so.

[brooklynite]

22. Your outrage is noted...

...but the reality is that Donald Trump is not currently a candidate for President (or any other US office) and Judges aren't going to rule on his eligibility until he is.

[moniss]

26. The reality is that a couple of lower

state court judges have ruled. The issue here is that you become a candidate when you are placed on the ballot. You may or may not become the nominee from that state based on being a candidate on the ballot. What the judges so far have envisioned with their reasoning is that an individual can, in actuality, not be allowed to hold the office due to disqualifying factors and their "cure" is that either sometime after the ballots are already printed/created/programmed (usually very close to an election) a legal process could then take place despite statutory deadlines etc. and supposedly the process would all finish in the blink of an eye so as not to forestall an election. Or apparently their remedy for disqualification is to wait until the election has in fact taken place and then a legal process could begin and drag on for who knows how long. What they envision and their reasoning is untenable, unworkable and they chose a cowardly way out of addressing candidate qualification to be on a ballot.

[moniss]

11. These judges so far are being ridiculous

in saying the courts don't have jurisdiction regarding enforcement or interpretation of the Constitution. Marbury was settled long ago and the idea of a judge dodging controversy by claiming lack of jurisdiction has a long sordid history. It was used repeatedly during Jim Crow and into the 20th Century.

[noclue023]

13. Why do we have court's then ! Jurisdiction -

why do we need a Supreme Court & foot the bill ? Each state has a Supreme Court ! All the Supreme Court does is bring it & boot it back to the state's that want a ruling ? With all their mumbo jumbo that seem's , sound's like they swallowed a Dictionary !

[brooklynite]

16. Not what they're saying

They’re saying that Courts don’t make contingent rulings in case something does happen. Trump isn’t the Republican nominee so there’s no ability to rule him off the ballot.

[moniss]

18. The courts are ducking the matter and

claiming they can't rule. The idea that they would have to wait until after he is the nominee is in order to disqualify is ridiculous. You don't get a license to be a contractor, despite not meeting the qualifications of bond/insurance, and the state only takes action after you get your license. Using that logic if a 10 year old wanted to be on the ballot you would have to allow it and only strike them if they were the nominee despite the requirement that you be at least 35 years old.

[brooklynite]

20. "You don't get a license to be a contractor, despite not meeting the qualifications"

You also don't get Courts or anyone else to rule on those qualifications until they apply for the license. The possibility that someone WILL apply for a Contractor's license in the future is not the basis for a judgement.

Arguably, everyone convicted for January 6th should also be ineligible but we're not ruling on their eligibility at this point because none of them are a candidate for Federal office.

[moniss]

23. It is not arguable that in the 14th that all insurrectionists or people who rebel

are disqualified. Only the ones who previously swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If the judges want to say let the candidate apply to be on the ballot and then strike him that would be one thing. But they aren't and are sidestepping.

Courts rule on legal matters, such as qualifications/applicability, all the time without someone actually "applying". All we have to do is look at the recent SC decision about a person who claims to aspire to be a web site designer, has no such existing business and has never been asked to make a web site and yet brought a legal challenge about requirements for conduct of the business. The courts at all levels took the case and ruled despite nobody ever having "applied" to be a customer or the plaintiff having "applied" to open a business.

[brooklynite]

24. "let the candidate apply to be on the ballot"

That's the problem. Trump hasn't applied to be on the ballot. His Party will if he's nominated.

[moniss]

27. The Michigan case was about the primary

ballot. The party nomination takes place after the primary elections/caucuses.

[brooklynite]

29. In the Minnesota and Michigan cases, the Court rules that Primaries are not State Elections...

...they are PARTY elections implemented by the State election process. You may think that's nit-picking, but it's a legal distinction.

[moniss]

30. This is precisely

what I mean about faulty reasoning allowing them to sidestep the merits. So it's supposedly not a "state election" although it has to adhere to the "state election process". Those dancers on the head of that pin are getting mighty crowded. It is well recognized by everyone that there are primary elections and general elections at the state level. The campaigns are party matters. The state runs and controls both primary and general elections. In fact there are primary elections that are non-partisan as well. They looked for a reason not to reach the merits.

[brooklynite]

31. What I'm seeing is "I disagree with the Court ruling, so the Court must be irresponsible in that ruling"

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.....

[moniss]

32. Not at all.

The court is irresponsible on its' face by making a ruling that in effect says "Anybody (possibly anything) can be on a primary ballot as a candidate regardless of not meeting the legal constraints called for." So in the mind of the judges imposters, non US citizens, juveniles, dead people and potted plants are all fine to appear on a primary ballot and run as candidates because, in the judges view, the ballot for the general election is where any defect can be corrected. The judges know very well how people game the deadlines, for instance with referendum questions/wording, in order to run out the clock for any correction to be made. They do so many times successfully and that is why it's used as a tactic. The states all have laws about not doing false things to confuse voters for example. The states are well within their rights, as are judges, to insure that only candidates who meet qualifications are on both primary and general election ballots.

Do you really think that the GQP would not count on running out the clock on any eligibility challenge to their candidate come November 2024? When you are disqualified by the Constitution you are from the beginning of any process for you to be a candidate and not just at the very end. The plaintiffs are appealing. Meanwhile the judges appear to be headed to candidate forums between Russians and rubber plants.

[azureblue]

14. a tough one

Constitutional issues should be resolved by the SC. But state ballot issues should be resolved by the state. So it's a gray area because of overlap - a federal level candidate on a state ballot. It seems like it should be ruled at state, then move to federal.

All that aside, Trump, by definition of the 14th, is disqualified. No ifs or buts. Who gets the final say? If the SC rules against Trump, you know the MAGATs will flip out. Suddenly the law won't matter to them..

[duhneece]

19. CREW provided the best results in NM, denying Couy G from holding office

Couy (Cowboys for Trump) Griffin was ‘only’ convicted of Trespassing.
CREW provided great witnesses, evidence and attorneys who had Couy removed from office and Couy can’t hold any elected office in the United States
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121307430/couy-griffin-otero-county-insurrection-fourteenth-amendment

[oldsoftie]

25. Well so far he still hasnt been convicted of anything.