Current Events > SCOTUS to hear arguments for Trump ballot eligibility. Long line for seating.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Supreme Court on Thursday will hear former President Donald Trumps appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who engaged in insurrection from holding office again.

It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nations capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the states primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.

Trumps lawyers argue that the amendment cant be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.

For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasnt an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if theyre wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trumps name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.

A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado, Maine and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.

The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maines Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that states ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of states rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.

The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.

People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote Hamilton, said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.

The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices, three of whom Trump appointed when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.

In April, the court also will hear an appeal from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.

The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trumps effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

I take it we're expecting the SCOTUS to rule in his favour?

I take it we're expecting the SCOTUS to rule in his favour?

I take it we're expecting the SCOTUS to rule in his favour?

Have there been any indications that the Federalist Society wants to offload the baggage around Trump now that he's served his purpose?

Have there been any indications that the Federalist Society wants to offload the baggage around Trump now that he's served his purpose?

Honestly all of this crap should have been decided months ago. Holding off like this seem like political posturing or something. I may have the wrong term.

If they do (which does seem likely), they will both beclown themselves and remove the last vestiges of legitimacy from their acts.

The dissenting justices would point this out in great detail.

Well it's only been 2 months since Colorado disqualified Trump from their ballot. Like it or not there's a process for these proceedings, and that process takes time. Honestly this is a rather quick turnaround for the SCOTUS compared to other cases.

That red tape is there to prevent abuse of the system but it's also Trumps greatest defense. The longer he can hold off any criminal proceedings, the more he can campaign and potentially win the presidency and (once again) claim immunity from all charges.

It's his literal Trump Card to be elected President and avoid all prosecution. It's pretty much the only reason he's actually running. He doesn't care about anything else and will say/do whatever it takes to get elected (now more than ever).

Please don't take it as me attacking you im not I agree with you they exposed that the Supreme Court is compromised. But it's been compromised and so far the only thing that can be done about it is wait for people to die.

Or hope for a massive blue wave and start impeaching some justices. Thomas would be very easy to get.

I mean I hope but your gonna have to forgive me when Biden came in with control of all 3 chambers (theoretically but in reality that was compromised to) and not shit happened. Though I think democrats are a bit more willing to actually get shit done this time when they realized compromise is not on the table anymore.

Manchin and Sinema in the Senate don't count, and Biden never had the House.

That's why I said theoretically. And unless I'm remembering wrong and this entry is wrong then dems had a slight majority in all sections (again in theory) in 2021.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress

The fact that Thomas is allowed to hear this case when his wife was involved in January 6th should remove any legitimacy from this court in people's minds.

I suspect they'll say something like although Trump has been indicted on a number of charges, he has not yet been found guilty of any related to insurrection and so it would be improper to punish him for a crime that the law has not yet found him guilty of. But then they will go on to say that if found guilty he would in fact be barred from running for president, effectively setting the precedent that he would be barred but acknowledging that all of the trial delays had the intended effect.

You're correct, it doesn't.
It's still going to be the argument they use. They shouldn't, but they will

The problem is, from a legal perspective how do you prove that someone has engaged in insurrection without doing so through the courts?

Yeah, this is the catch. I think there's a viable chance of him being found guilty of insurrection, but the whole "he doesn't need to be found guilty to be found guilty" thing making the rounds is mostly cope.

Kinda terrifying how even judges are polarized on this.

tag