Supreme Court Couldn't Possibly Enforce Constitution Against Trump, What Kind Of Mad Powers You Think They Have?
Another day, another reach-around.
The Supreme Court did what everybody expected it would this morning, and shitcanned any fleeting hopes that insurrectionist Donald Trump might get kicked off the Colorado ballot, voting 9-0 in an unsigned ruling to let him to stay on. Five of the justices also asserted that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is meaningless unless Congress acts to enforce it. (In two separate concurrences, Amy Coney Barrett and the Court’s three liberals, respectively, didn’t go quite that far.) Turns out they can act a little bit fast when they want to, after all!
In what sounds like a flaming-bag-of-dog-poo-on-the-porch type of mess, the ruling places the burden on federal DAs (who are appointed by the president) to take civil action against the president for holding the office in violation of the amendment.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates… We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”
So Trump couldn’t run for Jared Polis’s spot as Colorado governor, but he can still run for president on the Colorado ballot. Why not? Barack Obama running for a third term? A 15-year-old recent immigrant from Slovakia getting elected? Come on down to the ballot, all of that is now cool, we guess, unless Congress says we can’t! Sounds a little crazy, WCGW?
The court also conspicuously includes not one word of discussion on whether January 6 actually was an insurrection, or if Trump was involved. It’s impolite to mention such things in front of Clarence Thomas. (Notably, Trump had specifically asked the Court to absolve him of all insurrections. Here, Norm Eisen explains why that matters for Trump’s criminal cases.)
Anyway, reaction in Trumpland was jubilation, with TFG Truthering “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!” which was a zesty and refreshing change from his usual witness intimidation, threats and conspiracy theories.
On Fox News, Trey Gowdy was more cautious, saying Trump should exhibit some "humility" on the SCOTUS ballot ruling because it's very likely the Court will also overwhelmingly rule against him on presidential immunity.
"It's confusing when you say 'I love you' on one day and 'I hate you' the next," he fussed.
Oh, don’t worry, Trey, the Court still loves him!
As it happens, today was supposed to be the very day that Trump’s four-count insurrection case started in DC before Judge Chutkan. But Trump cried supermagicsparklepresidentialimmunity! and got the case put on ice while he appealed. The court refused in a one-sentence ruling to weigh in, instead kicking it back to the DC superior court, which unanimously decided last month that yes, Joe Biden having Seal Team 6 assassinate Trump would be a crime, actually. The Supreme Court, or at least four certain members, after sitting on their duffs for a bit, then took the opportunity to be like, hey now, maybe that whole supermagicsparklepresidentialimmunity! thing is something we should look into after all! Your ideas intrigue us and we would like to subscribe to your newsletter! So they scheduled arguments for the very last week of their term, April 22, keeping the case in limbo like an Alabama embryo’s soul.
When will they rule after that? Who knows? Maybe not until June, or later! And with Judge Aileen Cannon squatting on the calendar in Florida, well, maybe we just won’t get to that one before the election, after all. It’s not that important to know if the president is a criminal, is it? It’s kind of NBD, really.
This court is way past caring what anyone thinks. They just got new ethics rules, which might as well state that having no ethics rules. Should you recuse yourself from a case where your wife helped plot a coup to overthrow the government? Probably, but whatever. Maybe report your gifts, or don’t, because what is anyone going to do about it? Is it now okay for The Supremes to get paid for decisions by donors backing up a Brinks truck to the courthouse full of giant sacks of unmarked bills with dollar signs on them? Don’t say such things out loud!
They’re there for LIFE, baby.
[ruling]
Related...I'll just drop this off:
tristansnell
30m
MAGA/SCOTUS: we believe in states rights
KANSAS: we're refusing to ban reproductive rights in our state constitution
MAGA: except that
OHIO: we're protecting repro rights in our state constitution
MAGA: and that
COLORADO: trump is disqualified
SCOTUS: no more states rights!!!
https://www.threads.net/@tristansnell/post/C4GoPLcJOa3
Folks, I'm begging you to stop listening to the lawyertainers on MSNBC. They're gonna tell you what you want to hear to keep you watching. That's their job. It just causes people to have completely ridiculous expectations.
There was no way the Supremes were going to ignore the Congressional enforcement mandate in Section 5. None. Even if they ignored what they learned the first week of law school -- that laws, rules, and regulations are to be read as a whole -- they weren't going to ignore the presence of an off-ramp. Even if they did, and resorted to statutory construction, they weren't going to look at the historical context and determine that the post-CW congress wrote Section 3 after deciding that the South made a pretty good point when it came to states rights.
It came down 9-0 for a reason. The dopes on MSNBC or wherever else knew that. Or they damned well should have. If you are relying on those people for legal analysis, it's effectively the same as relying on Dr. Oz for medical advice.
That goes double for Former Federal Prosecutors' analysis of state law questions.