As has been pointed out, states do this every year. Trump recently tried to claim Haley had failed to qualify for the primary ballot in a state due to lack of petition signatures. (He was actually wrong, but no matter.) No one declared a constitutional crisis or cried “Havoc!,” and let slip the dogs of war.SCOTUS justices across the aisle — including Kagan, Thomas, and Barrett — have questioned states' ability to disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, Section 3.
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) February 8, 2024
Kagan just pressed a lawyer for Trump's challengers on the matter.
And every year Presidential candidates qualify for 50 state ballots under 50 state laws. Only Democrats and Republicans are”automatically” qualified (it’s not automatic but a function of law, and why political parties still matter). Every other candidate is presumptively disqualified.
This ain’t that complicated, and the Justices are assuming the two major party candidates are ordained by Art. II and the blessings of we, the people. Which is really more disturbing than this:
The Justices pretend they are dealing with fundamental principles. But they are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.We’re almost through Mitchell’s argument and there hasn’t been a *single* substantive question about whether Trump engaged in insurrection.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) February 8, 2024
That’s … not a good sign for a ruling *affirming* the Colorado Supreme Courf.
(The pro-Colorado lawyer finally touched on this point. We’ll see if any of the 9 pick up on this. I won’t hold my breath.)
The argument for consequences was the primary argument (per the MSNBC panel). So, no Mike Luttig or George Conway on the bench. Too much concern with who gets to be on the ballot for President, especially with third-party candidates standing in the shadows shouting “HELLO!”, while nobody notices.
I will also note the discussion of the sedition clause (which predates the 14th), which denies one convicted under it from holding office thereafter. This was presented as superseding, or at least making moot, the 14th. So basically the argument was on track to declare cl. 3 an empty set of words in the Constitution.
Which is the worst outcome imaginable. “We don’t like the consequences of following the Constitution, so we won’t. Let’s just all pretend the Constitution doesn’t say what it says.”
If that ain’t a “constitutional crisis,” I don’t know what is.
If Kagan wasn't asking the question rhetorically it makes me wonder if these idiots are going to make a ruling that will force states to have anyone who files on the ballot. People disqualified under the Constitution's provisions about foreign born people, underage people. I think my worst fears weren't fearful enough. The Court has got to be reigned in and cut down to size.
ReplyDelete