487

Former federal judge: The Constitution will disqualify Trump from higher office, ‘not Joe Biden’ (thehill.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Simmumah@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 210 points 6 months ago

Luttig said it would be “impossible” for the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th Amendment any differently than the Colorado court.

thats some solid optimism against a supreme court proven to be corrupt

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 97 points 6 months ago

Luxury fishing trips and anonymously repaid debts enter the chat

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 42 points 6 months ago

Same SCOTUS that already refused to hear Trump's earlier election case (not this week's story)?

Same SCOTUS who refused to hear Alabama's redistricting case, allowing a lower court's judgement to stand?

Y'all need to learn the difference between "conservative" and "partisan".

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 27 points 6 months ago

I tend to agree with your point, but they also dragged out legal precedent from ≈1850 to justify striking down abortion. They could just as easily go back to the pre-amendment version and say that the Framers never intended the 14th amendment to be a part of the Constitution; their conservatism isn't exactly grounded in anything reasonable

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

1850 would have been considered the space age to the guy Alito used as justification

Yes, Alito literally quoted this guy, who was born in 1609, as a defense for ending Roe v. Wade in 2022.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 12 points 6 months ago

Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. The reactionary judges are happy to work with the reactionary party to accomplish their goals. How can political actors be nonpartisan when their political philosophy is one and the same as that of a major political party?

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

It's a distinction with context. Partisan could be for any side. In this case it's by conservatives who are define morality through the execution of toxic capitalism and profit without room for nuance.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Taking two completely fake cases designed to set conservative legal precident isn't partisan enough for you? They're pretending to have some level of actual impartiality currently because of the scrutiny over roe, Clarence Thomas, etc. Plus those rulings they didn't touch were legally sound enough that overturning them would cause riots outside their homes.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago

So do most "conservatives".

[-] brown567@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

What? They aren't corrupt, they unanimously agreed they weren't /s

[-] Simmumah@lemmy.world 86 points 6 months ago

For those people in denial, a judge had a Finding of Fact in an American Court case, that Trump engaged in Insurrection.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/18/politics/takeaways-from-the-blockbuster-trump-insurrectionist-ban-ruling/index.html

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago

Yep! Brilliant move. Now any higher court has to treat that as a fact. No take backsies.

In either case, this was getting appealed, but now Trump is factually an insurrectionist. I am here for it.

[-] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

So you can’t appeal a finding of fact? I was under the assumption everything was up for challenging

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago

Trump won that case, nothing to appeal.

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

I don't understand how important a finding of fact is, could you explain why this is valuable beyond Colorado? I want to be excited about it as well.

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago

I'm still afraid of Bush vs Gore 2.0 but all it takes is 5/9 to do the right thing

[-] Davel23@kbin.social 70 points 6 months ago

Luttig said it would be “impossible” for the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th Amendment any differently than the Colorado court.

The Supremely Corrupt Court: Hold my beer.

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

"Well, actually, an 'Officer' in this context is an unelected representative. And since there's no direct line for the President, they must've meant to exempt that office implicitly (even though that would really need an explicit exemption) so we're going to side with Trump"

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 6 months ago

But doing so would mean presidents are above US law. It would also mean we could just call the '24 election for Biden now and because he'd be above the law, you couldn't make him leave. Really a lose/lose for Trump on this one.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 55 points 6 months ago

The Colorado Supreme Court determined that Trump was responsible for the Jan. 6 Capitol riots and should be disqualified from the ballot via the 14th Amendment.

Not "should be" - "is." They determined that Trump is disqualified from the ballot via the 14th Amendment.

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Does the Supreme Court of the US believe that?

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 16 points 6 months ago

Until they make a ruling, or decline to take the case, the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling stands. (Yes, I know they have stayed judgment until Jan 4.)

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

They believe what they are paid to believe.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Depends on who's paying them.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

A ruling that the President of the United States, that has been found to have engaged in insurrection against the United States, doesn't fall under the 14th amendment would basically mean that Presidents are above US law. This would mean Biden could just call the '24 election now, or do a Putin, and just disqualify Trump now and Biden could just stay until he leaves on his own or death. It's a lose/lose for Trump on this.

Edit typo

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

federal law and the constitution went out the window years ago

everything is a state by state issue now from voting, to insurance laws both medical auto etcetera, abortion and bodily autonomy, what health care you are allowed to receive, you name it and yes this includes who will be on the ballot all decided based on what geographic lottery you win

federal law is toothless only state laws matter now

source: the lawyer we pay and even his entire office does not know how to proceed with certain cases now that federal law is being dismantled entirely

[+] reddig33@lemmy.world -16 points 6 months ago

In encourage you to go read Lawrence Lessig’s analysis of this case. It’s likely the court will find the 14th amendment leaves out the word “president” for a reason.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 34 points 6 months ago

That makes literally zero sense, because the 14th Amendment bars anyone from holding any civil or military office who engaged in insurrection. and before you go on "well durrrrr the presidency isn't an office," the constitution refers to the presidency as the Office of the President of the United States repeatedly:

Article 1, Section 3:

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Article 1, section 3:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

(This provision is especially important because it means that if the presidency isn't counted as an office the president is literally immune from impeachment because there's no provision in the constitution to actually try the president for impeachment.)

Article 2, section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected...

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

12th Amendment:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

22nd Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Claiming that the 14th Amendment doesn't cover the presidency completely ignores the plain text of the entire fucking constitution!

Another fun side effect is that the president not being an office covered under the 14th amendment would also mean they're exempt from the Emoluments clause, though that one might already be dead.......

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

The Supremely Corrupted of the US will take all of that overwhelmingly evidence into consideration and just say “No, he’s good. If you want to know why, it’s because we said so. If you don’t like the decision, what are you going to do, fire us?”

[+] reddig33@lemmy.world -21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Go read the opinion. Evidently in drafts of the amendment “president” was included and then later removed.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/supreme-court-trump-ballot-removal-colorado-wrong.html

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, because the presidency was already covered by the phrase "any office, civil or military." This very concern is brought up during the congressional debates over ratifying the amendment, and is addressed:

But this amendment does not go far enough. I suppose the framers of the amendment thought it was necessary to provide for such an exigency. I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation. No man is to be a Senator or Representative or an elector for President or Vice President.

Mr. MORRILL. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."

Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.

Source: https://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf page 60

So the original people drafting the Amendment understood it to cover the presidency.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 12 points 6 months ago

That's as clear-cut as it gets right there.

If you know that, then every SCotUS justice knows it.

If SCotUS destroys the 14th Amendment for Trump, they are truly illegitimate.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 4 points 6 months ago

Yeah, literally the only pathway to ruling Trump is not barred is by throwing out the entire finding of fact by the Colorado supreme court that Trump engaged in an insurrection. It's not impossible since appellate courts do technically have this power, but appellate courts are usually supposed to give extreme deference to lower courts when it comes to their findings of fact--the standard from my brief bit of research is that the lower court's findings must be "clearly erroneous."

So given how batshit our current court is I expect at least two surefire no votes from Thomas and Alito. Gorsuch is probably a yes vote given how much of a strict textualist he's turned out to be, as are the entire liberal bloc. Ironically, Roberts is yet again the most likely swing vote, and I honestly don't know if he'd sign off on disqualifying him. I could see anything from 7-2 in favor of upholding to 5-4 or 6-3 overturning. Considering their recent signal in the form of denying Smith's request for expedited review, I'm... honestly not optimistic.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 0 points 6 months ago

Considering their recent signal in the form of denying Smith’s request for expedited review, I’m… honestly not optimistic.

Wasn't this 9-0 unanimous?

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 1 points 6 months ago

We don't know, all we know iirc is that at least four justices said "nah bro go through the regular appeals process." So reading the tea leaves, at least Thomas and Alito, plus any two of Gorsuch, Roberts, ACB, and Kavanaugh said no, at minimum.

It's hard to say with certainty what this signals about how they'll rule on the various Trump cases, but at minimum it indicates that they either don't realize that he's trying to delay the trials in the hopes he can win the election and have them all dropped, or they don't care that's what he's doing. If they really_don't_ care, it could be because they approve of his actions--and will likely rule in his favor--or simply because they value strict adherence to the regular process even at the potential risk of allowing an unqualified candidate (in the actual constitutional sense) obtaining office and doing whatever damage he can. None of those reasons bode very well for this particular case, IMO.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 7 points 6 months ago

I fail to see how drafts are relevant except to judges who pretend they can know the minds of the authors by reading tea leaves.

[-] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

14th amendment section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

But the President is included in this as a civil office holder, no?

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Civil, and military. The President is also the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, y'know.

[-] match@pawb.social 3 points 6 months ago

Which is the way a lower court had previously ruled, but the case was picked up by the Colorado SC

this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023

487 points (97.3% liked)

politics

18069 readers

5051 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News