Is the Supreme Court ready to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for political office? That’s the burning question after the recent oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Anderson. In a surprising turn of events, it seems that the justices are seeking an off-ramp rather than kicking Trump out of the presidential race. The disqualification clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars individuals who participated in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office, was met with skepticism by even some of the court’s liberal justices. They questioned whether a single state should have the power to decide who gets to be president and whether Trump, as a former president, even falls under the clause’s language. The justices seemed concerned about the potential for states to use bogus claims to disqualify legitimate candidates, leading to a debate on the meaning of “insurrection.” While the court appears reluctant to disqualify Trump, it remains to be seen how they will navigate this complex legal terrain and reach a final decision.

1. Supreme Court skeptical of disqualifying Trump

The Supreme Court appears hesitant to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for political office based on his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. During oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Anderson, the justices expressed doubts about applying the disqualification clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to Trump, with even liberal justices raising concerns.

2. Questioning state authority

Justice Elena Kagan questioned why a single state should have the power to decide who becomes President of the United States. This raised doubts about whether Colorado, in this case, should be able to disqualify Trump from the ballot. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also questioned whether Trump, as a former president, fell under the language of the disqualification clause.

3. Worries about bogus claims and retaliation

Some justices expressed concerns that allowing states to disqualify candidates based on the disqualification clause could lead to the use of bogus claims to exclude legitimate candidates. They also noted that if Colorado’s decision to disqualify Trump was upheld, other states might retaliate and exclude candidates from the ballot, potentially causing chaos in future elections.

4. Historical practice and interpretation

Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh seemed to lean towards the idea that states cannot use the disqualification clause against federal officeholders. They argued that historical practice did not show states using the clause to disqualify federal officeholders, suggesting that it might be precluded by historical precedent. However, this approach could lead to other problems in the future.

5. Finding an off-ramp

The justices appeared to be searching for a way to dispose of the case without disqualifying Trump. They explored various options, including distinguishing between “office” and “officer of the United States” and considering the intent of the amendment’s drafters. It remains to be seen how they will reach a final decision, but it seems unlikely that they will uphold Colorado’s decision to disqualify Trump from the ballot.

In the Supreme Court’s oral arguments for the case of Trump v. Anderson, it became apparent that the justices are hesitant to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for political office based on his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. The majority of justices rejected the idea of using the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause to bar Trump from the presidential race or any future political office. Even liberal justices expressed skepticism about applying the clause to Trump, questioning why a single state should decide who becomes President of the United States. Concerns were also raised about the potential for states to use bogus claims to disqualify legitimate candidates and the absence of historical practice in using the clause against federal officeholders. The justices appeared to be searching for an off-ramp to dispose of the case without disqualifying Trump, but the final decision is yet to come.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Previous post Tucker Carlson falsely claimed that U.S. media outlets had refused to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin since the invasion of Ukraine.
Next post AOC’s questions years ago led to an investigation into Trump’s business practices, now ordered to pay $355 million.
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x