Dec 21, 2023·edited Dec 21, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Very helpful. Personally, as a 27-year resident of Colorado who has seen the state move from red to swing to blue, I couldn't be more proud of this moment in our state history, whatever the ultimate outcome at SCOTUS. My view is that Trump has been perpetuating an ongoing insurrection beginning as far as a year before the 2020 election when he began priming his base to reject any election in which he did not win and continuing through the years of the Big Lie with which he has swallowed his party whole, intimidating anyone who thinks about standing on principle with the threat of being primaried and holding up the example of even someone with the last name of Cheney to prove he can and will do it, only to position himself to complete what he did not finish on January 6. And as far as the arguments that many, both lawyers and non-lawyers, have made that the people should choose who is on the ballot, this very much is a constitutional test. And to the argument that the 14th is a Civil War-era amendment that cannot be meant for this era, I wonder why these same people then stand on the Revolutionary War-era 2nd amendment and insist on its inviolability, while having welcomed a modern interpretation because it suits them. We do not, in fact, just go around scratching out parts of the document according to individual political preference. And to Mike Johnson, whose comment was that the Colorado decision was "thinly veiled partisan attack," I remind him that the individuals who brought the original case in Colorado were Republicans and independents. He could learn a thing or two from their patriotism and principles.
Hello Robert, thank you for this excellent explainer of the issues and potential outcomes of this case. In the paragraph just before the Concluding Thoughts, you mention something about Democrats being “on the cusp of” accomplishing the removal of Trump from the ballot, and thus from ever serving as an officer of the United States again. I think what most Republicans and even Democrats are forgetting is that this lawsuit in Colorado is a Republican effort. The plaintiffs include four Republican voters and officials, and two Independents. This, to my mind, is part of the absurdity and the hypocrisy of Republican reactions to all of this. And if SCOTUS does decide in favor of the plaintiff and against Trump, then the Republicans will just have to swallow it. This is the court that they created. They wanted their conservative majority, and they got it.
On another note, on the same day of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, a pack of wolves was released in an undisclosed location in Grand County on the western slope. More will be released in various locations over the next months and years, with the goal of establishing this much needed apex predator. Wolves were wiped out here through extensive hunting by the late 1940s, but some have moved back in on their own. It’s been an exciting week here. 😊
“Second point: Democrats are not responsible for the complicated judicial and political questions that have emerged from Trump's decision to run for president after attempting a coup.”
The entirety of your point 2 is right on target and very welcome. The democrats are not responsible for Trump’s problems or the chaos, decline, or legal jeopardy of the republicans. It is not our job to make things easy for them or to rescue them from the consequences of their actions. We should not be shammed, cajoled, or bullied into taking actions we think are wrong just to save their bacon.
After reading this Robert's piece and thereafter listening to multiple qualified legal pundits address the issues arising from the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, it seems the core battle in the case---as defined by the pundits---is between enforcing the the clear language and intent of Article 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment versus allowing citizens to exercise their Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice. I disagree. I don't believe there is a battle between these interests. In my view, the interests can be harmonized: Primary and final election voters can be allowed to vote for anyone they want even if that person does not meet the Constitution's minimum requirements, and the Constitution can simultaneously be enforced by precluding an elected, but Constitutionally unqualified, candidate from taking office. The two concepts can live in complete harmony. At bottom, the Colorado decision simply short circuits the process: It precludes Colorado primary voters from acting foolishly by preventing them from wasting their votes on someone who could never lawfully assume office. Far from limiting voter rights, the Colorado decision actually protects them by assuring that voting choices are limited to candidates who are qualified to assume office if elected.
Thank you, Robert, for an excellent analysis. For me, Trump's engagement in insurrection proves he breached the oath he took on the Bible to defend our country. His breach of that oath is enough to know to support the Colorado Supreme Court. How can someone who breached the oath of office be allowed to take it again?
This, in itself makes it clear to me. Consequences be damned, Scotus claims to follow the original intent and Colorado made it clear.
"If the US Supreme Court affirms the ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection and is an officer of the United States, he is barred from holding federal office—without regard to his appearance on state ballots, any “victories” he may win in those states, or any “electoral votes” he may secure."
"Whatever else happens—and regardless of the result—we must apply the Constitution and the rule of law to Donald Trump in the same way it would be applied to any other citizen. If we fail to do that, we will inflict grievous injury on the Constitution and invite further assaults until 'all the laws have been cut down.' "
RFK Jr. claimed that barring Trump from the ballot would make the nation “ungovernable.” As you have explained, barring Trump from office actually makes the country governable, a nation of laws,
Lawrence Lessig asserted that barring Trump would result in “a second Civil War.” There is no civil war in the offing. There are some angry people with guns; there even are militias, but there are no armies out there to fight a civil war.
The Texas Secretary of State threatened to bar Joe Biden from the Texas ballot if Trump is barred from Colorado’s ballot. As you say: reacting to threats of that sort is not governing the country
Chris Christie said that “the people should decide” who will be president. The people should decide who holds public office. That the courts are deciding is the consequence of Trump's attempted insurrection.
When it’s convenient they say “let the people decide” but what happened with Bush v Gore? How about the fact that Trump did NOT win the popular vote (but the electoral college picked him)? And just because he’s a politician, the people can decide? Will we start voting on all criminals? The “originalists” like to use the constitution when it’s going their way. How about the constitution doesn’t mention assault weapons so it shouldn’t be covered by the “right to bear arms”? Many of us are just holding our breath, praying the Orange Jesus leaves us in peace!
Originalists are having a hard time in the interpreting of the 14th amendment. But when it comes to the second amendment they say it covers every firearm created by man and not just the single shot guns available in 1787.
As always I'm appreciative of your clear-eyed moral compass, legal expertise and excellent writing.. While there's much to talk about I think this is most important for us all to remember, "we are in this pickle because Republicans refused to convict Trump in the Senate on two occasions despite his manifest guilt." We just gotta keep saying it. Happy Solstice!
And to the argument that Jack Smith has not charged him with insurrestion I would have the qualfiier YET. Smith has the phone records and they have been analyzed. I don't think Smith is done yet!!!
Whew! Thanks, Robert! I'm having trouble remaining calm (not that that's unusual, but seems worse than usual right now) because this whole issue seems so clear. There's really no doubt that Trump should be disqualified via the 14th Amendment. But, that's been the story in so many scenes for such a long long time; remembering 'back' to when apparently his own Cabinet considered invoking the 25th Amendment to prevent him from putting the entire country in danger. Etc. and ad infinitum. Standing back just a little from this specific instance, it's even clearer that it's another example of how badly Trump's presence in our world, our country, our lives has poisoned the belief in democracy for so many people. There are some people that are just plainly bad people and, by his actions, he more than fits the definition. As always, I appreciate your calming approach and I know you're right ...
Apologies to Adam Serwer, whose name I misspelled in the newsletter!
Very helpful. Personally, as a 27-year resident of Colorado who has seen the state move from red to swing to blue, I couldn't be more proud of this moment in our state history, whatever the ultimate outcome at SCOTUS. My view is that Trump has been perpetuating an ongoing insurrection beginning as far as a year before the 2020 election when he began priming his base to reject any election in which he did not win and continuing through the years of the Big Lie with which he has swallowed his party whole, intimidating anyone who thinks about standing on principle with the threat of being primaried and holding up the example of even someone with the last name of Cheney to prove he can and will do it, only to position himself to complete what he did not finish on January 6. And as far as the arguments that many, both lawyers and non-lawyers, have made that the people should choose who is on the ballot, this very much is a constitutional test. And to the argument that the 14th is a Civil War-era amendment that cannot be meant for this era, I wonder why these same people then stand on the Revolutionary War-era 2nd amendment and insist on its inviolability, while having welcomed a modern interpretation because it suits them. We do not, in fact, just go around scratching out parts of the document according to individual political preference. And to Mike Johnson, whose comment was that the Colorado decision was "thinly veiled partisan attack," I remind him that the individuals who brought the original case in Colorado were Republicans and independents. He could learn a thing or two from their patriotism and principles.
Hello Robert, thank you for this excellent explainer of the issues and potential outcomes of this case. In the paragraph just before the Concluding Thoughts, you mention something about Democrats being “on the cusp of” accomplishing the removal of Trump from the ballot, and thus from ever serving as an officer of the United States again. I think what most Republicans and even Democrats are forgetting is that this lawsuit in Colorado is a Republican effort. The plaintiffs include four Republican voters and officials, and two Independents. This, to my mind, is part of the absurdity and the hypocrisy of Republican reactions to all of this. And if SCOTUS does decide in favor of the plaintiff and against Trump, then the Republicans will just have to swallow it. This is the court that they created. They wanted their conservative majority, and they got it.
On another note, on the same day of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, a pack of wolves was released in an undisclosed location in Grand County on the western slope. More will be released in various locations over the next months and years, with the goal of establishing this much needed apex predator. Wolves were wiped out here through extensive hunting by the late 1940s, but some have moved back in on their own. It’s been an exciting week here. 😊
Excellent. I am breathing (always a good thing!)
“Second point: Democrats are not responsible for the complicated judicial and political questions that have emerged from Trump's decision to run for president after attempting a coup.”
The entirety of your point 2 is right on target and very welcome. The democrats are not responsible for Trump’s problems or the chaos, decline, or legal jeopardy of the republicans. It is not our job to make things easy for them or to rescue them from the consequences of their actions. We should not be shammed, cajoled, or bullied into taking actions we think are wrong just to save their bacon.
Rhetorical question here, but is anyone out there as sick of hearing about Donald Trump as I am?
After reading this Robert's piece and thereafter listening to multiple qualified legal pundits address the issues arising from the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, it seems the core battle in the case---as defined by the pundits---is between enforcing the the clear language and intent of Article 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment versus allowing citizens to exercise their Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice. I disagree. I don't believe there is a battle between these interests. In my view, the interests can be harmonized: Primary and final election voters can be allowed to vote for anyone they want even if that person does not meet the Constitution's minimum requirements, and the Constitution can simultaneously be enforced by precluding an elected, but Constitutionally unqualified, candidate from taking office. The two concepts can live in complete harmony. At bottom, the Colorado decision simply short circuits the process: It precludes Colorado primary voters from acting foolishly by preventing them from wasting their votes on someone who could never lawfully assume office. Far from limiting voter rights, the Colorado decision actually protects them by assuring that voting choices are limited to candidates who are qualified to assume office if elected.
Thank you, Robert, for an excellent analysis. For me, Trump's engagement in insurrection proves he breached the oath he took on the Bible to defend our country. His breach of that oath is enough to know to support the Colorado Supreme Court. How can someone who breached the oath of office be allowed to take it again?
This, in itself makes it clear to me. Consequences be damned, Scotus claims to follow the original intent and Colorado made it clear.
"If the US Supreme Court affirms the ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection and is an officer of the United States, he is barred from holding federal office—without regard to his appearance on state ballots, any “victories” he may win in those states, or any “electoral votes” he may secure."
I think I can go to bed now nd get a good sleep.
Thank you Robert. You lay it down like a pro.
The Republicans' mantra to "let the people decide" is the best argument for eliminating the Electoral College.
"Whatever else happens—and regardless of the result—we must apply the Constitution and the rule of law to Donald Trump in the same way it would be applied to any other citizen. If we fail to do that, we will inflict grievous injury on the Constitution and invite further assaults until 'all the laws have been cut down.' "
Thank you, Robert!
Nicely done. Regarding the quoted cautions:
RFK Jr. claimed that barring Trump from the ballot would make the nation “ungovernable.” As you have explained, barring Trump from office actually makes the country governable, a nation of laws,
Lawrence Lessig asserted that barring Trump would result in “a second Civil War.” There is no civil war in the offing. There are some angry people with guns; there even are militias, but there are no armies out there to fight a civil war.
The Texas Secretary of State threatened to bar Joe Biden from the Texas ballot if Trump is barred from Colorado’s ballot. As you say: reacting to threats of that sort is not governing the country
Chris Christie said that “the people should decide” who will be president. The people should decide who holds public office. That the courts are deciding is the consequence of Trump's attempted insurrection.
When it’s convenient they say “let the people decide” but what happened with Bush v Gore? How about the fact that Trump did NOT win the popular vote (but the electoral college picked him)? And just because he’s a politician, the people can decide? Will we start voting on all criminals? The “originalists” like to use the constitution when it’s going their way. How about the constitution doesn’t mention assault weapons so it shouldn’t be covered by the “right to bear arms”? Many of us are just holding our breath, praying the Orange Jesus leaves us in peace!
Originalists are having a hard time in the interpreting of the 14th amendment. But when it comes to the second amendment they say it covers every firearm created by man and not just the single shot guns available in 1787.
As always I'm appreciative of your clear-eyed moral compass, legal expertise and excellent writing.. While there's much to talk about I think this is most important for us all to remember, "we are in this pickle because Republicans refused to convict Trump in the Senate on two occasions despite his manifest guilt." We just gotta keep saying it. Happy Solstice!
And to the argument that Jack Smith has not charged him with insurrestion I would have the qualfiier YET. Smith has the phone records and they have been analyzed. I don't think Smith is done yet!!!
Whew! Thanks, Robert! I'm having trouble remaining calm (not that that's unusual, but seems worse than usual right now) because this whole issue seems so clear. There's really no doubt that Trump should be disqualified via the 14th Amendment. But, that's been the story in so many scenes for such a long long time; remembering 'back' to when apparently his own Cabinet considered invoking the 25th Amendment to prevent him from putting the entire country in danger. Etc. and ad infinitum. Standing back just a little from this specific instance, it's even clearer that it's another example of how badly Trump's presence in our world, our country, our lives has poisoned the belief in democracy for so many people. There are some people that are just plainly bad people and, by his actions, he more than fits the definition. As always, I appreciate your calming approach and I know you're right ...