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.
I completely agree, Susan, and before I saw your comment, I posted one as well, reminding people that the plaintiffs in this case are not Democrats. In fact, not one Democrat has been involved.
The infighting within the Republican Party is a big part of what’s destroying them, aside from most of them having a self-destructive allegiance to Trump. They have turned into a colossal, but very dangerous, joke.
Thank you for this. I love reading comments from people who actually live in the states where these rulings are going on. Trump instigated an insurrection. That is an offense against our country and our constitution. Trump should not be allowed to run for office again.
John Brown led an insurrection at Harper's Ferry and was hanged six weeks later. Donald Trump led an insurrection at the Capitol and is still lying about it three years later. And we're contemplating giving him another shot at it. As someone wrote recently "An attempted coup is just a practice round." There is extreme danger here.
I totally agree with you.Donald Trump led an insurrection and is ineligible to run for office. The same logic needs to be applied to those Congress people who aided and abetted him. They need to be removed from office also. They, as is Trump, are not eligible for their offices. I, too, am angry that this situation is still with us lo after 3 years. Trump is trying to eviscerate our rule of law and has gotten preferential treatment, a lot of it because people fear the anger of his"base". Enough!
That's why there is so much noise about this CO SC decision. A lot of his partners in the crime are wondering if they are next. If the US SC upholds the decision the noise will get a lot louder and the country will get some chance at justice.
It seems quite obvious to me that Trump could and should have been arrested and detained w/o bail any day after January 21, 2021. Just the very tardy words "Stand down and stand by....we love you." should have been enough. Just the fact that he waited hours to deliver those treasonous words was enough. Just the fact that he watched the whole spectacle of violence and assault on our democracy and its representatives - watched it on TV for hours - and did nothing...was enough. The fact that he was willing to allow armed members of Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist/Thugs into the area where he would speak was enough. "Because they wouldn't hurt me..."
Donald J. Trump aided and assisted an obvious and horrific and undeniable attack on our representatives and helped prevent them from performing their Constitutional responsibilities. It was all on TV - for the world to watch.
He could and should have been jailed years ago. It would have saved us years of nonsense and abuse. In the immediate aftermath of this rebellious event, both McCarthy and McConnell were condemning Trump. If we had acted appropriately and promptly, we might have had "establishment Republicans" with us. Standing for the rule of law, defending the Constitution. We blew it.
Well said. If the toughest punishment he has to go through for trying to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law is to have his name taken off the ballot, he has literally gotten away with murder. There would be people alive today had he not turned that mob loose on the Capitol. And he didn't give a rat's *** about any of those law enforcement personnel who died or were injured because of his actions. He has not shown any remorse to this day. Both McCarthy and McConnell put their miserable party before the well-being of the country. Shame on them.
Indirectly, you raise an interesting question, Mr. Tabony: Could The Defendant legally be tried for suborning murder or lesser violent crimes of Jan. 6th.
I agree, let's hear from the legal experts. I am very sure if one of us common folk incited a mob to violence and people died as a result we would be in very BIG trouble. I think the slimy one is hoping everyone will forget that part of his crimes.
I agree with everything you said, Bill, except the last sentence. WE didn't blow it. The Republicans in Congress did, and now they are too cowardly to admit it.
Agreed, of course. I meant "We" in the broadest collective sense. We, as a nation. I gladly stand corrected :)
The Republican Senators who voted to not convict Trump were guilty of ignoring the treason and violence creation of their "dear leader". Accessories to the crime in the aftermath.
Why hasn't the orange idiot been jailed for his numerous violations of his gag orders! Still he continues to use threatening speech against court officials and judicial persons, et al. He is warned against being jailed but he never is!
My concerns are the judges are concerned as well about the outbreak of violence across the country and a ‘civil war’.
We didn't blow it, Bill, Republicans blew it along with shorting the beacon of Democracy when they failed to impeach and convict him. And as much as I love Joe Biden, he blew it when he appointed Merrick Garland as AG. Garland dawdled as Rome burned. The next step will be to learn whether our illustrious "conservative" Supreme Court justices affirm their commitment to the Constitution or, instead, their obedience to tyranny.
As for letting the people decide about tRump, we did that already. 7 million more votes for Biden than for tRump. He is still bitching and complaining that the election was stolen, even after 60 court cases could not prove that the election was stolen by fraud. The 14th amendment, section 3 should be applied to Trump, and he should be disqualified from holding office. The arguments he and his supporters put forward about witch hunts and partisan persecution, etc. are juvenile at best and positively paranoid. I am SO tired of tRump's rich kid whining and sense of entitlement to whatever he wants. He's not special; treat him like any other defendant and refuse to be intimidated by his threats. Charge anyone who commits crimes on his behalf.
I remember that after the 2020 election, Mitch McConnell said that the election "wasn't even particularly close," Biden clearly won. And yet - what followed from the right was nothing but lies about the election and Trump voters believing the lies. So, the whole notion that the best way to "beat" Trump is at the ballot box is so ironic. Trump and many of his supporters don't respect elections, they are seen as just another barrier to the kingly rule of their "favorite president." (Whenever I hear - make that read, I can't listen to Trump - repeat that line about being their 'favorite president', it reminds me of how much like a third grader that man is. And my apologies to third graders.)
If he is allowed to run and again loses, it’s going to be the very same thing.”Witch-hunt “ Voter fraud”,”Crooked officials”, and the list goes on.He will never accept the decisions of the courts or the final vote count.I frankly am so sick of all of this.I don’t know how it all will end but We The People deserve to have this grifter out of our political system forever.
In human and animal bodies, malignant tumors (yes, tRump is a cancerous malignancy) must be surgically removed or treated with serious doses of radiation and/or chemotherapy. They require serious efforts to remove them, and the process is often painful and exhausting. Why would removing the tRump malignancy be any different? Like cancer, his malignancy keeps metastasizing and spreading. Until he is removed from society by imprisonment with no outside communication or he keels over from cheeseburger/fast food overload, this country will have a hard time healing from all the damage he has inflicted. Continuous exposure to a toxic substance eventually kills, but then Rick Wilson says everything tRump touches dies.
I agree with Robert's point. Even if we clobber Trump at the polls, why should we think his followers will be any more accepting of that election than 2020. Marjorie Taylor Greene has reacted to the Colorado decision by saying that the Democrats are already setting up to steal the 2024 election. That is exactly how MAGA would see a Trump loss. Let the voters decide? How about use the popular vote so all the voters decide, and it doesn't come down to 11,000 in four key counties, or something like that, in order to get the Electoral College even in a popular vote loss and millions of other are essentially disenfranchised?
Susan M., Thank you so very much for writing. Like you, I believe, “whatever the ultimate outcome of SCOTUS,” the two Colorado Court adjudications both finding Trump engaged in insurrection are a testament to our country’s capacity to withstand a test of its revolutionary ideals.
As I posted yesterday, whatever lies ahead, let’s not underestimate the significance of the Colorado Court findings that I expect will figure prominently in the outcome in 24, more so now likely to land on the very issues that drove Biden initially to run—the fight for the soul of democracy and for free and responsible government by popular consent.
Of course we should not succumb to fortune telling by assuming if we do X then Y will happen. Lessig is a conservative scholar who clerked under Scalia and wrote a piece defending taking donations from criminals like Jeffrey Epstein, if the institution accepts the gift in secret! Pay this character no mind.
Thank you for pointing this out, John, because I know little to nothing about Mr. Lessig. I try to keep in the front of my mind the fact that two conservative attorneys from the Federalist Society are the ones who instigated this whole idea of Trump being ineligible to hold office again. That’s another thing that Republicans like to brush under the rug, kind of like trying to brush an aircraft carrier under the rug.
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. 😊
Correct; the plaintiffs (at least some of them) are Republican. The organizing organization was CREW and its attorney is Marc Elias--the Democratic stalwart who led the defeat of Trump in 60 lawsuits in 2020. So, I am glad that Republicans have stepped up to serve as plaintiffs. But the effort is being managed by CREW and Marc Elias.
You and me both, Susan, and, as you said above, I will forever be grateful that Colorado took a first step in trying to wrestle power away from Trump. No matter the outcome with the US Supreme Court, I feel grateful to the Colorado Supreme Court for standing strong.
Likewise, I am grateful for CREW. They have been on the forefront of the battle to expose corruption in our government and those who presumably serve the people when they are only serving themselves. They've earned my greatest respect and dollar!
Every time I read of sensible Republicans anywhere, Republicans with the integrity to see what their party has become, I breathe more easily. But I do regret that the Republicans at the top - Romney, Liz Cheney, Ben Sasse, et al. - are all leaving politics, either at their own choice or having been blackballed by their less virtuous colleagues.
How beautiful! What magnificent animals! I watched the videos over and over just to see them recognize the open door and freedom awaiting them! The power of their muscles as they escape the cage and race to living life in the wild! The videos almost brought me to tears. Thank you Colorado for doing this.
Thank you, Jenn. I do read High Country News. This news organization is actually located in the town where I live. Although they cover news happening all over the western United States, they are located in the small town of Paonia, Colorado.
I did realize that Mark Elias’s group was handling this. I’m just glad personally that it was Republicans and other people who are not registered Democrats who decided to do this. For some reason that seems important, and especially in light of the expected and somewhat insane Republican backlash.
Saw the photos of one wolf being released. It always surprises me a little -- being the mostly urban person I am -- how very WILD wild animals are!! What an absolutely beautiful and totally wild being, and I'm so pleased that CO is taking part in what's a global effort in rewilding the world.
It really needed to be done, Meredith, because aside from mountain lions and bears, there really are not a sufficient number of predators here anymore. Bears won’t take down an elk, and there aren’t enough mountain lions to control the eruption of elk and deer. There are towns on the western slope and on the front range where deer and elk literally walk through the streets like pedestrians because there are so many of them. And wolves are such magnificently wild creatures.
I live on a moderately busy street in Colorado Springs, one most people know and many use as a passage between multilane thoroughfares. We once hit a deer half a mile up the street. My son-in-law jumped out and shooed her two fawns out of the traffic. We were startled to see deer in our neighborhood. Now, several years later, they come through six or eight at a time and I can't even leave a bird feeder out, because they will find a way to empty it eighteen inches outside my front window. They stop and rest under the tree across the street, just lie there for a while. Yes, they are beautiful, but they are also a nuisance.
There is such an abundance of them that something has to be done to bring the numbers under control, because hunting seasons aren’t doing the trick. I don’t know how often you get up to the northern front range, but elk literally overrun Estes Park, particularly in the winter time, when they come down from the national park to lower altitudes where there’s more food and less snow. I used to live in Pinewood Springs, which is very close to Estes Park. On any given day, it looks like they are window shopping and they have been known to walk into buildings. Some of the bull elks have charged people during the ruts. It’s really crazy, but the eerie mating sounds that the bulls make in the fall are really phenomenal. I’m in Paonia and deer are everywhere, hopping across Highway 133 and literally walking through the downtown streets once they come down from the high country for fall and winter.
One time my next door neighbor had video on her security camera of 27 deer coming through at one time. We are not on the west side of the Springs up against the mountains. We are on the east. Our neighborhood is about 50 years old, blocks of houses all built on similar designs like they did in those days. It is not foresty, it is not mountainy, it is not roomy plots, it is not anything that says "expect deer." But they have their routes. I see them when I go on walks. I try to stay on my side of the street if they are in groups and hope they don't get to my feeders before I get home. At least I don't seem to grow any flowers that interest them in my yard of perennials. Just the bird seed, which is not cheap.
Wow, it’s amazing how they have become so acclimated to being in urban and suburban areas. This area of the western slope is surrounded on all sides by mountains, so I expect to see animals passing through town now and then. But what you’re describing is remarkable.
I have friends who live in Evergreen, and the elk there are everywhere as I'm sure you know, with no apex predators. They are magnificent and beautiful, but nature is out of balance. Not that these wolves will impact the elk in the 'burbs, but it's a start.
True, and they weren’t released on the front range where they would actually be of great use because of the eruptions there in your friend’s area and in Estes Park. There would’ve been a massive public uproar. As it is, the release was held up by last-minute lawsuits by the cattlemen’s associations. But the voters finally won. Wolves do move around quite a bit, and some were already coming into Colorado from Wyoming, so it’s anyone’s guess where they will go as more of them are introduced. As far as ranchers who are freaking out over this, it’s been proven that livestock more frequently die of diseases and other conditions than as a result of predators; plus, every loss will be compensated if it’s caused by a wolf.
I've read a lot about rewilding efforts and also the recognition by many countries that they need the large predators to keep an ecosystem both healthy and balanced. It's very encouraging, although on a somewhat small scale in terms of the overall climate emergency ...
I was thrilled yesterday to learn about the release of wild wolves on the western slope. Hope they are able to establish territory and thrive!!
I have had the privilege of seeing wild wolves often in northern MN and can tell you there are few things more thrilling (unlike cougars and grizzlies, there are few if any credible stories of wild wolves attacking humans. A little less anxiety producing to spot them while hiking or canoeing). Congrats on your state’s efforts to restore balance in politics AND nature!
All of the Republican plaintiffs in the Colorado case can/will be dismissed as RINOs. You and I may be comforted by the observation that many of the plaintiffs are Republicans, but don’t overestimate its power among more conservative people.
“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.
This actually “saves their bacon” if it means they can blame Dems for side-lining thump. I hope they don’t use it as a vote getter to put someone worse in office who will then pardon thump’s federal crimes (& continue stacking the courts etc etc)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m celebrating this Colorado decision. 🥂
You make a good point here, because no matter what happens with Trump, we still must elect a Democrat to the presidency. Even if he is barred from holding office ever again, if another Republican wins the presidency, they will attempt to throw away his 91 indictments.
Yes, I understand YOU. In general ( that us) many are quite worried, but our work is clear. I know you understand that.
All the Repugnacants have made it very clear that all we can trust them for is to do all they can to gain more power, even at the expense of our Constitution.
Right you are, Janet. And not just because Trump would be left off the hook by any Republican back in the White House. With all the fixation on Trump one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that while a return of Trump would be catastrophic, a return of the MAGA-infested Republicans would be disastrous.
And Christie is the only one in the field who speaks truth about Trump. I think that's the only reason he stays in as long as he has. But Haley and DeSantis? Dangerous extremists for sure. Ramaswamy? Mush for brains.
I would not trust Chris Christie as far as I could throw him across a room. I admire his ability to go after Trump viciously. I would never want to see him as President of the United States.
My fear is this: If any Republican other than Trump were to get elected, assuming that Trump dies or is removed from the ballots, they will be beholden to the evil masterminds behind Project 2025. No Republicans can be trusted anymore with the reins of power, except perhaps Liz Cheney.
HulitC, I share your concern. Just like I would rather have had another choice for Speaker after they booted McCarthy. Jeffries!!! Ok, that was not going to happen, but I still think it was the right thing to do for the Dems to vote for him consistently. He was the best choice.
If the courts rule that Trump is ineligible to be president, it is not the fault of the Democrats. Though yes the MAGAts will blame them. It is still the right thing to do.
And by the way, all six of the plaintiffs in the Colorado lawsuit are either Republican or unaffiliated. None of the plaintiffs are Democrats.
Dec 21, 2023·edited Dec 21, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
I think she means Dems voted for Jeffries consistently, and that was the right thing to do because he was the right choice (even though they knew they would fall short of the slim majority needed).
My fear is that other swing & purple states will follow causing the GOP leadership to convince Trump to accept a pardon for dropping out and endorsing his former UN ambassador who wins election over the "Old Man".
I don't think Biden will grant a pardon. And if a Republican candidate made that deal, it would clearly be a corrupt pardon and voidable as illegal. I wouldn't worry about that.
And don't buy the hype about Nikki Haley. She has a great story--until you look closely, at which point she's not much different than Trump.
She's dangerous in the extreme. And I saw a chart somewhere that showed where all the Republican field, including Trump, stood on the various "issues," and it was nearly a solid block of identical checkmarks. The only difference is whether we trust any of the other not to implement something like the 2025 plan so that there would in fact be more elections to vote them out. But when it comes to foreign policy, immigration, social services, etc., she's another version of Trump.
Rick. I doubt that Trump will listen to GOP leadership or be convinced to drop out. In any case, I remain hopeful that Willis will succeed. He cannot get a pardon if convicted in Georgia.
I do want more news on Ukraine on the general new feeds, but I don't feel too comfortable about a break from Trump news so long as he's remaining active. I may become tired of remaining vigilant, but so long as there's a mad dog in my vicinity I am not going to turn my back on it.
I feel like planetary health and environmental actions are of primary importance, but so long as our political state is blocking real progress, that status needs to be dealt with. It's the same for Ukraine. Do our best to keep the polar bears and the Ukrainians going long enough to get a saner less greedy representation in the House and Senate, and then we will be better able to turn the greater percentage of our attention to where it's really of vital not just foundational importance.
I don't think we should stop being vigilant. My comment shouldn't be taken as such . I work a great deal on protecting our democracy and encouraging others to do so. I am just sick of the man's name.
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.
Not really. Net net Trump lost the election in 2020 tried to overthrow the government, lied about winning the election so why is he entitled to run again for the sole purpose of pardoning himself for crimes he committed?
I think you are missing Irving's point: Trump can run even if he is disqualified. He just can't assume office if he wins. The 14th Amendment is a disqualification from holding office, not running for office.
However, the issue under Colorado law at least (I'm not sure about other states) is that the CO Election Code prohibits the SoS from listing any presidential candidates on the ballot who are not qualified to hold the office. See page 22 of the opinion https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/12/23SA300.pdf
I understand your/Irving’s point. However, if, following your reasoning, Trump were allowed to run, then actually won the Electoral College vote, and if his electors were then disqualified, there would be hell to pay. Large portions of the American electorate would believe their votes had been nullified *post hoc*. A large fraction of the population would believe that the person subsequently inaugurated was illegitimate.
Trump must be declared an illegitimate candidate *long before* any voting takes place, so Republicans have a chance to choose the Democrat’s principal opponent.
While I agree completely with Stephen's suggestion that it would be stupid to allow a person to run for an office he or she is legally disqualified from holding, there are Constitutional, including specifically First Amendment issues, that require careful Constitutional dissection and analysis before that person is precluded from even running. Obviously, if it is known in advance of an election that a candidate is legally precluded from holding the office for which he or she is running, then most voters would never want to waste a vote and, thus, would not vote for that candidate. That should be the end of the story, but in Trump's case it would not be: His enthusiasts would vote for him even if he were dead. I believe that the more restrictions placed on a person's decision to run, especially in a primary, the more Constitutional issues will be presented. My suggested approach: Best to avoid or circumvent the Constitutional issues and still achieve the desired end, namely, that even though a legally disqualified person wins an election, he or she still cannot hold the office for which the person ran.
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.
“Originalists” is a provocative term, invented by conservative jurists and lawyers, to give a gloss to interpretations based *only* on crabbed pseudo-linguistic analyses.
If it were genuine originalism, it would also be rooted in deep analyses of relevant *histories* and not contravene the historical background.
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.
I completely agree, Susan, and before I saw your comment, I posted one as well, reminding people that the plaintiffs in this case are not Democrats. In fact, not one Democrat has been involved.
The Republicans who brought the Colorado case will be dismissed as RINOs.
The infighting within the Republican Party is a big part of what’s destroying them, aside from most of them having a self-destructive allegiance to Trump. They have turned into a colossal, but very dangerous, joke.
Thank you for this. I love reading comments from people who actually live in the states where these rulings are going on. Trump instigated an insurrection. That is an offense against our country and our constitution. Trump should not be allowed to run for office again.
John Brown led an insurrection at Harper's Ferry and was hanged six weeks later. Donald Trump led an insurrection at the Capitol and is still lying about it three years later. And we're contemplating giving him another shot at it. As someone wrote recently "An attempted coup is just a practice round." There is extreme danger here.
I totally agree with you.Donald Trump led an insurrection and is ineligible to run for office. The same logic needs to be applied to those Congress people who aided and abetted him. They need to be removed from office also. They, as is Trump, are not eligible for their offices. I, too, am angry that this situation is still with us lo after 3 years. Trump is trying to eviscerate our rule of law and has gotten preferential treatment, a lot of it because people fear the anger of his"base". Enough!
That's why there is so much noise about this CO SC decision. A lot of his partners in the crime are wondering if they are next. If the US SC upholds the decision the noise will get a lot louder and the country will get some chance at justice.
It seems quite obvious to me that Trump could and should have been arrested and detained w/o bail any day after January 21, 2021. Just the very tardy words "Stand down and stand by....we love you." should have been enough. Just the fact that he waited hours to deliver those treasonous words was enough. Just the fact that he watched the whole spectacle of violence and assault on our democracy and its representatives - watched it on TV for hours - and did nothing...was enough. The fact that he was willing to allow armed members of Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist/Thugs into the area where he would speak was enough. "Because they wouldn't hurt me..."
Donald J. Trump aided and assisted an obvious and horrific and undeniable attack on our representatives and helped prevent them from performing their Constitutional responsibilities. It was all on TV - for the world to watch.
He could and should have been jailed years ago. It would have saved us years of nonsense and abuse. In the immediate aftermath of this rebellious event, both McCarthy and McConnell were condemning Trump. If we had acted appropriately and promptly, we might have had "establishment Republicans" with us. Standing for the rule of law, defending the Constitution. We blew it.
Well said. If the toughest punishment he has to go through for trying to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law is to have his name taken off the ballot, he has literally gotten away with murder. There would be people alive today had he not turned that mob loose on the Capitol. And he didn't give a rat's *** about any of those law enforcement personnel who died or were injured because of his actions. He has not shown any remorse to this day. Both McCarthy and McConnell put their miserable party before the well-being of the country. Shame on them.
Indirectly, you raise an interesting question, Mr. Tabony: Could The Defendant legally be tried for suborning murder or lesser violent crimes of Jan. 6th.
Robert, or other legal eagles? —
I agree, let's hear from the legal experts. I am very sure if one of us common folk incited a mob to violence and people died as a result we would be in very BIG trouble. I think the slimy one is hoping everyone will forget that part of his crimes.
I agree with everything you said, Bill, except the last sentence. WE didn't blow it. The Republicans in Congress did, and now they are too cowardly to admit it.
Agreed, of course. I meant "We" in the broadest collective sense. We, as a nation. I gladly stand corrected :)
The Republican Senators who voted to not convict Trump were guilty of ignoring the treason and violence creation of their "dear leader". Accessories to the crime in the aftermath.
Why hasn't the orange idiot been jailed for his numerous violations of his gag orders! Still he continues to use threatening speech against court officials and judicial persons, et al. He is warned against being jailed but he never is!
My concerns are the judges are concerned as well about the outbreak of violence across the country and a ‘civil war’.
We didn't blow it, Bill, Republicans blew it along with shorting the beacon of Democracy when they failed to impeach and convict him. And as much as I love Joe Biden, he blew it when he appointed Merrick Garland as AG. Garland dawdled as Rome burned. The next step will be to learn whether our illustrious "conservative" Supreme Court justices affirm their commitment to the Constitution or, instead, their obedience to tyranny.
Imagine if Garland had appointed Jack Smith a year or two earlier!
Good comparison: John Brown and Donald Trump. (Thank you, Mr. Tabony.)
John Brown was tried swiftly. Donald Trump has yet to be tried.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Another way I see it… an insurrection is a failed revolution.
Thank you!! The perversity of this whole situation is beyond words.
As for letting the people decide about tRump, we did that already. 7 million more votes for Biden than for tRump. He is still bitching and complaining that the election was stolen, even after 60 court cases could not prove that the election was stolen by fraud. The 14th amendment, section 3 should be applied to Trump, and he should be disqualified from holding office. The arguments he and his supporters put forward about witch hunts and partisan persecution, etc. are juvenile at best and positively paranoid. I am SO tired of tRump's rich kid whining and sense of entitlement to whatever he wants. He's not special; treat him like any other defendant and refuse to be intimidated by his threats. Charge anyone who commits crimes on his behalf.
I remember that after the 2020 election, Mitch McConnell said that the election "wasn't even particularly close," Biden clearly won. And yet - what followed from the right was nothing but lies about the election and Trump voters believing the lies. So, the whole notion that the best way to "beat" Trump is at the ballot box is so ironic. Trump and many of his supporters don't respect elections, they are seen as just another barrier to the kingly rule of their "favorite president." (Whenever I hear - make that read, I can't listen to Trump - repeat that line about being their 'favorite president', it reminds me of how much like a third grader that man is. And my apologies to third graders.)
I've taught third graders, and they are smarter than most Trump Republicans!
If he is allowed to run and again loses, it’s going to be the very same thing.”Witch-hunt “ Voter fraud”,”Crooked officials”, and the list goes on.He will never accept the decisions of the courts or the final vote count.I frankly am so sick of all of this.I don’t know how it all will end but We The People deserve to have this grifter out of our political system forever.
In human and animal bodies, malignant tumors (yes, tRump is a cancerous malignancy) must be surgically removed or treated with serious doses of radiation and/or chemotherapy. They require serious efforts to remove them, and the process is often painful and exhausting. Why would removing the tRump malignancy be any different? Like cancer, his malignancy keeps metastasizing and spreading. Until he is removed from society by imprisonment with no outside communication or he keels over from cheeseburger/fast food overload, this country will have a hard time healing from all the damage he has inflicted. Continuous exposure to a toxic substance eventually kills, but then Rick Wilson says everything tRump touches dies.
Well I fear we will be in for another 5 years of the same ‘big lie’. I imagine he will do the same thing when he loses in 2024.
His supporters seem to close their eyes to the fact that all his accusers and squealers, and former employees, and White House aides are all repubs!
Just like they close their eyes to fact after fact after fact.
I agree with Robert's point. Even if we clobber Trump at the polls, why should we think his followers will be any more accepting of that election than 2020. Marjorie Taylor Greene has reacted to the Colorado decision by saying that the Democrats are already setting up to steal the 2024 election. That is exactly how MAGA would see a Trump loss. Let the voters decide? How about use the popular vote so all the voters decide, and it doesn't come down to 11,000 in four key counties, or something like that, in order to get the Electoral College even in a popular vote loss and millions of other are essentially disenfranchised?
Susan M., Thank you so very much for writing. Like you, I believe, “whatever the ultimate outcome of SCOTUS,” the two Colorado Court adjudications both finding Trump engaged in insurrection are a testament to our country’s capacity to withstand a test of its revolutionary ideals.
As I posted yesterday, whatever lies ahead, let’s not underestimate the significance of the Colorado Court findings that I expect will figure prominently in the outcome in 24, more so now likely to land on the very issues that drove Biden initially to run—the fight for the soul of democracy and for free and responsible government by popular consent.
Hats off to Colorado Republicans
Beautifully stated. Thank you, Susan! I’m so proud of your state, too, for standing upon the midst of the mire.
Of course we should not succumb to fortune telling by assuming if we do X then Y will happen. Lessig is a conservative scholar who clerked under Scalia and wrote a piece defending taking donations from criminals like Jeffrey Epstein, if the institution accepts the gift in secret! Pay this character no mind.
Thank you for pointing this out, John, because I know little to nothing about Mr. Lessig. I try to keep in the front of my mind the fact that two conservative attorneys from the Federalist Society are the ones who instigated this whole idea of Trump being ineligible to hold office again. That’s another thing that Republicans like to brush under the rug, kind of like trying to brush an aircraft carrier under the rug.
Johnson would first have to learn the concept of "principles".
I look at his Facebook wall every day and let him know what I think of his "principles."
I may start doing that and posting an appropriate quote from the Scripture he says guides his actions.
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. 😊
Correct; the plaintiffs (at least some of them) are Republican. The organizing organization was CREW and its attorney is Marc Elias--the Democratic stalwart who led the defeat of Trump in 60 lawsuits in 2020. So, I am glad that Republicans have stepped up to serve as plaintiffs. But the effort is being managed by CREW and Marc Elias.
Marc Elias is a lion for democracy and I am grateful for every single move he makes.
You and me both, Susan, and, as you said above, I will forever be grateful that Colorado took a first step in trying to wrestle power away from Trump. No matter the outcome with the US Supreme Court, I feel grateful to the Colorado Supreme Court for standing strong.
Likewise, I am grateful for CREW. They have been on the forefront of the battle to expose corruption in our government and those who presumably serve the people when they are only serving themselves. They've earned my greatest respect and dollar!
Every time I read of sensible Republicans anywhere, Republicans with the integrity to see what their party has become, I breathe more easily. But I do regret that the Republicans at the top - Romney, Liz Cheney, Ben Sasse, et al. - are all leaving politics, either at their own choice or having been blackballed by their less virtuous colleagues.
Hi Janet, here is an excellent article with some photos and video of the release in CO.https://www.hcn.org/articles/wolves-paws-on-the-ground-how-colorado-got-its-wolves-back
How beautiful! What magnificent animals! I watched the videos over and over just to see them recognize the open door and freedom awaiting them! The power of their muscles as they escape the cage and race to living life in the wild! The videos almost brought me to tears. Thank you Colorado for doing this.
These videos actually did bring me to tears. I’ve been waiting for this for decades.
Thank you, Jenn. I do read High Country News. This news organization is actually located in the town where I live. Although they cover news happening all over the western United States, they are located in the small town of Paonia, Colorado.
I did realize that Mark Elias’s group was handling this. I’m just glad personally that it was Republicans and other people who are not registered Democrats who decided to do this. For some reason that seems important, and especially in light of the expected and somewhat insane Republican backlash.
Saw the photos of one wolf being released. It always surprises me a little -- being the mostly urban person I am -- how very WILD wild animals are!! What an absolutely beautiful and totally wild being, and I'm so pleased that CO is taking part in what's a global effort in rewilding the world.
It really needed to be done, Meredith, because aside from mountain lions and bears, there really are not a sufficient number of predators here anymore. Bears won’t take down an elk, and there aren’t enough mountain lions to control the eruption of elk and deer. There are towns on the western slope and on the front range where deer and elk literally walk through the streets like pedestrians because there are so many of them. And wolves are such magnificently wild creatures.
I live on a moderately busy street in Colorado Springs, one most people know and many use as a passage between multilane thoroughfares. We once hit a deer half a mile up the street. My son-in-law jumped out and shooed her two fawns out of the traffic. We were startled to see deer in our neighborhood. Now, several years later, they come through six or eight at a time and I can't even leave a bird feeder out, because they will find a way to empty it eighteen inches outside my front window. They stop and rest under the tree across the street, just lie there for a while. Yes, they are beautiful, but they are also a nuisance.
There is such an abundance of them that something has to be done to bring the numbers under control, because hunting seasons aren’t doing the trick. I don’t know how often you get up to the northern front range, but elk literally overrun Estes Park, particularly in the winter time, when they come down from the national park to lower altitudes where there’s more food and less snow. I used to live in Pinewood Springs, which is very close to Estes Park. On any given day, it looks like they are window shopping and they have been known to walk into buildings. Some of the bull elks have charged people during the ruts. It’s really crazy, but the eerie mating sounds that the bulls make in the fall are really phenomenal. I’m in Paonia and deer are everywhere, hopping across Highway 133 and literally walking through the downtown streets once they come down from the high country for fall and winter.
One time my next door neighbor had video on her security camera of 27 deer coming through at one time. We are not on the west side of the Springs up against the mountains. We are on the east. Our neighborhood is about 50 years old, blocks of houses all built on similar designs like they did in those days. It is not foresty, it is not mountainy, it is not roomy plots, it is not anything that says "expect deer." But they have their routes. I see them when I go on walks. I try to stay on my side of the street if they are in groups and hope they don't get to my feeders before I get home. At least I don't seem to grow any flowers that interest them in my yard of perennials. Just the bird seed, which is not cheap.
Wow, it’s amazing how they have become so acclimated to being in urban and suburban areas. This area of the western slope is surrounded on all sides by mountains, so I expect to see animals passing through town now and then. But what you’re describing is remarkable.
I have friends who live in Evergreen, and the elk there are everywhere as I'm sure you know, with no apex predators. They are magnificent and beautiful, but nature is out of balance. Not that these wolves will impact the elk in the 'burbs, but it's a start.
True, and they weren’t released on the front range where they would actually be of great use because of the eruptions there in your friend’s area and in Estes Park. There would’ve been a massive public uproar. As it is, the release was held up by last-minute lawsuits by the cattlemen’s associations. But the voters finally won. Wolves do move around quite a bit, and some were already coming into Colorado from Wyoming, so it’s anyone’s guess where they will go as more of them are introduced. As far as ranchers who are freaking out over this, it’s been proven that livestock more frequently die of diseases and other conditions than as a result of predators; plus, every loss will be compensated if it’s caused by a wolf.
I've read a lot about rewilding efforts and also the recognition by many countries that they need the large predators to keep an ecosystem both healthy and balanced. It's very encouraging, although on a somewhat small scale in terms of the overall climate emergency ...
For sure. Wolves are amazing and necessary.
Bravo the wolves!!
I was thrilled yesterday to learn about the release of wild wolves on the western slope. Hope they are able to establish territory and thrive!!
I have had the privilege of seeing wild wolves often in northern MN and can tell you there are few things more thrilling (unlike cougars and grizzlies, there are few if any credible stories of wild wolves attacking humans. A little less anxiety producing to spot them while hiking or canoeing). Congrats on your state’s efforts to restore balance in politics AND nature!
I am waiting for the day when there are actually enough of them that I can hear them howling at night.
Thanks for your comment, Janet; especially news about the wolves!
All of the Republican plaintiffs in the Colorado case can/will be dismissed as RINOs. You and I may be comforted by the observation that many of the plaintiffs are Republicans, but don’t overestimate its power among more conservative people.
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.
This actually “saves their bacon” if it means they can blame Dems for side-lining thump. I hope they don’t use it as a vote getter to put someone worse in office who will then pardon thump’s federal crimes (& continue stacking the courts etc etc)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m celebrating this Colorado decision. 🥂
You make a good point here, because no matter what happens with Trump, we still must elect a Democrat to the presidency. Even if he is barred from holding office ever again, if another Republican wins the presidency, they will attempt to throw away his 91 indictments.
Let's try not to lose sleep over that. We have our work cut out for us for the next eleven months.
I am not losing sleep over anything; I’m just making a point of concern. No Republican can be trusted with the presidency.
Yes, I understand YOU. In general ( that us) many are quite worried, but our work is clear. I know you understand that.
All the Repugnacants have made it very clear that all we can trust them for is to do all they can to gain more power, even at the expense of our Constitution.
Right you are, Janet. And not just because Trump would be left off the hook by any Republican back in the White House. With all the fixation on Trump one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that while a return of Trump would be catastrophic, a return of the MAGA-infested Republicans would be disastrous.
I don’t feel that any Republican can be trusted at this point, because I fear they will be beholden to the sinister minds behind Project 2025.
And Christie is the only one in the field who speaks truth about Trump. I think that's the only reason he stays in as long as he has. But Haley and DeSantis? Dangerous extremists for sure. Ramaswamy? Mush for brains.
Chris Christie may be the only exception aside from Cheney and Kinzinger, but none of these Republicans would ever get elected. They are now outcasts.
I appreciate Christie’s ability to go after The Defendant. But I remember what a miserable person he was when he was Governor of New Jersey.
I would not trust Chris Christie as far as I could throw him across a room. I admire his ability to go after Trump viciously. I would never want to see him as President of the United States.
My fear is this: If any Republican other than Trump were to get elected, assuming that Trump dies or is removed from the ballots, they will be beholden to the evil masterminds behind Project 2025. No Republicans can be trusted anymore with the reins of power, except perhaps Liz Cheney.
Agreed.
HulitC, I share your concern. Just like I would rather have had another choice for Speaker after they booted McCarthy. Jeffries!!! Ok, that was not going to happen, but I still think it was the right thing to do for the Dems to vote for him consistently. He was the best choice.
If the courts rule that Trump is ineligible to be president, it is not the fault of the Democrats. Though yes the MAGAts will blame them. It is still the right thing to do.
And by the way, all six of the plaintiffs in the Colorado lawsuit are either Republican or unaffiliated. None of the plaintiffs are Democrats.
Trump will make it Democrats fault.
Of course they will Dems are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. About everything. So might as well stick to principles.
? No Dems voted for Johnson as Speaker.
Did I misunderstand your post?
I think she means Dems voted for Jeffries consistently, and that was the right thing to do because he was the right choice (even though they knew they would fall short of the slim majority needed).
Thanks for clarification 😁
Yes that is what I meant. Thank you Susan.
My fear is that other swing & purple states will follow causing the GOP leadership to convince Trump to accept a pardon for dropping out and endorsing his former UN ambassador who wins election over the "Old Man".
I don't think Biden will grant a pardon. And if a Republican candidate made that deal, it would clearly be a corrupt pardon and voidable as illegal. I wouldn't worry about that.
And don't buy the hype about Nikki Haley. She has a great story--until you look closely, at which point she's not much different than Trump.
She's dangerous in the extreme. And I saw a chart somewhere that showed where all the Republican field, including Trump, stood on the various "issues," and it was nearly a solid block of identical checkmarks. The only difference is whether we trust any of the other not to implement something like the 2025 plan so that there would in fact be more elections to vote them out. But when it comes to foreign policy, immigration, social services, etc., she's another version of Trump.
Rick. I doubt that Trump will listen to GOP leadership or be convinced to drop out. In any case, I remain hopeful that Willis will succeed. He cannot get a pardon if convicted in Georgia.
All sorts of scenarios are possible. We face them one at a time. Everything that makes Biden strong is still true.
Dream away
Rhetorical question here, but is anyone out there as sick of hearing about Donald Trump as I am?
Yes & it takes away from reporting on all the other terrible things Repubs are doing, in particular cozying up to Putin & authoritarianism.
https://www.truthaboutthreats.com/p/denying-ukraine-funding-is-really
Yes Yes and Yes.
I do want more news on Ukraine on the general new feeds, but I don't feel too comfortable about a break from Trump news so long as he's remaining active. I may become tired of remaining vigilant, but so long as there's a mad dog in my vicinity I am not going to turn my back on it.
I feel like planetary health and environmental actions are of primary importance, but so long as our political state is blocking real progress, that status needs to be dealt with. It's the same for Ukraine. Do our best to keep the polar bears and the Ukrainians going long enough to get a saner less greedy representation in the House and Senate, and then we will be better able to turn the greater percentage of our attention to where it's really of vital not just foundational importance.
I don't think we should stop being vigilant. My comment shouldn't be taken as such . I work a great deal on protecting our democracy and encouraging others to do so. I am just sick of the man's name.
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.
Very good point and well stated!
Not really. Net net Trump lost the election in 2020 tried to overthrow the government, lied about winning the election so why is he entitled to run again for the sole purpose of pardoning himself for crimes he committed?
I think you are missing Irving's point: Trump can run even if he is disqualified. He just can't assume office if he wins. The 14th Amendment is a disqualification from holding office, not running for office.
However, the issue under Colorado law at least (I'm not sure about other states) is that the CO Election Code prohibits the SoS from listing any presidential candidates on the ballot who are not qualified to hold the office. See page 22 of the opinion https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/12/23SA300.pdf
I understand your/Irving’s point. However, if, following your reasoning, Trump were allowed to run, then actually won the Electoral College vote, and if his electors were then disqualified, there would be hell to pay. Large portions of the American electorate would believe their votes had been nullified *post hoc*. A large fraction of the population would believe that the person subsequently inaugurated was illegitimate.
Trump must be declared an illegitimate candidate *long before* any voting takes place, so Republicans have a chance to choose the Democrat’s principal opponent.
While I agree completely with Stephen's suggestion that it would be stupid to allow a person to run for an office he or she is legally disqualified from holding, there are Constitutional, including specifically First Amendment issues, that require careful Constitutional dissection and analysis before that person is precluded from even running. Obviously, if it is known in advance of an election that a candidate is legally precluded from holding the office for which he or she is running, then most voters would never want to waste a vote and, thus, would not vote for that candidate. That should be the end of the story, but in Trump's case it would not be: His enthusiasts would vote for him even if he were dead. I believe that the more restrictions placed on a person's decision to run, especially in a primary, the more Constitutional issues will be presented. My suggested approach: Best to avoid or circumvent the Constitutional issues and still achieve the desired end, namely, that even though a legally disqualified person wins an election, he or she still cannot hold the office for which the person ran.
Did not know that. Thanks
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?
Is use of a Bible (*whose* Bible?) a legal requirement for swearing-in? Doesn’t such a requirement contravene the First Amendment?
I don't think a Bible is required.
That is the $64,000 question.
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.
Ha!! Good point!
Yes, I have been saying this too. Let every vote count, not just the 11,000 they need in key counties to get the EC.
"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!
The problem is who and how they interrupt the law.
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.
Please don’t say “militias”. That lets right-wingers (continue to) appropriate patriotic Revolutionary terminology.
The proper term is *paramilitaries*. Please use it.
Nice point. Thank you. Paramilitaries seems just right.
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!
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes!
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.
“Originalists” is a provocative term, invented by conservative jurists and lawyers, to give a gloss to interpretations based *only* on crabbed pseudo-linguistic analyses.
If it were genuine originalism, it would also be rooted in deep analyses of relevant *histories* and not contravene the historical background.
Thank you for pointing out this obvious hypocrisy. It is so very infuriating.
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!!!
Hope so!
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 ...