This deserves a longer write up than I can give it right now, but Biden would be much better off arguing that Trump isn’t a valid candidate than arguing that we should pick him over Trump. He’s avoided it because he thinks Trump is his only argument, but he needs more if we’re gonna win this.
Trump v Anderson is much more vulnerable than it appears at first blush, and if I were a blue state AG, I would consider announcing that I won’t print ballots with his name because the Supreme Court says he’s disqualified. Invite Congress to intervene if they want to compel me to change.
Forcing Republicans onto defense on Section 2 and file the lawsuit to force compliance…it’ll be amazing to see the logic that the Imperial Court vomits out
Trump v Anderson. The Court’s sinister supermajority affirmed all six points of Trump’s disqualification, and skipped to the question: Did CO err in ordering Trump off of the ballot? That’s what their whole decision is based on. They said he was disqualified, but Congress had to enforce that.
No, this is false. The Court recounted the Colorado Supreme Court's decision that Trump was disqualified, but in no way did the Court claim any agreement (or disagreement) with this holding.
If they don’t challenge the holding, doesn’t it leave it standing? Or does it simply wipe it clear? Because if he’s not disqualified, then why does enforcement of Section 3 matter? They could just say there’s nothing to enforce, right?
I’m asking sincerely, because I don’t understand why they mention the grounds for disqualification at the beginning of the case and then move to the question of “who gets to disqualify?” if they weren’t basically conceding that he could be. But I’m a college dropout, lol.
All the Court is doing there is recounting the history of the case. That's not the same as agreeing with it. Their holding is that individual states don't get to enforce this prohibition; it's up to Congress to do so, and it should be a uniform, national decision as to a presidential candidate.
No. When a court says "we don't need to review this part because it's irrelevant" it doesn't adopt that holding - it says "even if you're right it wouldn't impact the outcome so we're not wasting our time deciding whether it's right or wrong"
So the CO opinion on that issue hasn't been specifically rejected by SCOTUS - but it also hasn't been endorsed. From a "what does SCOTUS say about this issue" it's as though the case was never appealed to them in the first place
Cool! Thank you for explaining that to me. So if someone argued that they won’t let him have ballot access because SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on his disqualification, and Colorado is the only rule they have, would that force a suit to put Trump on the ballot?
But there are plenty of state laws that forbid ineligible candidates for state office from appearing on the ballot, and there the holding still has weight. It was reversed on other grounds. He is probably ineligible to run for governor of CO (though he might get a new shot at litigating the facts).
They ruled that Colorado had no power to do what it did and that states cannot, without an act of Congress, use §3 to keep a presidential candidate off the ballot.
(States are free to unilaterally enforce §3 against state offices though.)
They didn’t touch whether or not §3 DQs Trump because under the decision it’s irrelevant. Even if he is there’s nothing states can do absent a federal law saying how §3 is to be enforced — i.e. it’s not self-executing re: the presidency.
Hi, first-time caller first-time listener, and I've probably successfully removed more candidates from election ballots than you have and I have no idea why you think this is plausible. Trump v Anderson says that states can't enforce this provision, so how is this not settled law?
Because the Enforcement Act they cited was only for non-compliant states under the Constitution. It created a penalty for keeping someone on the ballot, not a mechanism for removing them. They’re not enforcing Section 3; they’re complying with it.
Basically, the Court didn’t actually read the provisions they cited, because it doesn’t work the way that they’re trying to make it. The hole in their theory is that the process created only happens if the state *allows* a disqualified person on the ballot.
Respectfully, the Court wrote: "States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency." I don't see how you read "no, power!" out of "no power."
Because again, I read the Enforcement Act. It only creates penalties for states that don’t comply. Presumably, if states simply defer to the written text of the Constitution, there is no need for the process to be created by Congress. Either way though, it’s worth it for the litigation.
I just don't see what you're seeing. Regardless of whether I like it, the Court was clear. Individual states don't get to enforce the insurrection clause.
Individual states don’t get to enforce it, no, but they can comply with it. The question is whether running as an insurrectionist is a crime that can be enforced. The 14th amendment requires that such a candidate not appear on the ballot. Congress created penalties (enforcement) when they did.
Time for them to get on the stick and go do it,
but most of the battleground states aren't blue, or at least don't have both Dem legislatures and governors who'll let them.
Still, a wide repetition of "Trump's disqualified due to insurrection" might help.
Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania all have Democratic AGs. It would be extremely good for their state GOP parties to aggressively argue that they’re not allowed to do it. The Enforcement Act of 1870 was written for states refusing to comply with Section 2; they can argue that they don’t need it.
I don’t mean to bum everyone out, but wouldn’t it be more effective if Trump remains on the ballot? A Biden win would deliver the kind of statement against MAGAism that a technical win would lack.
MAGA has already been beaten we did that back in 2020. He betrayed the country after he lost the election. The majority of us would be ok with him not being able to run again.
