Supreme Court Appears Poised to Reject Challenge to Trump's Candidacy, and Might Even Reject It... Unanimously

Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley

The argument is now over. The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial. Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court.

One threshold question is this: When the insurrection clause speaks of "officers" being disqualified from office, does it even mean the president, whose qualifications are spelled out in the Constitution, with no mention of insurrection being a bar?

Or does it just mean the people the Executive appoints to fill federal posts?

Even Katanji Brown Jackson seems to think "officers" means "appointed officials," not constitutional officials like the president:

Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley

...Most notable were the questions from Justice Jackson who seemed to push the idea that the president may not have been intended to be one of those covered by the provision.

Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley

...They are now turning to the first question on what officers are covered. Justice Jackson is leading off...

...Jackson is probing the list argument that the president is not listed expressly. She is asking why Trump is not pushing that argument harder.

Well... Trump tends to hire incompetent people.

Even Roberts is antagonistic. The 14th Amendment, he says, was written to reduce the power of the states (establishing that federal rights were the rights of all citizens, whether or not states wanted to grant them, etc.).

Why then, he asked, would this same Amendment grant states the power to veto federal presidential candidates?

Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley

...Chief Justice Roberts asked a deadly question of why the 14th Amendment (which is designed to limit the power of states) would be used to enhance this power of the states. He suggested that Murray's arguments are "ahistorical."

One of the main arguments from the left is that the "Insurrection Clause" is "self-executing." That is, the clause says that no "insurrectionist" can qualify for office, and no additional conviction, hearing, tribunal, etc., is necessary to enforce this claim.

And therefore, they argue, people can bring stupid lawsuits and state courts can decide who is and who is not an insurrectionist.

Whereas those arguing it's not "self-executing" say: There needs to be a law against "insurrection," and you need to be convicted against violating that law to be disqualified.

Usually, Congress enables constitutional commands with statutes. Constitutions are, of course, not "laws." They are vague, when laws demand precision. And Congress usually passes laws to explain exactly how a constitutional clause will be implemented.

This is just bizarre: There actually is and long has been a federal law against insurrection. Further, there is a law which says anyone convicted of "Insurrection" is disqualified from holding federal office.

Kavanaugh wants to know why, oh why, should that not be considered the controlling legal authority for disqualifications based on "insurrection."

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 01:34 PM

| Access Comments