Trump, Colorado and SCOTUS - thoughts?

[ciao_yall]

While I can probably pre-write some of the hot takes from some of the members here (and assign the correct names to them) I'm more interested in the political scientists, legal scholars, historians, and others with more in-depth thoughts on the matter.

As the old curse says, "May you live in interesting times."

[Parasaurolophus]

Pre-written hot take: it's the right judgement but at the wrong time (much too late), and thus incredibly dangerous.

But I expect the SCOTUS won't let it stand. Whether that means SCOTUS is effectively deciding he wasn't guilty of insurrection, iunno. Probably they'll weasel out of that interpretation on pretty thin ice.

[dismalist]

There is a certain Peter Meijer, former Republican House member who voted for impeaching Trump on account of Jan. 6.

He makes the point that Trump has not been convicted of anything.

But the truly amusing feature of the Colorado 4 - 3 Supreme Court decision is not that it went along party lines, for all seven justices were Democrats, but that it split along alma mater law school lines: "All Ivy League grads voted to disqualify. All Denver Law grads voted not to disqualify."

I think that is riotous! Talk about universities in electoral competition... .

[Sun_Worshiper]

Their ruling is probably justifiable by the letter of the law. But taking a leading candidate off the ballot at this point is obviously problematic for democracy. In any case, the SC will almost certainly strike it down - I'd bet unanimously, with the so-called originalists leading the charge. In doing so, however, they will not be deciding whether he is or is not guilty of insurrection, just that this particular constitutional provision should not be followed or is not applicable in this case.

[Ruralguy]

On one hand, I think its very clear that he (and a bunch of others, some of whom are also running for office) is an insurrectionist. But what's clear to me isn't the same as what is proven by some legal standard (I believe the Colorado SC says the hearing they had is good enough for that purpose, and I say "myeh" to that, although again, what do I know about the law?) . So, I more or less have SW's view: He probably should be off the ballot in some perfect Universe, but in our Universe, where balloting (in general) is going to start in less than 2 months, I think this is not a good idea.  That being said, if the SCOTUS says it holds (which I highly doubt), then it holds until some other future SCOTUS says "Uh. I guess we were wrong?"

[Parasaurolophus]

New idle musing: it seems to me that just about all elected Republicans have given him and his insurrection "aid and comfort" at this point (e.g. by promoting the lie that the election was stolen). So... That should make them all ineligible for office.

[ciao_yall]

Being impeached by the House was probably enough of a trial, but then it failed in the Senate. Mitch was probably hoping to keep Trump's voting supporters and that he would go away after the next election.

Wonder if he is happy with that decision or if it is coming back to bite him in the tush.

[Ruralguy]

I think Mitch is likely to retire within the next 4 years, so he's probably just now going for the best bet for Republicans to hit the trifecta and maybe do something with it. Recent history shows that even if Republicans were able to get Presidency, House and Senate, its unlikely to last long. That's probably mostly due to Trump and/or policies and people he endorsed/appointed (both for good and bad).

[ciao_yall]

Interesting article about why Trump should be blocked from the ballots by SCOTUS.

I'm still a bit nervous about the precedent this could set if it happens. Which... it probably won't.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Interesting article about why Trump should be blocked from the ballots by SCOTUS.

I'm still a bit nervous about the precedent this could set if it happens. Which... it probably won't.

There was a similar article in WaPo today by Perry Bacon Jr., which essentially said that democracy is about a lot more than just elections and that a court that stops autocrats and seditionists from running for election is actually a pro-democratic court. I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument, but I doubt SCOTUS will be on board.