.jpeg)
In a turn of events filled with drama the Supreme Court recently made a decision regarding former President Donald Trumps potential comeback, to the presidential race. This ruling, which swiftly resolved a case with implications for the 2024 election has sparked discussions and stirred emotions nationwide.
Imagine this; a courtroom setting where the future of a political figure is at stake. In a twist the Supreme Court in a decision without any disagreements overturned a previous ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. The earlier ruling had stated that Trump could not run for president again under Section 3 of the Amendment.
However the Supreme Court had thoughts on the matter. It stated that it is Congresss responsibility to enforce Section 3 against those seeking office, not states. This decision caused shockwaves in the realm affirming the governments authority in matters related to presidential eligibility.
What adds another layer of intrigue to this ruling is its timing— days before the Colorado elections. It almost feels like all eyes were, on this decision that could potentially shape American politics moving forward. When the verdict was revealed Trump quickly seized the spotlight praising the decision, as a " victory for America!!!" on his social media platform.
Essentially this judgment signifies more than a standard; it showcases the delicate balance, between federal power and state independence.
In the great arena of American politics, where the stakes are high and the narrative twists endlessly, Trump’s journey to 2024 is an interesting story—one that continues to captivate and divide the nation, and give us all on the edge of our seats, eagerly awaiting the next scene in this political epic.
Source:
-[New York Times]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot.html
-[AP News]https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-2390f3204e3ecaad3c617f9db0ff9d2e
7 comments:
I'm not particularly surprised by the Supreme Court's decision, since what Colorado did was shaky/maybe even symbolic. However, I did think that the majority opinion was interesting: “The Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates." The liberal justices criticized these statements as overreach and straying from judicial restraint, moving beyond the case itself. Plus, by giving the responsibility of enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is about disqualification from holding office for those who have engaged in insurrection by 2/3rds vote in Congress, to Congress, it is basically impossible for Trump through this way given the state of Congress today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot.html
I am actually quite surprised that the court decision was unanimous (although five of the Conservative justices had different approaches to their decision compared to the liberal ones) since the Supreme Court these days is often split by partisan lines, with the Conservative and Liberal justices submitting their opinions on opposite ends. I don’t really have any other comment to add, but relating back to the Roberts reading in class, it looks like the Chief Justice was able to restore a somewhat united front in their decision with this case, an outcome that he so desperately strives for.
I'm also not insanely surprised at the outcome of the SCOTUS decision. I feel like we all saw it coming. There's no actual way Trump and his administration would allow his name being banned on the presidential ballot--his support is way too strong for that, and his staff is way too committed for that. Whether or not this consideration had something to do with the Supreme Court's verdict is another question, though I'm thinking that it did.
I'd like to preface this comment by clearly stating that I do not support Trump.
HOWEVER, I have seen some general discontent among Democrats/liberals about this Supreme Court case, and I particularly disagree with the assessment that this was the inevitable outcome due to the Supreme Court being extremely conservative and thus favoring Trump undemocratically.
Although it is undeniable that Trump's words and actions played a strong role in causing the events of January 6th, it is much more difficult to say that he "engaged in insurrection or rebellion." Now that we've gone through our landmark Supreme Court case unit, it's much easier to see why. The precedent set by Brandenburg vs. Ohio was that the government could not censor free speech unless it was inciting "imminent lawless action." Although Trump denounced the election as fraudulent and said a huge number of things that led MAGA Republicans to storm the capitol, Trump never fully fulfilled this criterion (he would have to have said something like "go storm the capitol" to be considered to have incited imminent lawless action). Furthermore, we must analyze the intent of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment; obviously, the purpose is that we don't want political leaders in charge who will get rid of democracy. The opposing argument, which is actually quite strong, is that there is no danger to the American democracy by letting Trump run again - he's running for his final, second term, and thus legally cannot be placed on the ballot again. Is there a danger to democracy if we let Trump be a candidate? If not, then you're letting your political views dictate your opinion.
And if so, imagine how terrible of a precedent this case would set, if states were allowed to choose whether or not political candidates could be put on the presidential ballot at their own discretion. It's honestly quite a terrifying reality. Imagine if you lived in a state where the leading Democratic candidate was removed from the ballot, it'd basically be stripping you of your vote.
I think the most convincing argument is simply that the choice should be democratic; leave it to the American people to decide whether or not Trump is fit to be president.
I find that this case is incredibly interesting, particularly due to the unanimity of it, because one would expect liberal judges to oppose Trump's ability to run in the election. However, as the Supreme Court's decision appeared to be based on the power being allocated to Congress, and not the states, this does make a bit more sense, as it was less about interpretation of the quantity of power, but rather who held that power, and therefore the Colorado Supreme Court had no right do rule as they did. This is yet another reminder of one of the purposes of the Supreme Court: to ensure the separation of power between state and federal bodies as outlined in the Constitution. However, I am interested to see if Congress will make any attempt in this regard, or if it will be shut down in fear of its potential to fail.
Similar to others, I am a little shocked this decision was completely unanimous considering one would assume that not everyone on the Supreme Court wants Trump to have the ability to run again. However, I do agree with Maya that it was hard to believe that his name wouldn't be on the ballot considering how in the spotlight he is, and how many supporters he has. But, this wasn't the reason for the Supreme Courts decision, it was more about making sure it was clear who had the power here, states or Congress. This case was very interesting has a nice connection to what we have learned in the past.
One thing that stood out to me about the reasoning of this decision was an idea I saw expressed in the liberal justice concurrence — the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment, as one of the Reconstruction amendments, was specifically crafted to expand the power of the federal government and limit the power of states, an opinion which holds with both the wording of the Amendment as well as the original intent of the amendment when passed.
However, I was also interested by the main argument the liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) make in the start of their concurrence, arguing in favor of judicial restraint in this ruling. Citing part of the Dobbs decision, which Roberts, an advocate for judicial restraint, wrote (also a decision supported by the conservative justices, and thus an interesting one to interpret from the other ideological position), the justices mention a duty of the Court to not decide more than is necessary — in this case, settling the deal with states taking people off of the ballot, but arguing against setting specific strict limits on when the federal government might disqualify someone due to insurrection. I think this is a very fair take — conduct notwithstanding, a state removing someone from the ballot sets a bit of a worrisome precedent: casting one figure as a martyr, making others distrust the government or electoral process, and incurring accusations of bias. Yet here, the liberal justices are able to invalidate this without the same victorious conservative sentiment as the conservative justices do in making it difficult to disqualify someone from the ballot at all.
As a bit of a semi-serious related idea: if it’s not easy to disqualify someone for insurrection-related conduct, and the cost of engaging in this behavior does not amount to much in one’s party base, then we might argue this to be a political analogue to moral hazard — when the risk of this behavior (disqualification) is covered, we see more than would be ideal, with spillover costs (shakiness of democracy, etc) passed on to those not involved.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trump_v._Anderson/Opinion_of_Justices_Sotomayor,_Kagan,_and_Jackson
Post a Comment