Connect with us

News

Trump Likely to Win Supreme Court Disqualification Case: Legal Experts

Published

on

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appear prepared to hand Donald Trump a win, allowing him to not only stay on the Colorado primary ballot, but to make a landmark ruling that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not allow any state to remove a candidate from an election even if they have engaged in insurrection, according to several legal experts.

Legal experts also suggest the justices were not open to Colorado’s argument, and are likely to decide for the ex-president who is also facing 91 criminal felony charges, including some for his efforts in allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election he lost.

“This argument did not go well for the Trump challengers,” said former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal live on MSNBC.

“The SCOTUS oral argument- Colorado will lose, with the only issue being whether a single Justice will dissent. Tough and smart questions by the Justices including the 3 in the liberal wing,” writes Professor of law Andrew Weissmann, an MSNBC legal analyst who spent decades at DOJ.

“My bet,” says professor of law Steve Vladeck, “Between 7-2 and 9-0 for the very specific proposition that states can’t unilaterally disqualify candidates running for President on the ground that they engaged in insurrection. That’s just a prediction based on the oral argument—not what I think the Court *ought* to do.”

READ MORE: ‘Open Rebellion’: Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell and Ronna McDaniel Under MAGA Fire

Professor of law Rick Hasan, a noted election law expert, says it “would not be surprising to see a quick 9-0 or 8-1 ruling reversing Colorado and keeping Trump on the ballot, with Roberts writing on the federal interest, and perhaps some concurrences (Kavanaugh on Griffin, Alito and Gorsuch on ‘holdin’ office). Sotomayor is the question mark.”

“In my view this argument is as good as over,” wrote Mark Joseph Stern, before oral arguments concluded. “A majority will hold that individual states can’t enforce Sec. 3 against the president, at least without congressional approval.”

As some observed, it took the Justices an hour to even address the issue of insurrection, which is central to the case. Others expired grave concern that Justice Clarence Thomas, who they say clearly has a deep conflict of interest given his spouse’s actions, chose to not recuse himself.

“SCOTUS justices across the aisle — including Kagan, Thomas, and Barrett — have questioned states’ ability to disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, Section 3,” notes veteran legal reporter Adam Klasfeld. He also says, “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expresses skepticism about the definition of ‘officer’ in the disqualification clause: ‘Why didn’t they put president in the very enumerated list of Section Three?'”

“That ‘troubles’ her, she says.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that criminal prosecution of insurrection was required to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He also asked about “the right of the people” to vote for the candidate of their choice, and appeared concerned about “disenfranchisement” of voters.

READ MORE: Top Catholic Priest Has Some Advice for ‘Moses’ Mike Johnson

The Associated Press observes it is “bad for the plaintiffs trying to disqualify Trump” that January 6 “isn’t coming up in this argument.”

The AP adds that “the questioning has almost all been about technical, procedural issues, which are many of the reasons that Trump and others say the high court just shouldn’t go there. The justices are plainly worried that they’ll open a Pandora’s Box if they uphold the Colorado ruling, allowing other states to disqualify people they dislike through whatever fact-finding procedures they see fit to use.”

The attorney arguing for Colorado, Jason Murray, “keeps trying to bring the discussion back to Trump’s conduct, but not even the Democratic-appointed justices seem to be biting.”

Politico is even more certain that the Supreme Court will side with Trump and deem him not ineligible to hold elected office.

“The Supreme Court appeared to sharply veer against the Colorado voters challenging former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for office,” Politico’s Kyle Cheney reports. “Justices on both the left and right raised pointed questions to Jason Murray…about the ‘extraordinary’ ramifications of letting individual states decide whether a candidate is an insurrectionist.”

He adds that the “justices seem hostile to [the] disqualification effort.”

“Chief Justice John Roberts said that would essentially empower individual states to exert unilateral control over federal elections, a position ‘at war’ with the notion that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was intended to empower the federal government to constrain wayward states.”

Justice Elena Kagan also appeared opposed, asking: “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?”

READ MORE: Doubts Swirl Around Speaker Johnson’s Abilities After ‘Embarrassing’ Losses: Report

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Disgraceful’: ICE Slammed After Allegedly Pepper-Spraying US Congresswoman

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) is accusing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents of pepper-spraying her in her face while she was at a local Tucson, Arizona restaurant.

Rep. Grijalva in a video on social media said she saw about 40 mostly-masked ICE agents at a restaurant she frequents weekly.

The agents were “in several vehicles that the community had stopped right here, right in the middle of the street, because they were afraid that they were taking people without due process, without any kind of notice.”

READ MORE: Warning Signs Flash as Trump Slump Raises Fears of 2018 Blue Wave Rerun: Conservative

She said that the community was “protecting their people” when she was “sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent,” and “pushed around by others when I literally was not being aggressive.”

“I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress,” she continued. “So, once I introduced myself, once I did, I assumed that it would be a little calmer, but there was literally only one person that was trying to speak to me in any kind of civil tone, and everyone else was being rude and disrespectful, and I just can only imagine if they’re going to treat me like that, how they’re treating everybody else.”

Congresswoman Grijalva said she saw “people directly sprayed,” including “members of our press” and staff members.

She blasted President Donald Trump, saying that he “has no regard for any due process, the rule of law, the Constitution — they’re literally disappearing people from the streets.”

Critics slammed the agents’ action.

READ MORE: Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) wrote that Rep. Grijalva “was doing her job, standing up for her community.”

“Pepper-spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for. Period,” he added.

“This is unacceptable and outrageous,” observed Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. “Enforcing the rule [of] law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression.”

The Bulwark’s Sam Stein noted, “quite the beginning for Grijalva, who wasn’t seated for weeks, [cast] the decisive vote to get the Epstein files, and now has apparently been pepper sprayed in the face by immigration agents.”

Also calling the action “outrageous,” U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) wrote: “We are Members of Congress with oversight authority of ICE. Rep Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents. ICE is completely lawless.”

“First they tackle a sitting Senator,” noted U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY). “Now they’re pepper spraying a Representative. It’s clear ICE is spinning out of control. We will hold the agency accountable.”

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Warning Signs Flash as Trump Slump Raises Fears of 2018 Blue Wave Rerun: Conservative

Published

on

A well-known conservative commentator has a warning for the Republican Party: take action now or face a repeat of the 2018 midterms when the GOP lost 41 House seats in a landslide. And this time, he says, the Senate could go to the Democrats as well.

Award-winning writer and journalist Bernard Goldberg reminded readers at The Hill that in 2018, during President Donald Trump’s first term, “Republicans got walloped … and a good chunk of that had President Trump’s name written all over it.”

Trump’s “approval ratings were in the low 40s, and independents — the folks who usually decide elections — had seen enough. They broke hard for the Democrats,” Goldberg noted. “Now here we are, staring down 2026, and you can almost hear history clearing its throat, getting ready to repeat itself.”

READ MORE: Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

Goldberg noted that Trump’s approval rating is currently the lowest it’s been this term.

“Among Republicans, his support dropped from 91 percent right after the 2024 election to 84 percent last month. Among independents, it cratered — from 42 percent to just 25 percent.”

“If the trend continues,” he warned, “Republicans could be headed for another blue wave — and this time, it could wash away not just the House majority, but control of the Senate too.”

Why?

“It’s the economy — still,” he wrote.

“Trump is out there saying the economy is humming. Biden said the same thing before him. But voters didn’t buy it then, and they’re not buying it now. Why? Because it’s not GDP numbers that matter. It’s affordability,” Goldberg noted.

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

That’s a word that President Trump continues to call a “con job,” while his own administration tries to claim he is focused on.

He pointed to a Karl Rove Wall Street Journal column and wrote: “The Republicans may have ‘avoided disaster’ in Tennessee, but the result should be a wake-up call for Republicans. He’s right.”

Goldberg asked: “will anyone in the Republican Party actually pick up the phone?”

“Because if Republicans don’t wake up — and fast — they’re going to find out the hard way what happens when you keep rerunning the same movie and expecting a different ending. To lose in 2026, all they have to do is nothing. And right now, that’s pretty much what they’re doing.”

READ MORE: Trump Urges Judge Aileen Cannon to Keep Jack Smith Report Secret

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

Published

on

President Donald Trump is claiming that the top priority of Democrats is the “total obliteration” of the U.S. Supreme Court. His remarks came just hours after SCOTUS gave Republicans a 6-3 win along partisan lines, in the form of approving Texas’s redrawn mid-decade congressional maps that could help add five GOP-held seats to the U.S. House of Representatives. A lower court had ruled the redrawn Texas maps were likely racially biased.

Although there are different ways to measure, one study by Court Accountability this fall found that the Supreme Court has ruled in Trump’s favor 90% of the time.

“Most of these wins for the president came from the court’s ‘shadow docket’ slate of opinions — where the court has typically, in the past, only ruled on administrative measures,” according to Truthout. “However, in recent years, the Supreme Court has been making announcements on cases, issuing injunctions or allowances of actions to remain in place, that have the same effect, essentially, as a final decision.”

READ MORE: White House Touts Trump’s ‘Track Record’ on Affordability

On Friday, the president declared that the “Democrats number one policy push is the complete and total OBLITERATION of our great United States Supreme Court.”

“They will do this on their very first day in office, through the simple Termination of the Filibuster, SHOULD THEY WIN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS,” he wrote.

Trump has strongly advocated for Republicans to eliminate the Senate filibuster.

“The Radical Left Democrats are looking at 21 Justices, with immediate ascension,” he wrote, claiming that Democrats would more than double the current size of the court.

“This would be terrible for our Country. Fear not, however, Republicans will not let it, or any of their other catastrophic policies, happen. Our Country is now in very good hands. MAGA!!!”

Some court reform advocates have suggested the Supreme Court be expanded to 13 justices, one for each of the thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeals.

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.