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

Related Topics:
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

‘Lied Through His Teeth’: Senator Warns RFK Jr. Undermining Vaccine Will ‘Kill’ Kids

Published

1 day ago

on

May 16, 2025

By

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) is accusing Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of lying during his Senate testimony this week, and warning that the HHS chief’s efforts to destroy faith in the measles vaccine will lead to children dying.

“It’s not a small thing that Trump’s Cabinet thinks Congress and the American people are so dumb that they can tell brazen lies over and over. We can’t normalize this,” Senator Murphy urged.

“The way in which Trump and Trump’s cabinet lie through their teeth, unapologetically and brazenly, to Congress and the American people, is outrageous,” Murphy said in video (below) he posted online Friday. “And I really worry that we risk normalizing it by not calling it out when it happens.”

He called the exchange he had with RFK Jr. “maddening” and “heartbreaking,” and said the HHS Secretary “essentially says that he’s no longer recommending that families get the measles vaccine. That’s going to kill hundreds, if not thousands of kids in this country.”

Murphy then played a clip from Kennedy’s testimony (which NCRM covered earlier this week), and, he said, caught Kennedy in a lie.

RELATED: ‘None of That Is True’: RFK Jr. Fact-Checked Repeatedly in Heated Senate Hearing

“By the way,” Kennedy told Murphy, “I said at the [House] hearing this morning that I was recommending the measles vaccine,” and told him to “look at the transcript.”

“So guess what I did?” Murphy says. “I went and checked the House transcript. It’s hours of testimony. I and my staff watched all of it, and guess what? Nowhere, nowhere in that transcript does he say he recommends the measles vaccine.”

“He lied through his teeth, and he did it because all of these MAGA sycophants have gotten used to lying. Donald Trump does it all the time, so they think they can do it as well. But we can’t normalize this because you can’t run a country if your leaders are lying to you every single day,” the Connecticut Democrat warned.

“RFK Jr. doesn’t support the measles vaccine, and he shouldn’t pretend that he does. He undermines the vaccine on a daily basis and whether we like his conspiracy theory positions or not, he should just be honest with the American people. They should all be honest with the American people, and none of us should normalize or get used to this amount of lying.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘It Meant Assassination’: Trump Blasts ‘Dirty Cop’ Comey for ‘8647’

Continue Reading

News

‘It Meant Assassination’: Trump Blasts ‘Dirty Cop’ Comey for ‘8647’

Published

1 day ago

on

May 16, 2025

By

President Donald Trump is attacking the FBI Director he fired, Jim Comey, who is reportedly under investigation  over a photo of sea shells formed into the numbers 8647. Top Trump law enforcement and intelligence officials claim it is a call for the assassination of the 47th President, although “86” is generally understood to mean “reject” or “eject,” and, since the 1930s, in restaurant parlance, has meant a menu item is unavailable.

“He knew exactly what that meant,” President Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that will air Friday evening. “A child knows what that meant.”

“If you’re the FBI Director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant ‘assassination.’ And it says it loud and clear,” Trump alleged.

READ MORE: GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples

“Now, he wasn’t very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant, and he did it for a reason, and he was hit so hard because people like me, and they like what’s happening with our country. Our country’s become respected again,” the President claimed. “And he’s calling for the assassination of the president.”

Baier interjected, saying: “Obviously, he apologized and said he —”

“Well, he apologized because he was hit,” Trump also claimed. “Look, he’s a very bad —”

When asked what he wants to see happen to the former Director of the FBI, Trump said he did not want to weigh in, and would let his Attorney General handle it.

“I don’t want to take a position on it because that’s gonna be up to Pam [Bondi] and all of the great people, but I will say this. I think it’s a terrible thing. And when you add his history to that, if he had a clean history, he doesn’t.”

“He’s a dirty cop. He’s a dirty cop. And if he had a clean history, I could understand if there was a leniency. But I’m going to let them make that decision.”

READ MORE: ‘Mad King’: Trump Teases ‘Fourth’ Term to U.S. Troops Overseas

Trump Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Fox News on Thursday night she thinks Comey should go to prison for posting the “8647” photo.

Asked, “Do you believe Comey should be in jail?” Gabbard replied, “I do.”

“Any other person with the position of influence that he has,” she added, “people who take very seriously what what a guy of his stature, his experience, and what the propaganda media has built him up to be?”

“I’m very concerned for the president’s life. We’ve already seen assassination attempts,” she continued. “I’m very concerned for his life, and James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.”

But others commenting via social media were quick to point to a number of “86” posts apparently made by right wing influencers and even a former member of Congress, as well as T-shirts for sale during the Biden years.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Significant Damage’: Walmart’s ‘Magnitude’ Warning to Consumers Spurs Trump Tariff Critics

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Mad King’: Trump Teases ‘Fourth’ Term to U.S. Troops Overseas

Published

2 days ago

on

May 15, 2025

By

During a rally-style appearance before uniformed U.S. troops in Qatar on Thursday, President Donald Trump—serving as their Commander-in-Chief—floated the idea of a “fourth” term and falsely claimed victory in the 2020 election he lost. The appearance drew swift criticism for blurring the line between military service and political theater.

“As you know, we won three elections, okay?” Trump told the largely silent troops (video below). “And some people want us to do a fourth. I don’t know—I’ll have to think about that.”

“You saw the new, the new hat. The hottest hat is, it says, ‘Trump 2028: We’re driving the left crazy.'”

“When you see that. We didn’t need that hat, but, uh, it was it’s been an amazing period of time,” he concluded.

READ MORE: ‘Significant Damage’: Walmart’s ‘Magnitude’ Warning to Consumers Spurs Trump Tariff Critics

Noting that Trump was speaking “at the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East,” CNN reported that the President “thanked the U.S. troops for political support.”

“There’s – nobody been stronger than the military in terms of backing us, nobody,” Trump said. “So, I just want to thank you all very much. Great honor. Thank you very much.”

CBS News national security coordinating producer Jim LaPorta, who has reported extensively on the military, wrote: “If this was a rally, the president’s remarks would be fine. But in front of service members who are expected to be apolitical, many Defense Department officials would find these remarks inappropriate.”

READ MORE: ‘Deeply Fascist’: Massive Banner of Trump on Government Building Sparks ‘North Korea’ Vibes

The Bulwark’s Sam Stein observed: “Treating the troops like they’re at a campaign rally and sowing doubt about the past and future of American elections — all in one soundbite.”

Democratic pollster and strategist Luke Martin called it “especially jarring to see Trump flirting with blowing a hole in the Constitution in front of an entire crowd of people who literally swore an oath to protect it with their life.”

Independent journalist Mike Rothschild noted: “Making a statement like this in front of active duty troops would have generated months of scandal, hearings, and resignations in years gone by. Now it’s just another Thursday with the Mad King.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.