Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump’s candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.
Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump’s candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.
I believe it says even someone who gave comfort to a person involved in an insurrection is disqualified.
I don’t really see how that changes anything. This is so far beyond an “I’ll eat my hat” kind of thing. There is just no universe in which this SCOTUS will stop Trump from running even if someone is actually convicted that he “gave comfort” to before the case is seen.
oh, I don’t disagree in the slightest. but whole people might be able to say that he wasn’t part of the insurrection because he wasn’t actually among those storming the capitol, I don’t think anyone can reasonably deny that he gave comfort to those who undeniably were.
it’s 100% not gonna be enough, even though it’s am absolutely open and shut case, legally.
I don’t even think it is open and shut. There’s a distinct lack of due process in this simple interpretation of “gave comfort”, plus the phrasing is at least somewhat ambiguous. The clause, for example, disqualifies someone who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. That’s a clear opportunity for a textualist to say that the insurrectionists/rebels are being treated separately from enemies of the state. It’s bullshit, but bullshit is welcome to anyone who adheres to textualism.
And what even is “aid and comfort”? Is incitement material aid, or does that not meet the threshold? And absent a conviction of someone he aided/comforted on a charge of insurrection and a conviction of Trump on said incitement, can we truly say he has given aid or comfort? I think a true advocate for civil rights would be right to say you cannot put the punishment before the trial, even if it’s not the outcome that matches my own preferences.
On top of this, the SCOTUS has an even easier and less cagy out – they simply say disqualification isn’t up to the courts, but is in fact up to the Congress. The 14th amendment says exactly this in section 5 – that it is up to Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions. Congress has not passed any appropriate legislation to disqualify Trump, therefore lol he isn’t. SUPER easy out for the court.
Don’t forget that section 4 of the 14th definitely makes the debt ceiling illegal yet we do that dance annually.