A judge has rejected three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this month.
A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. But the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce the ban, and it has been applied only twice since the 1800s.
If this holds, what’s the precedent set for his coconspirators and their runs for political office?
The same. If the Supreme Court acknowledges the validity of this law then criminals like Jim Jordan could be removed from Congress.
And Gaetz and Tommy Tube and 100% human senator Ted Cruz, amongst others.
deleted by creator
Lovely as that sounds I can’t imagine this Supreme Court ruling against Trump. Maybe if you could somehow erase their memory so they make a ruling without consideration of current politics.
The interesting bit is that it’s members of the federalist society arguing that Trump shouldn’t run.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html
Trump doesn’t really understand law, and it’s the federalists that provided him with a list of right-wing judges to pick from, and it’s really federalists rather than Trump supporters who ended up capturing the supreme court.
Normally they’re both extremely right-wing so the gap doesn’t matter, but if the federalists turn on Trump you could see some supreme court judgements go against him.
Sadly, I’m forced to agree with you. In spite of their claim to be “Originalists” they have a curious habit of ignoring both law and precedent whenever it suits them. I don’t trust them to accurately name the color of the clear sky at noon.
Also issuing rulings and then saying “but don’t use this as precedent” which just means “we reserved the right to rule differently when it is politically expedient,” or perhaps, “we already know this is a bad ruling but we really want this person to win in this case.”
Yeah, just like they cited a 1600s witch hunter to justify ending Roe, they’d cite a misinterpretation of Homer as proof that the sky isn’t blue if it would help them politically and therefore economically…
deleted by creator
Yeah, this genuinely annoyed me to find out! I’m a huge fan of the show and want all of the weird claims to be true…with the possible exception of the fish denialism 😂
Originalism just means making up whatever they want and pretending it’s really what the framers wanted.
If they had previously held federal office, they would likely be successfully challenged as well.
If they had previously held any office or position - federal, state, local, military - where they took an oath to support the United States Constitution.