In arguments Thursday, the justices will, for the first time, wrestle with a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from reclaiming power.

The case is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively delivered the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. It comes to a court that has been buffeted by criticism over ethics, which led the justices to adopt their first code of conduct in November, and at a time when public approval of the court is diminished, at near-record lows in surveys.

The dispute stems from the push by Republican and independent voters in Colorado to kick Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m not expecting much from them, but when I played devil’s advocate with myself to find loopholes or excuses they might say he must remain, I can’t find one. I suppose the only loophole is if they say it wasn’t an insurrection, but everything else seems tighter than a drum.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      10 months ago
      • it is up to Congress to rule that he did engage and since the second impeachment failed they did so already

      • The president isn’t an officer of the US

      • Being on the ballet is a state level issue and the states have no mechanism for removal as the constitution is written

      • It wasn’t insurrection it was a riot

      • He really isn’t on the ballet, the electors are

      See it is easy if the truth doesn’t matter.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

        All of those things are wrong. They’ve been directly addressed and none of those arguments are winnable except maybe a definition of insurrection, but storming the Capitol violently qualifies by any laymen’s understanding of the word.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          10 months ago

          Well, considering they’ve made rulings based on entirely fabricated evidence, I’m not very confident.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          Cool so I am sure the Supreme Court cares that someone said that they were wrong and will do the right thing. Which is why a fetus has more rights than a woman does.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      They could just say “fuck you” and rule 7-3 in Trump’s favor. They don’t need to actually make arguments.

      The argumentation they do is mostly just propaganda to keep people from rioting about bad decisions.

    • Orbituary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      There are a few choices they have in my eyes.

      • A) he’s not an insurrectionist.
      • B) “it’s too close to an election”
      • C) the Constitution doesn’t matter
      • D) ???
      • E) Profit.

      I doubt they’ll do the right thing.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The one major issue I see with this whole endeavor is who gets to make that determination that there was an attempt at insurrection. Yeah, I get it, we all saw it happen in real time. We know he’s guilty.

      But this court may say “if some is suspected of being disqualified due to Amendment 14, someone should challenge and have a court decide”. And you know what will happen next. Some idiot Texas judge will declare that Biden and Harris are both leading an insurrection at the border. And Poof! Mike Johnson in now President.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        He’s off the ballot in CO because someone challenged and a court decided, and now the case has risen to the Supreme Court because an appeal was made. This is as judicial a process as possible.

        Now if the Supreme Court accepts a lower court’s ruling that Biden is ineligible, then it’s a constitutional crisis and people will need to decide who they believe is faithfully executing their duties.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        A court didn’t decide when the amendment was created and applied. It applied to people without trial. However I agree with the chaos such a ruling could create and it would probably be worse than having Trump on the ballot.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The nice thing about the 14th Amendment is that nobody has to decide what insurrection is, because there is another option that was clearly breached on Jan 6th.

        shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I hate holding out hope, too. If it helps I’m sure I’m wrong. They will find some excuse, and it will be horrible precedent.

        • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          On the plus side, then Biden could organize a mob to storm the court. And no coy subterfuge this time. Man up and get shit done right.

          /s of course