POLL: What will SCOTUS do Re: 14th Amendment?

[MtnMan]

With 2 states ruling that Trump cannot appear on the ballot, this is surely heading for SCOTUS.
How will they rule?

 

[ivwshane]

None of the above

 

[Dave_5k]

None of the above. Punt, duck, and hide ~ 9-0 decision he can be on primary ballots, as narrow as possible to get alignment - perhaps along lines:

Making no legal conclusions except any claim that he is unable to "hold" office as a result of being an insurrectionist could still be removed prior to holding office by 2/3 vote of congress, unlike all other eligibility restrictions to holding office, thus he should not be removed from primary ballots at this time for a potentially temporary restriction. (Without bothering to rule on whether or not he can actually hold office without the benefit of such a vote.)

 

[cytg111]

They wont rule and by some mechanic that turns out as a win for Trump.

SC must realize that they’re in survival mode now… and they’d rather have a King Trump than being regulated by democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Where is the ‘Calvinball this shit and make up something’ option?

 

[brycejones]

Missing a punt option as well

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'd also be willing to put a fiver on 'finds the 14th to be unconstitutional based on conflict with something else'.

 

[Dave_5k]

Where is the ‘Calvinball this shit and make up something’ option?

In that case, the only question is if that would be 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of playing Calvinball again to favor Trump.

But I certainly could see them creatively making up yet another new 'alternative' history (that never happened and is a complete lie) to make the 14th inapplicable somehow to Trump, while claiming originalism.

 

[akugami]

SCOTUS has been playing Calvinball for years. Example: Ethics are important. Especially to judges! Unless you got got your toes crossed, which I do.

 

[Thump553]

Almost certainly they are going to rule in Trump's benefit but I'm thinking they will be too shy (maybe I mean sly) to do such heavy handed rulings like the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of President.

There will be no 9-0 ruling. Without a doubt Thomas will rule for Trump wholeheartedly regardless of what the rest of the Court does. Alito too, most likely.

My bet is that they will rule that it is premature to bar Trump from a primary ballot and reverse CO and ME. Trump's campaign will stay alive, and the Court could very well be facing this issue for real this summer.

In the meantime, they will be doing everything they can to delay Trump's trials, and gut the laws involved. Remember this is pretty much the same Court that ruled a few years ago (essentially) there is no longer such a thing as bribery of an elected official, showering them with gifts of Rolexs, luxury cars, etc. is perfectly acceptable under the law as they have reconstrued it (in their own image, as we now all know).

 

[alien42]

I would vote for the missing punt option as well.

 

[sandorski]

They'll declare 2020 as fraud and reinstate Trump as President...

 

[ivwshane]

They’ll say (6-3) he can be on the ballot but can’t be seated. That’s a sure fire way to cause mayhem and burn the system down, which is what it seems like they’ve been trying to do. But they could be thinking that Trump won’t win and it’ll never come to that which means they effectively sidestepped the issue.

On the other hand I need to know if it was the federalist society members who brought the Colorado lawsuit in the first place. If it was then perhaps we’ll have plain reading of the constitution and trump will be disqualified.

 

[BoomerD]

Given the choices, I went with the 6-3 option...but I think they're going to rule (perhaps 6-3) that since Trump hasn't actually been convicted of any crime involving insurrection, the 14th doesn't apply. Not that the 14th doesn't apply to presidents, but, setting a standard higher than the US Constitution does, that a conviction is necessary to apply it.

 

[Zorba]

They’ll say (6-3) he can be on the ballot but can’t be seated. That’s a sure fire way to cause mayhem and burn the system down, which is what it seems like they’ve been trying to do. But they could be thinking that Trump won’t win and it’ll never come to that which means they effectively sidestepped the issue.

On the other hand I need to know if it was the federalist society members who brought the Colorado lawsuit in the first place. If it was then perhaps we’ll have plain reading of the constitution and trump will be disqualified.

Or they will use this as their opportunity to claim the 14th wasn't properly ratified and is therefore void

 

[ivwshane]

Or they will use this as their opportunity to claim the 14th wasn't properly ratified and is therefore void

You’ll have to explain that one because my understanding was that its ratification was a requirement to regain representation in Congress.

 

[MtnMan]

Missing a punt option as well

Was going to add it, but polls are limited to 10 choices...

If they punt, i.e. let the lower courts decisions stand, it is going to be a clusterfuck. Keep in mind, there are many other states where this is still making its way through the courts.

 

[pete6032]

Doesn

 

[Zorba]

You’ll have to explain that one because my understanding was that its ratification was a requirement to regain representation in Congress.

Not saying I agree, but claiming that forcing the states to ratify isn't constitutional. I seen the idea floated about somewhere. I could definitely see Thomas pulling this BS.

 

[brycejones]

Was going to add it, but polls are limited to 10 choices...

If they punt, i.e. let the lower courts decisions stand, it is going to be a clusterfuck. Keep in mind, there are many other states where this is still making its way through the courts.

I think the punt here will be to say he can be on the ballot and then revisit after the pending Federal case is resolved. Basically it's too early because there hasn't been enough fact finding.

 

[ivwshane]

Not saying I agree, but claiming that forcing the states to ratify isn't constitutional. I seen the idea floated about somewhere. I could definitely see Thomas pulling this BS.

That would be one tough explanation to support why it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Vic]

I wouldn't put it past this court to try to rule the 14a unconstitutional.
The 14a is the one that guarantees that the Bill of Rights applies to every American at every level of govt. Which is why conservatives hate it so. When they call themselves "Originalists," that's really just codespeak for pre-Reconstruction amendments.

 

[Zorba]

That would be one tough explanation to support why it would be unconstitutional.

Kind of long, but this is a write up explaining the "logic," the meat starts on page 4:

https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2053/Issue%202/Bryant.pdf

Basically the government treated the southern states like they were still states for the thirteenth amendment, but then when the southern states sent a bunch of ex-confederate people to congress, congress refused to seat them. So the amendment only passed congress because they has refused to give any representation to the South. When it was still a vote short in the senate, they expelled one of the no votes improperly.

All in all, the republicans congress likely did some shady stuff to protect the union from the traitors, after 160 years it should be settled, but Thomas and likely Alito would love to throw out the whole amendment.

One little bit:

Yale University scholar, Bruce Ackerman, noted that, "[ulp to
now, it was possible to drape a legal fig leaf over each Congressional
action. But at this point, we are in the presence of naked violations of
Article Five."'08 University of Alabama history professor, Forrest
McDonald, has stated that, "[tlhe act flew in the face of the Constitu-
tion in a large variety of ways."'0g Thus, as these commentators note,
there is simply no way to fit the Reconstruction Acts within the bounds
of the Constitution, yet the Fourteenth Amendment owes its existence
in the Constitution to this troublesome legislation.

And the start of the conclusion:

It seems quite clear that the Fourteenth Amendment was not rati-
fied, if proposed, even loosely within the text of Article V of the Con-
stituti~n.'~~ Article V does not give Congress the power to deny a state
representation in Congress without its consent. In fact, it prohibits such
conduct. Nor does Article V give Congress the power to abolish a state
government when it refuses to ratify a proposed amendment. And cer-
tainly, Article V does not allow Congress to deny a state its representa-
tion until it ratifies a desired amendment.

I personally think the whole thing is tied to a bad faith argument around the "Thirteenth-fourteenth paradox." The states were included in the count for the thirteenth, but they weren't needed. After the north realize the south was going to continue being shit bags, they made the south dissolve their governments and start over, what they should've done in the first place.

 

[Vic]

Or they will use this as their opportunity to claim the 14th wasn't properly ratified and is therefore void

Yes, which would be fucking disastrous for freedom in America. But is exactly what Republicans want.
Liberals and Dems aren't seeing the big picture here. They think this is all about abortion or minority rights but the threat is much much worse.

 

[Vic]

That would be one tough explanation to support why it would be unconstitutional.

It helps IMO to see the 14a in its historical context as the biggest FU imaginable by the Union states onto the Confederates, and especially Texas.
God knows those slave owning shitheads deserved it, but their feels still haven't gotten over the idea that a black man or an immigrant is as equally protected by the law as they are.