The Atlantic: The Colorado Ruling Calls the Originalists' Bluff

[ancianita]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/colorado-supreme-court-trump-originalism/676909/

Originalists are not supposed to rule based on the impact of their decisions, a tendency they derisively refer to as “results-oriented judging.” Instead, they are merely supposed to ensure that the law is implemented to the letter, as it was intended to be. Indeed, all of the self-identified originalists and strict constructionists in the conservative intelligentsia should be demanding this provision be enforced as written, damn the consequences. If these labels had any meaning for most of them, they would be...

What we saw on the day itself was sufficient: Having tried to bully Republican secretaries of state not to certify the results of the 2020 election, to pressure Republican state legislatures to overturn those results, to appeal to the courts to keep him in power based on fraud accusations the Trump campaign knew to be baseless, to compel the Department of Justice to substantiate fictional examples of fraud as pretexts for overturning the election, and to coerce then–Vice President Mike Pence to reverse the results based on a crackpot legal theory, Trump tried to remain in power by force.

Trump called his supporters to Washington, D.C., to protest his loss and urge Congress to overturn the results—an illiberal act but one protected by the First Amendment—then directed his followers to the Capitol, telling them, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Retreating to safety, Trump watched on television as the mob turned violent, and initially refused to call off the rioters despite entreaties from right-wing figures who would later defend both his actions and those of the mob. The Capitol itself was ransacked as legislators fled under the protection of the Capitol Police, who lacked the numbers to restore order until the National Guard arrived. Internal messages from the organizers and a never-posted draft tweet from Trump himself have since revealed that Trump intended to direct this mob to the Capitol, hoping to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected opponent.

If any of this had succeeded, Trump’s quislings were planning to order the U.S. military to suppress its own citizens if they rose up in protest to defend their right to democratic self-determination.

Still, I do not expect the Supreme Court to allow states to disqualify Trump from the ballot, and I am skeptical that the political aftermath would be desirable even if they did. Trump has been impeached twice, both times for attempting to subvert elections. The first time, he sought to use his power as president to force Ukraine to implicate his Democratic then-rival Joe Biden in a nonexistent crime in exchange for U.S. aid, and was spared removal from office by Senate Republicans. The second time he was impeached, it was for attempting to remain in power by force, and he was again spared by Senate Republicans.

Despite their anonymous whispers disparaging Trump to sympathetic reporters, the GOP elite has never possessed the will to rid themselves of a man they recognize to pose a threat to democratic self-determination, either because they are enthusiastic supporters of Trump’s authoritarian project or because they are cowards. Whatever their reasons, they have repeatedly delegated that responsibility of defending the republic to the people. I do not expect a different outcome here....

[pwb]

1. So we have to suffer through it all? Trump is above the law?

We will easily beat trump down hard again in 2024. We know him. Whatever happens Constitutionally Joe Biden gets more power. This Suppress Court might balk at that separation of powers thing they like so much. IMO. We shall see.

[ancianita]

2. Hoping not. It's not like we don't know who's made us suffer and intends to exact revenge suffering upon us

IF he gets the chance. People had better take his fearmongering/revenge/violence seriously.

We shall see for sure. 2024 is looking good for us, not him.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. If SCOTUS confirms the CO decision, wouldn't the CO GOP's efforts

to transform the primary to a caucus be equally invalid and unlawful. There's nothing in the 14th Amendment about primaries, just that the insurrectionist can't hold office.

[ancianita]

4. Probably, yes.

It's likely the Sec of State wouldn't file a suit against forming caucuses, just that the SCOTUS ruling would preclude them from putting Trump on the ballot, whether they nominated him or not.

And if SCOTUS confirms CO's decision, their ruling would hold for all 50 states because Constitution.