By Robert Romano
The Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to former President Donald Trump on Jan. 5 for an appeal to Maine and Colorado’s decisions removing him from the presidential primary and general election ballots in those states when the states alleged Trump had engaged in insurrection against the United States by giving a speech on Jan. 6, 2021 at the National Mall where he urged supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” prior to the riot at the U.S. Capitol that day as Congress considered challenges to the 2020 presidential election.
According to the Court, oral arguments will be immediately heard on Feb. 8: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024.”
And the parties have just a few weeks to prepare for the hearing: “Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.”
The fact that the Supreme Court is hearing the case could be a very good sign for former President Trump that the Court is strongly considering overturning the decisions by Maine and Colorado, since particularly the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling has been stayed pending an appeal from federal courts including the Supreme Court.
That is, if the Supreme Court had rejected Trump’s petition for a writ of certiorari, denying the capacity for an appeal, the Colorado ruling could have immediately gone into effect, allowing Trump’s removal from the ballot to occur.
Instead, the case will be heard, and so the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision will remain stayed, pending the outcome of the case at the U.S. Supreme Court.
On its merits, it’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court upholding the Colorado and Maine decisions, particularly since Trump has neither been tried nor convicted in criminal court for the charge of insurrection.
The House of Representatives impeached Trump for insurrection in 2021, and the Senate acquitted him. That is, Trump was found not guilty of insurrection already, as Senators voting in the negative found he had a First Amendment right to give the speech at the National Mall on Jan. 6, 2021.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 3, it states
“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof.”
The Colorado ruling states,
“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
It even claimed Congress did not have to set the contours of insurrection via legislation, stating, “Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing…” even though Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, Congress had already supplied a procedure for disqualifying former Confederate officers and soldiers from running for public office in the First Military Reconstruction Act of 1867. The disqualification required military tribunals, speedy trials and convictions, also ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in order for states to be readmitted to the Union.
This was enforced in part by the Enforcement Act of 1870, which provided in Sections 14 and 15 for federal prosecutors to bring cases that would remove individuals from holding public office if they had participated in the Confederacy. It was not self-executing, it required convictions.
Section 14 stated,
“That whenever any person shall persons hold office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as foresaid, to proceed against such person… [in] the circuit or district court of the against by United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office.”
Here, Congress was explicitly holding onto its own power to disqualify its own members, and of states to do the same. Under no reading, however, would this provision have applied to the President, to be removed, since that is covered under impeachment, removal and disqualification as under the Constitution. In this case, officers of the United States, that is, federal employees, could be removed from office if they were later tried and convicted of participating in the Confederacy.
Section 15 provided that upon conviction, a person who had participated in the Confederacy and held public office and was removed, would be guilty of a misdemeanor, imprisoned for no more than a year and fined no more than $1,000.
When it came to removing the former Confederates’ disability of running for public office, that was once again Congress. Congress had already removed political disabilities for 4,616 former Confederates by March 1871. And then, with the Amnesty Act of 1872 to remove all political disabilities “except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses and officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of Departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.”
These ham-handed attempts to get Trump kicked off ballots appear to be the result of people like most of us, not trained and experienced constitutional scholars, jurors and attorneys interpreting the laws. Let’s face it, we all often shoot from the hip and broadly interpret some of the issues, at least before more information is made available (and a few even after that). But THESE people… they should all know better.
The Colorado Supreme Court knows this doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of living to see the election. The glory-hog AG of Maine knows she doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally decide who millions of Maine voters vote for. Yet they make some absurd interpretation of the 14th Amendment, add what they need, ignore what harms their position, and do it anyway. That’s the way Democrats govern.
The article doesn’t mention that Wade has no experience in prosecuting high-profile complex cases such as this. But, what do you expect? You hire slimy people to carry out slimy plans and the Democrat party is full of such trash. People of Georgia, is this what you want?
What is sad is a Georgia State Senator was opposed by his colleagues in an effort to use state legislation to stop fat ass willis.
Georgia Republicans suspend state senator Colton Moore …
Georgia is a cesspool of fraud and corruption.
Breaking. Fani Willis hired romantic partner as special prosecutor in Trump case.Nathan Wade used state funds for lavish vacations with Fani.Fani Willis could be prosecuted under Federal RICO laws.Fani authorized $654,000 in payments to boyfriend.
Here is a photo of the love birds;
Explore Who is Nathan Wade, Fulton special prosecutor in Trump case?
One ethics expert said that the allegations, if true, raised serious questions.
Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University Law School who has written extensively about legal and judicial ethics, said a closer look at Willis’ decision-making is needed before it can be determined whether the indictment should be dismissed.
If the allegations are true, Gillers said, “Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of this case” and wasn’t able to bring the sort of “independent professional judgment” her position requires.
“That does not mean that her decisions were in fact improperly motivated,” Gillers said in an e-mail. “It does mean that the public and the state, as her client, could not have the confidence in the independent judgment that her position required her to exercise.”
[Source pdf]
This case should immediately be dismissed. willis and the team of lawyers should be prosecuted for judicial malpractice, convicted and imprisoned for their criminal acts.
The owner of this Brewery is trying to remove Trump from the Ballot in Wisconsin, Im sure he holds huge sway in a town of less than 5000. Check out his products, guy is a lunatic certified.
https://www.minocquabrewingcompany.com/
I was wrong Little Minoqua hates this nut and he wants to migrate to Mad City.
Is anyone listening to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Oral Argument United States V Trump on CSPAN 3?
I get the feeling that these Judges are biased against Trump.
Biased or not we hope they take constitutional law to make the decision even if we dont like it.
This is only the appeals stage, one side or the other will request hearing at the supreme court.
The sad thing is that the leftists no longer even bother to hide their prejudice.
Just finished a very productive Federal Appeals Court Hearing, in Washington, D.C., on whether or not a President should have Immunity. The answer is YES! Deranged Jack Smith was in attendance as the other side conceded two very important points, either of which would give the critical Immunity argument to us. If for any reason it were held that a President doesn’t have Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden, after he leaves Office, could be charged for the horrible and dangerous job he is doing on the Southern Border, the Afghanistan Disaster with all of its Death, Destruction, and “Surrender,” or his quid pro quo on Ukraine, where he said, on tape, that if they don’t get rid of an Unfriendly Prosecutor, they don’t get the $1 Billion in Funding from the United States (He then clapped his hands, and said, in effect, “I won!”)…..
Also, obama could criminally be charged with the murder of two American citizens by drone attack without due process.
So, if that is what you want, bring it.
One drawback: you would need a DoJ that was willing to prosecute Democrat crimes. Currently, that does not exist.
January 20, 2025 is less than a year brother.