President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Commando]

Does this go to SCOTUS or do they deny the petition for review?

They might not even grant cert. It's preposterous. Either way, the trial is back on and soon.

[BlueK]

Does this go to SCOTUS or do they deny the petition for review?

Trump has until the 12th of this month to ask scotus for a stay while they review. There is no good reason for them to grant that. They all know the claim is frivolous and absurd.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Trump has until the 12th of this month to ask scotus for a stay while they review. There is no good reason for them to grant that. They all know the claim is frivolous and absurd.

They've known this since the beginning but as with most of Trump's legal positions, his best defense is always delay and obfuscation--he'd rarely win anything based only on the merits. Expect an appeal or cert petition to be filed with the Supremes on February 12.

[falafel]

They've known this since the beginning but as with most of Trump's legal positions, his best defense is always delay and obfuscation--he'd rarely win anything based only on the merits. Expect an appeal or cert petition to be filed with the Supremes on February 12.

He'll definitely ask, but if the opinion is strong and sound, the S.Ct. might not even need to take it. Just rubber stamp the appellate decision by declining cert, or even accept it and issue an AFFIRMED order.

[Commando]

They've known this since the beginning but as with most of Trump's legal positions, his best defense is always delay and obfuscation--he'd rarely win anything based only on the merits. Expect an appeal or cert petition to be filed with the Supremes on February 12.

If they granted cert it would be decided almost immediately. I think this is his last gasp as far as this argument goes. It really is frivolous-- I'd be worried for his attorneys' licenses, but I know for a fact they don't care, so...

[PaloAltoCougar]

He'll definitely ask, but if the opinion is strong and sound, the S.Ct. might not even need to take it. Just rubber stamp the appellate decision by declining cert, or even accept it and issue an AFFIRMED order.

I'm reminded of Nixon's appeal of a lower court decision confirming that White House communications weren't protected by executive privilege, A fairly conservative court (The Burger days) issued a unanimous opinion affirming the circuit court decision. The unanimity was important as it reduced the divisiveness between the Nixonian right and the rest of the country. Nixon resigned not long after that. I'd love a unanimous decision (fairly likely, I think, though with Thomas being the most likely dissenter) as it would send a clear signal to the country about the emptiness of Trump's legal maneuvers.

[Pelado]

I'm reminded of Nixon's appeal of a lower court decision confirming that White House communications weren't protected by executive privilege, A fairly conservative court (The Burger days) issued a unanimous opinion affirming the circuit court decision. The unanimity was important as it reduced the divisiveness between the Nixonian right and the rest of the country. Nixon resigned not long after that. I'd love a unanimous decision (fairly likely, I think, though with Thomas being the most likely dissenter) as it would send a clear signal to the country about the emptiness of Trump's legal maneuvers.

Sadly, most of the country either wouldn't hear about it, wouldn't understand it, or would be conned into believing it means something different than reality.

[Northwestcoug]

Sadly, most of the country either wouldn't hear about it, wouldn't understand it, or would be conned into believing it means something different than reality.

Yep. The people who see the importance of this decision are the ones who need to see it the least.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Sadly, most of the country either wouldn't hear about it, wouldn't understand it, or would be conned into believing it means something different than reality.

You're probably right. I think back in the 70s and earlier people tended to view politics more seriously. We've become much more obsessed with superficialities, winning at all costs, and anonymous lambasting. I've probably mentioned this before, but if you want to see a huge and depressing difference in political discussion, compare any Trump/Clinton debate with any Kennedy/Nixon debate. In the latter, both candidates treat each other with respect and take a very thoughtful, analytical approach. How far we have fallen...

E.g,,,,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc

[falafel]

You're probably right. I think back in the 70s and earlier people tended to view politics more seriously. We've become much more obsessed with superficialities, winning at all costs, and anonymous lambasting. I've probably mentioned this before, but if you want to see a huge and depressing difference in political discussion, compare any Trump/Clinton debate with any Kennedy/Nixon debate. In the latter, both candidates treat each other with respect and take a very thoughtful, analytical approach. How far we have fallen...

E.g,,,,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc

Poor Quincy Howe couldn't even get out of the gates without messing up.

[BlueK]

In a statement Tuesday, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said to expect an appeal. “President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution,” Cheung said.

To safeguard the Constitution? Geez, which one is he reading?

[Pelado]

You're probably right. I think back in the 70s and earlier people tended to view politics more seriously. We've become much more obsessed with superficialities, winning at all costs, and anonymous lambasting. I've probably mentioned this before, but if you want to see a huge and depressing difference in political discussion, compare any Trump/Clinton debate with any Kennedy/Nixon debate. In the latter, both candidates treat each other with respect and take a very thoughtful, analytical approach. How far we have fallen...

E.g,,,,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cdRpE4KKc

I remember watching a Nixon-Kennedy debate a while back. I was shocked at how candidly they answered the questions. For respectful interaction between the candidates, there's no need to go back that far. Pretty much any election before Trump was much more respectful than what happens now.

[Commando]

In a statement Tuesday, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said to expect an appeal. “President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution,” Cheung said.

To safeguard the Constitution? Geez, which one is he reading?

To safeguard him from criminal liability. That's what he meant.

[BlueK]

After reading some articles and listening to some interviews with prominent conservative former judge and legal scholar Michael Luttig, I still think it's probably a longshot that the Court rules against Trump in his 14th Amendment case but I now think it's less of a longshot than I had been thinking. Also I firmly believe Roberts and possibly one other conservative on the Court are very wary of Trump's motives and threat to our Constitutional system should he win again. The text of section 3 of the 14th Amendment can very easily be applied to January 6th and what led up to it if you want to be literal. It wouldn't seem to be that hard to say the text says what it says, those who wrote it very definitely meant for it to apply to a sitting president refusing to leave office after losing, and that's that. Given what I read between the lines of Roberts and what he has ruled or said about Trump in the past I think there are already 4 votes there.

The question really is going to be how hard they want to find a reason to say it's not applicable and how they can credibly try to articulate that. Not sure Barrett and Kavanaugh are slam dunks here on the Trump side of it either.

We-ll see.

One last point-- the "let's let voters decide this" is actually a very weak argument under this context. Why? Because our system does A LOT of things already that are not pro-pure democracy that are either tolerated (gerrymandering) or ouright supported by tradition (Senate filibuster rules) or even madated outright by law (the Electoral College, All states regardless of population represented equally in the Senate) the list goes on...

If you are honest about the intent of this part of the 14th Amendment you will see that it was specifically meant not to allow citizens from the Confederate states to vote in a representative who just broke their oath and rebelled against the Constitution. Not allowing pure democracy in this spelled out scenario is the whole freaking point.

[Applejack]

After reading some articles and listening to some interviews with prominent conservative former judge and legal scholar Michael Luttig, I still think it's probably a longshot that the Court rules against Trump in his 14th Amendment case but I now think it's less of a longshot than I had been thinking. Also I firmly believe Roberts and possibly one other conservative on the Court are very wary of Trump's motives and threat to our Constitutional system should he win again. The text of section 3 of the 14th Amendment can very easily be applied to January 6th and what led up to it if you want to be literal. It wouldn't seem to be that hard to say the text says what it says, those who wrote it very definitely meant for it to apply to a sitting president refusing to leave office after losing, and that's that. Given what I read between the lines of Roberts and what he has ruled or said about Trump in the past I think there are already 4 votes there.

The question really is going to be how hard they want to find a reason to say it's not applicable and how they can credibly try to articulate that. Not sure Barrett and Kavanaugh are slam dunks here on the Trump side of it either.

We-ll see.

One last point-- the "let's let voters decide this" is actually a very weak argument under this context. Why? Because our system does A LOT of things already that are not pro-pure democracy that are either tolerated (gerrymandering) or ouright supported by tradition (Senate filibuster rules) or even mandated outright by law (the Electoral College, All states regardless of population represented equally in the Senate) the list goes on...

If you are honest about the intent of this part of the 14th Amendment you will see that it was specifically meant not to allow citizens from the Confederate states to vote in a representative who just broke their oath and rebelled against the Constitution. Not allowing pure democracy in this spelled out scenario is the whole freaking point.

The court has a lot of ways out of this one:

• They might say that there was no "insurrection" against the United States on Jan 6 so the 14th A does not apply to this situation.
• They might agree with two legal scholars that president is not an "officer of the United States"; the 14th A only talks about the senators and congressmen and "electors of the president", never specifically naming the president. The only hook for Trump would be as an "officer of the United States." The CO. supreme court rejected this argument that president is not "an officer of the United States," but the trial court judge accepted it.
• They could say that it WAS insurrection on Jan 6 and it DOES apply to the president but that the 14th amendment is not self executing; that is, that you have to have an applicable federal statute that applies to enforce the 14th amendment (there is no such statute currently).
• They could always reject it on a number of procedural/technical issues, but the speed with which the court is taking up the case suggests they won't do this.
• And they could say that it does bar Trump from office. I don't think this is likely. However, one clever way they could do this and not disrupt the election, is to say that the 14th Amendment doesn't bar Trump from appearing on ballots (after all, the constitution just says cannot "hold office"; nothing about "can't appear on the ballot"). This way Trump can still campaign/appear on the ballots/win states, but is forbidden from actually being president. I don't think the court will take this path either, but it would be really interesting: it would give Nikki a HUGE boost (why vote for a guy who can't accept the presidency) OR it would guarantee a revolt of the crazies once Trump is elected but judicially barred from holding the office.

As for votes, I think Thomas is a solid vote for Trump on anything. Roberts has super wary of Trump and the most likely to search for a way to get exclude him from office; I think he would actually vote to affirm the CO supreme court. All the other conservatives vote to reverse, I think, probably on self-executing grounds (so as never to have to say whether Jan 6 was an insurrection).