(This special posting may catch some visitors by surprise. We had earlier indicated that we would not post again until 2024. But sometimes it becomes necessary to predict an outcome–especially one that impacts our entire country. The following is our prediction on the decisions by Colorado and Maine to disqualify Donald Trump from their primary ballots and the result of the review by the Supreme Court of the United States of those decisions.)
CURRENT STATUS: The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled Trump ineligible for the state’s primary ballot because he participated in an insurrection. The Maine Secretary of State–acceding to a Maine citizens petition–has likewise ruled Trump ineligible due to his participation in an insurrection. Republicans have appealed those decisions to the US Supreme Court and are asking that the Court overrule those two states and clarify the Trump status so that no other state can take a similar path to disqualification.
UNDER CONSIDERATION: First, this is–as reported several times this year–unprecedented. Never has a former president been excluded from any state’s primary ballot. Second, by making their ruling, both states have concluded that Trump participated in an insurrection. Third, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution uses the phrase “Officer” and Trump’s attorneys are arguing that Trump is not an “officer” in that context. (The fact that he had the alternate title of Commander-in-Chief apparently escapes his attorneys view.) Fourth, the 14th Amendment also recites “…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Trump’s attorneys argue that he has not been convicted of any such crimes–although the visual and audio evidence is compelling for anyone who has watched the news over the past 18 months. Finally, several other states are no doubt considering whether they should follow the Colorado-Maine lead and are awaiting the SCOTUS ruling.
OUR PREDICTION: The US Supreme Court is faced with a dilemma. To refuse to take up the case would be to effectively let the state decisions to stand. This would encourage other states to do the same. To take up the case and overrule the Colorado-Maine decisions would be to effectively disagree with their conclusions that Trump participated in an insurrection. Since SCOTUS does not–on appeal–question factual evidence presented to it, it is unlikely that SCOTUS will say that Trump did NOT participate in an insurrection. So where does that leave us. SCOTUS WILL USE THE TERM “PRE-MATURE” IN RULING THAT THE FACT THAT TRUMP DID/DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN AN INSURRECTION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY CONVICTION OR EVEN A TRIAL WHERE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FORMALLY PRESENTED PUBLICLY. AND FOR THAT REASON ANY DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT IS “PRE-MATURE”. THE COURT WILL THEN SET ASIDE THE COLORADO-MAINE DECISIONS PENDING A FORMAL RESOLUTION AT TRIAL–IF THERE IS A TRIAL. THE COURT WILL FURTHER AGREE TO RE-VISIT THIS DECISION IF AND WHEN APPROPRIATE AFTER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FORMALLY AND LEGALLY SUBMITTED.
The net impact of this decision is to negate ALL STATE actions that would disqualify Trump from the primary ballot. You will hear “pre-mature” repeatedly as the “out” chosen by SCOTUS. We think this will be the court’s finding but we do not agree with it. First, the lower state courts and rules should be in full control of their decisions. Whatever their reasons are for disqualifications they should be respected by SCOTUS. Second, the obvious amount of overwhelming evidence shows the entire world that Trump did in fact participate in an insurrection–no sane sighted person who has the ability to hear his words can dispute that conclusion. So SCOTUS is simply using a gutless approach to duck the obvious. Put another way, is that logic worthy of anyone on any court–much less the US SUPREME COURT? Third, even if SCOTUS questions the states’ decision to disqualify, shouldn’t they give the benefit of the doubt to their competence to make that choice? There are other GOP alternatives to Trump. Why allow a strongly suspected insurrectionist to be the nominee when other choices are available? And finally, the risk of Trump in the White House has been characterized as a threat to democracy. Is SCOTUS so jaded that it is willing to re-make the law, deviate from states’ decisions and risk the danger Trump MAY present? Watch the use of “pre-mature” and notice how deftly SCOTUS uses it to duck its responsibilities and subject us all to a catastrophic exposure. (POSTED ON 12/30/23)
Comments are closed