We’ve been telling you for years on The BradCast that most rightwingers who claim to be “Constitutional Conservatives” — such as the corrupted bunch now packed onto the Republican U.S. Supreme Court supermajority — are nothing of the sort. Today’s oral argument at SCOTUS, on whether Donald Trump must be disqualified from the 2024 ballot under the very clear text of the Constitution’s “Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause”, appear set to prove that point yet again. [Audio link to full program is posted below this summary.]
In December, the SCOTUS Appears Set to Ignore Text of Constitution’s ‘Insurrectionist’ Clause: ‘BradCast’ 2/8/2024 found Trump had violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office public officials who, after taking an oath to support the Constitution, “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”. The mandate applies, according to the actual text of the clause, to “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State”. The Colorado Supremes compiled an airtight, 200+ page ruling [PDF] that was both “textualist” (adhering to the simple text of the clause) and “originalist” (carefully hewing to the original intent of its post-Civil War framers) in order to appeal to the legal principles supposedly most important to the Republican majority at SCOTUS.
The CO court, finding that Trump had indeed “engaged in insurrection” and was thus barred from holding the office of President of the United States, disqualified him from the state’s 2024 Presidential ballot. Trump appealed their ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case on Thursday. (Transcript, audio)
While we can’t know for certain from questions asked at the hearing, the Justices appear set to simply ignore the clear meaning of the text of 14.3 in order to allow Trump to run for President this year. Arguments put forward today for doing so — some of them preposterous and in direct conflict with the framer’s intent, according to the Congressional Record at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted — include that the President is not an officer of the United States; that 14.3 bars insurrectionists from holding office, but not from running for office; and that the clause, unlike every other section of the 14th Amendment, is not “self-executing”. Rather, Congress must create legislation before it can be used against a federal official. (Never mind its history over the past 150 years or so.)
We’re joined today to somehow make sense of all of this by former U.S. Deputy Asst. Attorney General LISA GRAVES, now of True North Research, and retired attorney KEITH BARBER, who writes on legal and Constitutional matters as ‘KeithDB’ at Daily Kos. They both joined us just after Trump filed his appeal to the High Court earlier this year and do so again today to discuss how it all appears to be working out for him.
A fair amount of time during Thursday’s hearing was spent on the argument that Section 3 allows Congress, by a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber, to waive disqualification for insurrectionists. Thus, the argument goes, Trump can still run for President, even if he cannot “hold” the position if elected. That’s because Congress could, ya never know, decide to grant him amnesty after he is elected and before he is sworn in to office.
Graves characterizes the argument as “absurd”, describing it as “counter to the plain-language, commonsense argument on its face.” It could also, as the attorney for the challengers (a group of Republican and independent voters), noted today, result in the same Congressional chaos on January 6, 2025 that we saw in 2021. If Trump were to win, but Congress fail to grant him an insurrectionist’s waiver, he would be barred, according to 14.3, from actually being sworn in to office. SCOTUS seems to be begging for this scenario based on much of today’s questioning.
Barber suggests it is likely “that challenges are raised in the electoral certification process” if Trump wins in November, “saying that Trump is not eligible for the office, and any Electoral College votes for him must not be counted for that reason.”
“The meaning” of Section 3 of the 14th “could not be clearer in the intent of the drafters,” argues Graves. “These supposed ‘originalists,’ these supposed ‘strict constructionists’ claim to be so devoted to it when striking down access to abortion, marriage equality, our ability to regulate corporations. But here, suddenly they’re confused. It’s not confusing if you look at the history and read it.”
Indeed, the Justices — including at least two of the Court’s liberals — appear set to come up with a reason or set of reasons that the Constitution doesn’t say what it actually says. Why, for example, does Section 3 — unlike the other sections of the landmark 14th Amendment, such as the requirement for Due Process under the law for all U.S. persons — suddenly require a law to be written by Congress before it can be executed? (But only against Trump, apparently. It’s been used without issue many times in the past.) “In this case, it’s because the Supreme Court needed it to be,” says Barber, a former lifelong Republican. “I don’t have a better explanation than that.”
“Are we living under the Constitution or not?,” asks Graves. “It seems we are, only to the extent that this faction of the Court wants to impose it. And when it doesn’t, it does not apply.”
We discuss much more on all of this today’s, including why Clarence Thomas (and, perhaps three other Justices on the Court) have not recused themselves from this case given their extraordinary conflicts of interest; whether there is a “grand bargain” in the works to strike down the CO Supreme Court’s mandate while upholding the D.C. Court of Appeals’ ruling this week on “Presidential Immunity”; and how the attorneys arguing on behalf of Colorado voters missed the opportunity to underscore that, as bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress have already voted, Donald Trump is an insurrectionist.
ALSO TODAY: Brighter news, believe it or not, in our latest Green News Report with Desi Doyen! Yes, another one of them shows where the GNR actually offers more encouraging news than the rest of the program. Apologies in advance!…
Regarding Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: “Never mind its history over the past 150 years or so.” Bingo!