U.S. Politics

U.S. Supreme Court, on Thursday, 8 Feb. 2024, hears arguments in Trump v. Anderson

Does former President Donald J. Trump have a leg to stand on?

The US Supreme Court, in a difficult position given how many justices on the court are only there because of the former president, heard on Thursday, 8 Jan. 2024 arguments on whether former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to run for a second term as president.

Many people , pointing to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, believe Trump is ineligible to run for president because he allegedly violated the United States Constitution when he prompted an assault on the United States Capitol Building. A Medium writer penned this article relating to what unfolded prior to the assault on the U.S. Capitol Building…

The violence that unfolded on Wednesday, 6 Jan. 2021, something that was seen live around the world by billions of shocked viewers, had no impact on Trump’s behaviour because he caused it. Instead of getting the mob to stop the attack, as we understand it, Trump unambiguously continued pushing messages of support to his loyal MAGA fans.

The U.S. Constitution…

The framers of the United States Constitution intended Section Three: (1) to automatically disqualify insurrectionists; (2) to apply not only to the Civil War but also to future insurrections; and (3) to bar anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the Constitution from becoming President of the United States. It remains in place and in force today.

It’s not exactly rocket science. Trump’s actions immediately prior to the November 2020 Presidential Election, if you’re someone that actually pays attention to what happens else where in the world, were remarkably similar to what destroyed democracies in other countries. Trump’s actions include:

• “Refusal to concede power”;
• “Pressure to alter the election through bureaucratic means”;
• “Exploring the use of state violence”;
• “Cultivating ties to private groups willing to use violence”; and
• “Deploying private violence to pressure officials who could alter election results.”

Did we miss anything? Possibly!

The U.S. Constitution is extremely ambiguous. It does not, in direct terms, spell out exactly how the ban should be enforced. There is a chance, back when the framers were wording Section 3, they didn’t foresee anyone like Trump ever running for president.

The amendment doesn’t specify the degree of political violence required to constitute an “insurrection.” Foresight, obviously 20/20, isn’t enough. The framers needed to be clearer in the way they worded the U.S. Constitution.

The framers likely believed someone of a decent character would want to hold the highest American political office. Trump and the word decent goes together like oil and water. They don’t mix. Decency consequently not something you’ll ever find in Trump’s wheelhouse.

Is the United States a democracy?

There are those that state the United States isn’t a democracy. They consider it a republic. This is partially true. Let’s not pretend democracy doesn’t play a part in the daily lives of ordinary Americans. It does. The United States, with how political leaders are elected, is a democratic republic.

Does the phrase “stochastic terrorism” mean anything to you?

If you’re not an academic, and most of us really aren’t, stochastic terrorism will mean absolutely nothing. It’s just a fancy turn of phrase certain researchers like to toss out there whenever events fit a particular pattern. However, in this case, stochastic terrorism really does fit with what Trump did.

Stochastic terrorism or stochastic violence, depending on your perspective, occurs when a figure with a massive public following openly demonizes a target. The person engaging in such behaviour, in this case Trump, would possibly know there could be the potential for violence.

The potential alone, as we’ve seen many times with the former president, has not been enough to sway Trump from following a stochastic path. The more Trump makes such bombastic remarks, naturally, the more likely violence would occur. This is what we saw unfold on Wednesday, 6 Jan. 2021.

Republicans in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, even though they were there the day of the attack, have since tried to make light of the insurrection.

Which states have removed Trump’s name from consideration?

Two states, Colorado and Maine, have determined Trump is ineligible to run for a second term as president because of his actions on Wednesday, 6 Jan. 2021.

Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 Insurrection is readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Only his supporters are willing to over look Trump’s criminality because, to use a phrase MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow once coined, “it’s okay if you’re a Republican”.

If Trump had been a sitting Democratic president, naturally, Republicans would have been spitting metaphorical bullets all day long. Republicans have this unquestionable ability to project onto the political aisle what is wrong with their own party. Their hypocrisy is unprecedented.

Both Colorado and Maine, possibly because of a little something the GOP like to think of a States’ Rights, stripped Trump’s name from the Republican primary ballot. Those decisions, on appeal, were paused. The U.S. Supreme Court, beginning Thursday, 8 Feb. 2024, started hearing oral arguments in the Colorado case.

Colorado and Maine were not the only states wanting to remove Trump’s name from ballots. Attempts to follow examples set forth by both Colorado and Maine, in such states as Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Arizona, Illinois, and elsewhere, have seemingly fallen flat.

Various lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds, Consequently, because of the dismissals, questions pertaining to Trump’s actions were never addressed.

Does the U.S. Supreme Count have a problem on its hands?

The U.S. Supreme Court, given the composition of the current court, could find itself in serious trouble moving forwards. The credibility of the court is in question and it has been ever since now former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rigged the system in favour of Trump’s nominees.

no one, when they have tangled with Trump, has ever come out the other side untarnished. The U.S. Supreme Court, with associate justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all nominated by Trump, now faces a serious threat and its not going to see a happily ever after ending.

The nine justices, individually, must face off either against or for the former president. Will the Trump nominated justices be able to put aside their association with the former president and do what is required… their jobs.

Many people, mainly Democrats, feel the right wing justices are incapable of doing the right thing. Let’s not forget, before any of them got to the U.S. Supreme Court, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all said that Roe vs. Wade was settled law.

No one, leading up to the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, is forgetting how Roe vs. Wade has been overturned. it’s not an issue that’s going to vanish any time soon.

Trump, as we all have observed over the years, has a tendency to lean on people and he expects them to do his bidding. Anyone, even judges, that doesn’t follow Trump’s way of thinking, is a potential target. Trump, via his social media accounts, has targeted numerous individuals in recent months.

An attack on a district judge that ruled against the Trump administration didn’t go unnoticed. Efforts by Chief Justice John Roberts, in 2019, were made to insulate the judiciary from the political sphere.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts wrote in an extraordinary statement that did not name Trump, but clearly had him in mind. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

There is a strong possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court, with how Trump rolls, could see itself dragged unceremoniously into a hyper-politicized arena.

This would be a serious nightmare not only for Roberts but also for the other eight justices. The efforts Roberts has made to safeguard the U.S. Supreme Court’s reputation will have been for nothing. The court’s reputation, if nothing is done to prevent Trump’s candidacy, will be forever damaged.