In arguments Thursday, the justices will, for the first time, wrestle with a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from reclaiming power.
The case is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively delivered the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. It comes to a court that has been buffeted by criticism over ethics, which led the justices to adopt their first code of conduct in November, and at a time when public approval of the court is diminished, at near-record lows in surveys.
The dispute stems from the push by Republican and independent voters in Colorado to kick Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
And yet some courts (CO supreme court,for example) have decided that he committed them. The constitution says nothing at all about conviction. It doesn’t even say he needs to have been charged. It’s obvious that the clause has no meaning at all if the states can’t decide for themselves, using whatever process they wish, who qualifies as an insurrectionist.
yeah and that ruling was immediately put on hold and now it’s at the supreme court, because of course that’s their jurisdiction for deciding on federal crimes. And then they’re gonna defer to the ongoing federal case that is specifically deciding whether or not he committed the crimes.
Because frankly, otherwise we no longer have a democracy as state courts decide who gets to run for office with rulings that have no need to be substantiated, it’s not a court case with convictions or sentencing.
State courts and secretaries already decide who gets to run for president. That has always been our system.