Legal experts warn that Trump’s argument before the Supreme Court is a ‘huge tactical error’
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team on Monday filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to keep him on the ballot in Colorado.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars certain elected officials, including an “officer of the United States,” from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection” does not apply to him because the president is not “president.” Officer of the United States.
Trump’s team also claimed that Section 3 prohibits “holding” office, but not running for office, and claimed that “Congress can waive this prohibition between now and the end of the next presidential term” on January 20, 2029.
“Therefore no court or litigant can declare that President Trump is unfit ‘for the time being’ to hold office without assuming or predicting that Congress would decline to lift any disability that might apply under Section 3.” The summary saidAdding that neither the Colorado Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court “can declare a presidential candidate ineligible now based on a prediction of what Congress may or may not do in the future.”
In his summary of his response at SCOTUS on whether he is ineligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Trump says that since Section 3 speaks about “retaining” (not running for) office, and two-thirds of Congress could theoretically vote to lift the disability, he can vote not You will be excluded until after January 20 *2029*!!!
– Roger Parloff (@rparloff) February 5, 2024
Trump’s lawyers accused his rivals of pursuing an “anti-democratic case” against the “leading nominee” for president.
“At a time when the United States is threatening to impose sanctions on the socialist dictatorship in Venezuela to exclude the main opposition presidential candidate from the ballot,” Trump’s lawyers claimed that voters who objected to Trump’s nomination are asking the Supreme Court to “impose the same anti-democratic measure at home.”
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Thursday. MSNBC legal analyst Jordan Rubin noted that Trump’s lawyers filled the file with “arguments that have been largely proven.” snapped away By summaries Already submitted On the Rules of the Supreme Court In this case, including the ahistorical notion that the president is not an “officer” can be excluded under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Conservative lawyer and frequent Trump critic George Conway Named The presentation is “weird” and “a sign of weakness.”
“This seems to me to be a grave tactical error.” chirp University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky.
Georgia State law professor Eric Segal said it is “true” that Section 3 does not explicitly mention the president.
“It is also true that he did not mention horses, foreigners, or accountants. That is because everyone knew that the president was clearly covered. chirp.
Former longtime conservative judge J. Michael Luttig, who served as counsel to the former judge Vice President Mike Pence, books And he “would not have presented this revealing, absurd, politically and constitutionally cynical closing argument that the former president and his lawyers presented to the Supreme Court.”
Luttig said the filing “equates to an admission that the former president and his attorneys have concluded that their arguments have been made so weak by the defendants’ briefing … that they believe the Supreme Court is likely to hold the former president ineligible under the 14th Amendment.”
“What could explain this eleventh-hour argument that even the United States Supreme Court cannot decide whether a former president is ineligible for the presidency?” he added. “Not now. Never.”
However, most legal observers “believe it unlikely” the Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado court’s ruling “despite the letter of the law” because it “seems undemocratic,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote.
“This is an odd view for a court full of textualists, but there are some cliffhangers that would allow them to evade deciding the question directly,” chirp.
George Washington University Law Professor Randall Eliason He said Which is why Trump’s request “probably makes sense tactically.”
“Saying that the president is not an officer subject to the disqualification clause allows the court to rule in Trump’s favor while avoiding taking any position on whether or not he was involved in an insurrection. It’s their easiest path,” he wrote. “To be clear — I’m not saying I think That this would be a good or reasonable judgment. “It’s just an issue that this court might object to, so I can understand focusing on it in its brief.”
(tags for translation)Donald Trump