Three weeks to bring back a rebel; Seven months to say he couldn’t assassinate his rivals – Chicago Tribune

After showing remarkable indifference to basic facts, the U.S. Supreme Court voted on a convicted rebel who was, by definition, unfit to be president.

During oral argument, with the exception of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court asked almost no questions about Colorado’s prediction that Donald Trump was involved in the insurrection: On January 6, 2021, after two months of frantic attempts to overturn his election loss, Trump called on his supporters. They went to the Capitol building, egged them on with false and inflammatory claims that their votes had been “stolen,” then encouraged the mob to attack Congress.

Just three weeks after the debate, the Court ruled that states could not exclude rebels from the presidential ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The substance of the decision aside, the partisanship of the court’s timing is also glaring: It took just three weeks to get an insurgent back on the ballot, but presidents need seven months to decide they can’t assassinate their rivals.

Court keeps convicted rebel on ballot

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is brief, not lacking in clarity, and not vague. It bars from federal office anyone who “engages in sedition” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. The opening words – “No one…” – make the ban mandatory rather than optional.

The U.S. Supreme Court could have reversed or limited the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump was involved in the riot, but it did not. This decision remains legally valid.

Avoiding the embarrassing details of January 6, the alleged originalists on the Court instead got creative. Although Section 3 was deemed to apply to presidential candidates and—apparently agreeing that Trump was involved in the insurrection—the high court nevertheless ruled that states could not enforce the insurrection ban without a separate act of Congress to avoid “chaos” in federal elections.

It’s hard to see how years of election chaos from an insurrectionist trying to overturn an election would be preferable to a state supreme court (or the U.S. Supreme Court) enforcing the simple terms of the Constitution.

Congress and the Court look at each other

The court’s 5-4 majority ruled that Section 3 is not self-executing, meaning it would have no force or effect absent additional congressional action. Building a way out to keep Trump on the ballot, “conservative” lawyers crafted a new legislative hurdle to the 14th Amendment that was never implemented.

Although Section 5 of the same amendment states that “Congress shall have authority to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation,” this language does not give Congress sole or exclusive right to act, nor does it preclude the state or the Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment (or any other amendment) does not come into force and declare itself null and void “unless Congress shall otherwise direct.”

The language the court used to defer to Congress is even more ridiculous considering that GOP Congressional leaders left Trump’s insurrection to the courts. Despite initially agreeing that Trump planned the Jan. 6 capitol attack, GOP leadership voted against Trump’s second impeachment, arguing that it should be up to the courts, not Congress, to hold Trump accountable.

special timing

The speed with which the court returned Trump to the ballot in Colorado just three weeks after oral argument gave Trump an instant boost the day before Super Tuesday, when voters in 15 states go to the polls.

While it’s comforting to be reminded that the Supreme Court can act with enthusiasm whenever it chooses — such as when George W. Bush decided the 2020 election in a matter of days — the rapid timing of Trump’s insurrection stands in stark contrast to Trump’s insurrection. It’s the presidential immunity case that SCOTUS has been deliberately dragging its feet on for months.

Special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s immunity claims in December. They refused and instead waited for the Court of Appeals to consider the matter. The D.C. Chamber weighed in with a unanimous decision rejecting Trump’s immunity request in the first week of February. The Supreme Court waited almost a month before deciding it would hear Trump’s immunity request itself, setting the immunity hearing for the end of April.

A hearing in late April on a case already briefed at the highest level will likely result in comments in late June; That opinion could send the case back to the appeals court to handle any number of investigations, prompting Trump to file another interim appeal just to push the trial date beyond the Nov. 5 election. As it stands, by denying Smith’s request in December and delaying the decision until the end of June, possibly pushing the start of the trial to late October, the Court has handed the Trump campaign the significant gift of a seven-month delay.

Although no one expects the Court to uphold Trump’s claim that presidents can assassinate political rivals with impunity, the delay ensures that Trump will not be prosecuted for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election when it mattered to voters.

The decision to gradually implement the immunity decision is a gift of time rather than substance, but it will have the same effect. Even a Court this openly partisan can’t grant a president full criminal immunity, but their careful delay ensures that the issue will become irrelevant to Trump.

Sabrina Haake is a Chicago attorney and resident of Gary. Substack writes the newsletter Haake Recruitment.