Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Fani Willis accepts resignation of deputy Nathan Wade in Trump Georgia case

      by

      The Fulton county district attorney on Friday formally accepted the resignation of her top deputy with whom she had a romantic relationship, ensuring she would continue to prosecute the criminal case against Donald Trump over efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.The move by Fani Willis came shortly after the judge overseeing the case ruled that the relationship had created enough of a distraction that either Willis or the deputy, Nathan Wade, needed to step down.The choice to step down was straightforward and expected, and Wade submitted his resignation to allow Willis to stay on as lead prosecutor against Trump and dozens of allies indicted on charges of violating Georgia’s state racketeering statute.“You led a team that secured a true bill of indictment against nineteen individuals who are accused of violating Georgia law to undermine the 2020 election for the former President of the United States,” Willis wrote in a letter obtained by the Guardian.“Please accept my sincere gratitude on behalf of the citizens of Fulton county, Georgia, for your patriotism, courage, and dedication to justice. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.”The ruling by the Fulton county superior court judge Scott McAfee stopped short of disqualifying Willis, which Trump and his co-defendants had sought over allegations that the relationship was a conflict of interest.The decision avoided catastrophe for Willis. An order removing her and her office from the case would have almost certainly delayed the prosecution significantly during reassignment to another prosecutor in Georgia, who might have opted to toss the charges altogether.Although the judge found the evidence insufficient to disqualify her from bringing the case, he was unsparing in his criticism of the way Willis so casually handled the relationship and the manner of her testimony on the witness stand during a series of hearings on the matter.The Wade-Willis relationship amounted to such a fatal appearance of impropriety that one of the pair needed to resign even if no actual conflict of interest existed, the judge wrote, making clear that the commingling of personal and professional relations was untenable.Shortly after Willis announced that she had accepted Wade’s resignation, Trump went on his Truth Social site and said the development was “BIG STUFF”.“The Fani Willis lover, Mr Nathan Wade Esq, has just resigned in disgrace,” Trump wrote, among other things.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Trump co-defendant Michael Roman in January moved to disqualify Willis because of her relationship with Wade, which at the time was not publicly known. Willis and Wade admitted to having a relationship but said it did not begin until after Wade had been hired to work on the Trump case in 2022.The case being led by Willis’s office contains only some of the dozens of criminal charges against Trump for subversion of his failed 2020 re-election run, retention of classified documents and hush-money payments. In civil litigation, Trump has been found liable of sexual abuse of writer E Jean Carroll and has been adjudicated as having committed business fraud.Trump nonetheless has secured the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic incumbent Joe Biden for a second presidency in November. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Key takeaways from Georgia judge’s ruling on Fani Willis’s role in Trump case

      by

      The Georgia judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the state on Friday declined to remove Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney, from leading the prosecution, finding there was no conflict of interest stemming from her romantic relationship with her top deputy.But the judge, Scott McAfee, ruled the relationship had the “appearance of impropriety” and gave Willis a choice: either she could step down, or the deputy, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, could do so. Wade resigned just hours later.Nonetheless, the prosecution against Trump will be one that is deeply politically damaged, especially due to the scathing criticism of her by McAfee.Here are the top takeaways from the 23-page ruling:Willis can continue with the prosecutionThe principal result of the judge’s decision is that Willis can stay on the case, along with her other top deputies and line attorneys who have lived and breathed the Trump Rico case for years as they combed through the evidence and presented the evidence to the grand jury.There had been no showing that the Willis-Wade relationship violated the Trump defendants’ rights or hurt them in any way, the judge wrote, and disqualifying Willis was unnecessary when she could simply have Wade step down.The fear with this disqualification motion brought by Trump’s co-defendant Mike Roman was that if Willis was removed, it would also disqualify her entire office and have the case referred to a council of prosecutors which, in theory, could have seen the end of the case.But that is not happening. In many ways, the judge gave Willis a straightforward choice in a balanced opinion. There were two ways to cure the appearance of impropriety – either Willis went or Wade went – and the judge left it up to Willis to decide how to set things straight.No financial gain as alleged by Trump“The evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the district attorney to indict and prosecute this case,” McAfee wrote.That finding was notable because the whole theory of the conflict of interest allegation, as put forward by the Trump defendants, was that Willis was involved in some kickback scheme whereby her relationship with Wade meant she was obtaining an unlawful benefit.And while the judge wrote that Willis’s claim that she and Willis reimbursed each other for personal expenses was unusual and understandably concerning, the evidence did not show it was so incredible that it was inherently unbelievable.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBrutal criticism for Willis“This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the district attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing,” McAfee wrote.Although the judge found the evidence was insufficient to disqualify her from bringing the case, he was unsparing in his deep criticism of the way that Willis so casually handled the relationship and the manner of her testimony on the witness stand.The Wade-Willis relationship still amounted to such a fatal appearance of impropriety that one of the pair needed to resign even if no actual conflict of interest existed, the judge wrote, making clear the commingling of personal and professional relations was untenable.Willis may face a gag order“The court cannot find that this speech crossed the line to the point where the defendants have been denied the opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial, or that it requires the district attorney’s disqualification. But it was still legally improper,” McAfee wrote.Trump’s lawyer, Steve Sadow, had additionally asked the judge to remove Willis because of a speech she gave that complained vaguely about the disqualification motion, decrying the use of the “the race card” – which Sadow argued inflamed racial animus inappropriately.While the judge found Willis’s remarks did not amount to trying the case in public, he condemned the speech and suggested he might be prepared to issue a gag order against the district attorney’s office to prevent further public commentary. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Judge dismisses six charges against Trump and defendants in Georgia election case

      by

      The Georgia judge overseeing the election-interference case against Donald Trump and 14 defendants dismissed six of the charges in the wide-ranging indictment on Wednesday, saying they were not detailed enough.One of the many crimes Trump and some of the co-defendants in the case were charged with was soliciting officials in Georgia to violate their oath of office. Those charges were dismissed. The other charges in the case against Trump and other defendants remain.More details soon … More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Brett Kavanaugh knows truth of alleged sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford says in book

      by

      The US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh is not a “consummately honest person” and “must know” what really happened on the night more than 40 years ago when he allegedly sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, his accuser writes in an eagerly awaited memoir.A research psychologist from northern California, Ford was thrust into the spotlight in September 2018 as Kavanaugh, a Bush aide turned federal judge, became Donald Trump’s second conservative court nominee. Her allegations almost derailed Kavanaugh’s appointment and created headlines around the world.Ford’s memoir, One Way Back, will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.“The fact is, he was there in the room with me that night in 1982,” Ford writes. “And I believe he knows what happened. Even if it’s hazy from the alcohol, I believe he must know.“Once he categorically denied my allegations as well as any bad behavior from his past during a Fox News interview, I felt more certainty than ever that after my experience with him, he had not gone on to become the consummately honest person befitting a supreme court justice.”Kavanaugh’s nomination became mired in controversy after a Washington Post interview in which Ford said Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted her at a party in Montgomery county, Maryland, when they were both in high school.“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” Ford, then 51, told the Post. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusation, helping fuel hearing-room rancor not seen since the 1991 confirmation of Clarence Thomas, a rightwinger accused of sexually harassing a co-worker, Anita Hill.Supported by Republicans and Trump, Kavanaugh rode out the storm to join Thomas on the court. Trump would later add another conservative, Amy Coney Barrett, tipping the court 6-3 to the right. That court has since passed down major rightwing rulings, most prominently removing the federal right to abortion.In her book, Ford says she thought Kavanaugh might “step down to avoid putting his family through an investigation or further scrutiny”, adding that she wanted to tell him he should “save us both the trouble”, because “I don’t want this as much as you don’t want this”.She has been asked, she says, what she would have done if Kavanaugh had “reached out and apologised”.She writes: “Who would he be apologising to – me? The country? What would he be apologising for – that night? The harassment [of Ford by Trump supporters] around the testimony?“All I can guess is that if he’d come to me, really leveled with me, and said, ‘I don’t remember this happening, but it might have, and I’m so sorry,’ it might have been a significant, therapeutic moment for survivors in general … I might’ve wobbled a bit. I might have thought, ‘You know what, he was a jackass in high school but now he’s not.’“But when my story came out and he flat-out denied any possibility of every single thing I said, it did alleviate a little of my guilt. For me, the question of whether he had changed was answered. Any misgivings about him being a good person went away.”Ford says she decided to press through the difficulties of coming forward – meeting Democratic senators opposed to Kavanaugh, being grilled by Republicans supporting him, becoming famous herself – because of the importance of the court.She writes: “Honestly, if it hadn’t been the supreme court – if my attacker had been running for a local office, for example – I probably wouldn’t have said anything.Calling this “a sad, scary thing to admit”, Ford adds: “But this was a job at one of our most revered institutions, which we have historically held in the highest esteem. That’s what I learned at school.”Saying she was “thinking and behaving according to principle”, she adds: “I was under the impression (delusion?) that almost everyone else viewed it from the same perspective.“Wasn’t it inarguable that a supreme court justice should be held to the highest standard? A presidency you could win, but to be a supreme court justice, you needed to live your perfection. These nine people make decisions that affect every person in the country. I figured the application process should be as thorough as possible, and perhaps I could be a letter of (non)reference.”Ford also describes occasions on which she discussed the alleged attack as Kavanaugh rose to prominence. As well as conversations in therapy reported by the Post, she cites others triggered by high-profile events.Among such moments, Ford says, were the 1991 Thomas hearings in which Hill was brutally grilled by senators of both parties; a 2016 criminal case in which a Stanford swimmer was convicted of sexual assault but given a light sentence; and the #MeToo movement of 2017, in which women’s stories of sexual assault led to convictions of prominent men.After Kavanaugh was named as a potential supreme court nominee, Ford contacted Anna Eshoo, her Democratic California congresswoman, and the Post. She may have inadvertently leaked her identity, she writes, by contacting a tip line using her own phone. Either way, she was soon at the centre of a political hurricane.“I never, ever wanted [Kavanaugh’s] family to suffer,” Ford writes, adding: “When my allegations came out publicly, the media started reporting that he was getting threats. It troubled me a lot.“Then I remembered that I’d already had to move to a hotel because of the threats to me and my family. Again and again I thought, ‘Why is he putting us all through this? Why can’t he call those people off? Say something – anything – to condemn the harassment happening on both sides?”Kavanaugh, she writes, was at the mercy of rightwing interests pushing for his confirmation. Ultimately, she says, he should have expected “a thorough review of [his] entire history to be part of” becoming a justice.“If you can’t handle that,” Ford writes, “then maybe you’re not qualified for the job.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US marshals ask Congress for $38m in security as threats against judges rise

      by

      The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court.Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October.The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security.The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court, the justice department said.A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing.Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service.The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries.That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online.The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020.The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court.The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes.The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington.The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court could still swing the election for Trump | Lawrence Douglas

      by

      On Monday, the US supreme court unanimously overturned the Colorado supreme court’s decision to remove Trump from the Republican primary ballot. The highest court in the land predictably concluded that the “insurrection clause” of the 14th amendment did not authorize state enforcement “with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency”.A contrary ruling would have been a recipe for chaos, and, worse still, would have done nothing to safeguard the nation from a potential Trump victory in November. I say this because presumably the only states that might have barred Trump from their ballot would have been those of the solidly blue variety – states Trump was going to lose anyway. And given that Republicans, particularly of the Maga-stripe, are masters of the politics of retaliation and escalation, we would have witnessed red states clamoring to remove Biden from their ballots. The result would have been an election precisely to Trump’s liking – one without democratic legitimacy.But if the court acquitted itself in this case, we still have reason to fear the mischief it might play in the upcoming vote. In Monday’s ruling, the court was conspicuously silent about whether Trump actually engaged in insurrection or election interference. Those matters are still to be decided at trial – that is, if either the Fulton county court or the DC district court ever gets to try its case.At present the Georgia prosecution is beset with problems of its own making. Whether the charges against the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis – that she allegedly profited by hiring a special prosecutor with whom she was romantically involved – are true is almost irrelevant. The fact alone that members of the prosecution are themselves under investigation casts a pall over a proceeding that needed to look squeaky clean.The federal election interference case is another matter. The federal case – arguably the weightiest of the four criminal cases pending against Trump – was to have been the first to go before a jury, with a scheduled start date of 4 March. The court already put the kibosh on that timetable when last week it chose, after taking its sweet time, to hear Trump’s claim that he enjoys absolute immunity for all official acts committed during his presidency – a wildly overblown claim already roundly rejected by two federal courts.That immunity hearing will take place during the week of 22 April, the very last week of oral arguments in the court’s 2023-24 term. This means that even if the court were to reject Trump’s immunity claim – as it presumably must – the federal trial probably would not start until September at the earliest.The timing is crucial for two reasons. First, those of us plunged into despair by the recent polling data showing Biden trailing Trump have taken meagre comfort in reports that a criminal conviction might cause a substantial number of voters to reject Trump. Delaying the trial could work to bar the American people from this critical piece of information. Those inclined to cynicism might observe – that is the very point.The timing also permits the court to influence the federal trial and possibly the election in a second, potentially more insidious fashion. The court is poised to decide a case this spring in which Trump is not a party, but which could have major consequences on his belated federal trial. The case involves a challenge brought by a January 6 rioter who argues that his federal indictment is based on a misapplication of the federal obstruction statute. The federal case against Trump also charges the former president with violating this statute, which criminalizes the “corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding”. Indeed, the charge lies at the heart of the case against Trump. Should the court conclude that federal prosecutors have misapplied the statute, not only would numerous convictions of rioters be tossed out, but the case against Trump would be dramatically, if not fatally, weakened.What does this have to do with timing? Had the court chosen not to hear Trump’s immunity claim, leaving intact the circuit court’s pointed rejection, Trump’s federal trial might have ended and a verdict rendered before the court had decided the rioter’s case. Imagine Trump had been found guilty and the court subsequently voided the conviction – the cries of foul would have been loud and fierce and long. Now, however, the court has given itself the opportunity to rule on the obstruction charge before Trump’s trial has begun. Defanging a prosecution before it has even started would certainly arouse outrage, but nothing like the partisan scorn and unrest that would come with a post-conviction intervention.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionToday, Trump promptly described himself as “very honored” by the court’s ruling, adding that it “will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs” – the man is nothing if not shameless. But his sudden adoration of the court might not be misplaced. Without directly affecting the outcome of an election like it did in Bush v Gore back in 2000, today’s court still could swing a Trump win.
      Lawrence Douglas is the author, most recently, of Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020. He is a contributing opinion writer for the Guardian US and teaches at Amherst College More

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s apologists say it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty of insurrection. That’s not true | Mark Graber

      by

      Donald Trump may be the only person about whom prominent conservatives think innocence is irrelevant. Voters in many states filed lawsuits arguing that Trump was constitutionally disqualified from the presidency, under section 3 of the 14th amendment, having committed treason against the United States when resisting by force the peaceful transfer of presidential power. The Colorado supreme court agreed. Trump and his lawyers responded by waving numerous constitutional technicalities that they claimed exempted traitors from constitutional disqualification, while barely making any effort to refute charges that the former president committed treason on 6 January 2021.On Monday, all nine justices on the US supreme court agreed that Donald Trump should remain on the presidential ballot even if he is, in the words of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, “an oathbreaking insurrectionist”. No one challenged that finding.Proponents of law and order – who, for decades, railed against judicial decisions that freed from criminal sanction suspected and convicted criminals based on due process rights that are unconnected to guilt or innocence – now celebrate the possibility that a contemporary Benedict Arnold may hold the highest office of the land. They rejoice that the supreme Court kept the former president on the ballot in all 50 states by relying on alleged constitutional rules that do not require Trump to defend himself against treason allegations.The charge is treason, that Trump is a traitor. Section 3 of the 14th amendment disqualifies past and present officeholders who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Case law and legal treatises from the American Revolution until the end of Reconstruction uniformly held that persons who engaged in insurrection levied war against the US. Levying war or engaging in an insurrection, these legal authorities agreed, did not require traditional warfare, but merely an assemblage resisting any federal law by force for a public purpose.Treason is defined in part by article 3 of the constitution as levying war against the United States. The Republicans who framed section 3 of the 14th amendment in 1866 self-consciously invoked the treason clause when considering constitutional disqualification. Representative Samuel McKee of Kentucky stated that constitutional disqualification “cuts off the traitor from all political power in the nation”. Senator Richard Yates of Illinois, who had been a close political associate of Lincoln, declared: “I am for the exclusion of traitors and rebels from exercising control and power and authority in this government.”Proponents of Trump’s disqualification presented powerful evidence to the trial court in Colorado and to the Maine secretary of state that Trump is a traitor who levied war against the US. They presented evidence that Trump knew that his tweets were instigating violence against state elected officials; that Trump was aware that the armed persons in the assemblage on January 6 were seeking his approval to resist by violence the peaceful transfer of presidential power; and that his speech and his actions after the speech were intended to incite and support the violent resistance to federal authority that occurred.Courts in Colorado and the Maine secretary of state found those evidentiary presentations compelling. Their decisions disqualifying Trump declared that the plaintiffs had met their burden when proving Trump was a traitor to the US.Had Trump been a poor, young man of color, conservatives would have insisted that Trump rebut the evidence and findings that he is a traitor. For more than a half-century, proponents of law and order have quoted the title of the judge Henry Friendly’s 1970 University of Chicago Law Review article Is Innocence Irrelevant? when persons suspected of ordinary crimes invoke constitutional rights in state or federal courts.Chanting “Is Innocence Irrelevant?” conservative judges sharply narrowed constitutional rights against police searches and self-incrimination. They drastically reduced the occasions on which persons suspected or convicted of ordinary crimes may assert what remain constitutional rights. Conservative justices have so gutted federal habeas corpus review that the underlying principle seems “better some innocent persons rot in prison than one guilty prison be freed on a constitutional technicality.” American prisons are now overpopulated by people who have had their constitutional rights violated during the process of investigating or prosecuting their crimes.Prominent conservatives make no such demands for proof of innocence when Trump is at the bar of disqualification. In the disqualification hearings, Trump’s lawyers made only perfunctory efforts to deny his culpability in the insurrection of 6 January 2021. His lawyers barely mentioned matters of guilt or innocence when filing briefs before the supreme court or in oral argument. Conservative commentators who insist that Trump remains qualified to hold the presidency do not spend their energies documenting why Trump is not a traitor. Six supreme court justices in Trump v Anderson refused to comment on whether Trump committed treason. That defense case, they implicitly recognized, cannot be made.Trump, his lawyers and his supporters respond to charges that Trump is a traitor with numerous assertions that have nothing to do with whether Trump incited and participated in the January 6 insurrection. They claim that section 3 exempts treasonous former presidents or permits traitors to be elected president of the US. They insist that traitors can be disqualified under the 14th amendment only if Congress authorizes the disqualification. They claim that section 3 disqualifies only persons who committed treason during the civil war and does not disqualify persons who lead violent secession movements now.The supreme court in turn invented a rule that congressional legislation under section 5 of the 14th amendment is necessary for federal officials to be disqualified, a rule unknown to the text of section 3 or the persons who framed section 3. Mississippi in 1868, under this rule, could not disqualify Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis from the presidential ballot.So-called originalists are not deterred by proof that many if not all these technicalities are far-fetched and belied by the historical evidence. There is nothing in the text or history of the 14th amendment, for example, that suggests different procedures for disqualifying federal officers than those used for disqualifying state officers. The prison abolitionist movement would achieve its goals if courts showed the same creativity finding technical excuses to avoid conviction in ordinary criminal trials as Trump and the supreme court have shown when avoiding disqualification.Trump’s advocates argue that the former president’s innocence is irrelevant when responding to the numerous criminal indictments against him by federal and state prosecutors. Again, Trump barely contests the multiple felony indictments that charge him with engaging in racketeering, soliciting or impersonating a public officer, making false statements or documents engaging in conspiracies to defraud the federal government and against civil rights, obstructing justice, willfully retained national defense information, illegally withholding or altering documents, and falsified business records.To all those crimes Trump claims that he cannot be legally culpable for any criminal action he took when president of the United States. Rebutting criminal charges is for ordinary Americans, not for the Maga leader.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTechnicalities matter. Innocence is sometimes irrelevant. We often protect the innocent by not punishing the guilty. Refusing to permit reliable information obtained by an unconstitutional search into evidence at trial may deter police officers from unconstitutionally searching people not guilty of any crime. Government should not profit from wrongdoing. The justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v United States (1928) wrote, “If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”Commitment to the rule of law may provide a third reason why innocence is sometimes irrelevant. No one may be convicted of treason on the testimony of one eyewitness, no matter how weighty the incriminating evidence, because article 3 requires two witnesses to support a treason conviction. The supreme court’s conclusion that Colorado could not disqualify Trump without congressional permission, however implausible as a matter of law, does compel the justices to permit the former president to remain on the ballot no matter how strong the evidence that Trump is a traitor.Yet innocence is also sometimes relevant. The rule of law does not provide sufficient reasons for straining the constitution to find technicalities that enable traitors to run for president of the United States. The principle that clear legal mandates must be followed does not justify performing legal gymnastics to reach such an absurd result as exempting a former president from a constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office.Innocence is always relevant when a person seeks honors or power. Constitutional commitments to the rule of law do not require giving the same respect to suspected criminals who get off on technicalities as to persons found not guilty, even as both may not suffer direct or collateral criminal sanctions. Persons seeking honors must rebut charges of culpable behavior. They cannot excuse their conduct by pointing to legal technicalities.A work of literature is not eligible for the Nobel Literature prize if the author without attribution lifted passages from another book, even if the statute of limitations no longer allows a lawsuit for plagiarism. People are properly disqualified from being on drug prevention taskforces after avoiding being convicted for drug dealing because the search that uncovered the incriminating fentanyl was unconstitutional.Trump’s innocence is relevant to his political qualifications for the presidency even as the supreme court decides his innocence is not relevant to his constitutional qualifications for the presidency. No political party should in good conscience nominate, and no voter should in good faith support, a candidate who seeks on constitutional technicalities to avoid a charge of treason.Trump’s guilt, which he and his attorneys have largely conceded, is not irrelevant to his being entrusted with the presidency. By insisting that his innocence is irrelevant to his legal qualifications to hold office, Trump is disqualifying himself from holding office politically. His failure to contest the evidence of his treason acknowledges that, the supreme court decision not to the contrary, he is a traitor who must not hold any office of trust or profit under the United States.
      Mark A Graber is a professor of law at the University of Maryland and the author, most recently, of Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform After the Civil War More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump was wrongly removed from Colorado ballot, US supreme court rules

      by

      Donald Trump was wrongly removed from Colorado’s primary ballot last year, the US supreme court has ruled, clearing the way for Trump to appear on the ballot in all 50 states.The court’s unanimous decision overturns a 4-3 ruling from the Colorado supreme court that said the former president could not run because he had engaged in insurrection during the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. The Colorado decision was a novel interpretation of section 3 of the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from holding office.“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. Congress, the court said, had to enact the procedures for disqualification under Section 3.“State-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that the President … represent[s] all the voters in the Nation,” the court added.Colorado’s presidential primary is on Tuesday and Trump had been allowed to appear on the ballot while the case was pending. Maine and a judge in Illinois had also excluded Trump from the ballot – decisions that are now likely to be quickly reversed.All nine justices agreed with the central holding in the case: that the Colorado supreme court had wrongly barred Trump from appearing on the ballot. But agreement did not extend beyond that.The majority opinion went on to say that the only way to enforce section 3 was by specifically tailored congressional legislation to determine which individuals should be disqualified for insurrection.But Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all said that finding went beyond the scope of the case, with the liberal justices specifically saying the court was shielding insurrectionists from accountability.“The Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed,” the liberal justices wrote. ‘“These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.”The court’s conservative majority, the liberal justices said, had made it nearly impossible to hold insurrectionists accountable. The court “forecloses judicial enforcement” of the provision, they wrote, and was “ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law”.“By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” they wrote.Barrett, a conservative also appointed by Trump, also did not fully embrace the majority’s opinion. “I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that,” she wrote.But she went on to rebuke her liberal colleagues for amplifying disagreement on the court.“In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” she wrote.Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, Trump praised the supreme court’s decision. “I want to start by thanking the supreme court for its unanimous decision today. It was a very important decision, very well crafted. I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs,” he said.None of the opinions addressed a central and politically charged issue in the case – whether Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“While the supreme court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump. The supreme court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so,” Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, the left-leaning group that backed the Colorado case, said in a statement. “The supreme court removed an enforcement mechanism, and in letting Trump back on the ballot, they failed to meet the moment. But it is now clear that Trump led the January 6 insurrection, and it will be up to the American people to ensure accountability.”Enacted after the civil war, section 3 of the 14th amendment says that any member of Congress or officer of the United States who engages in insurrection after taking an oath to the constitution is barred from holding office. It has never been used to bar a presidential candidate from office.During oral argument in February, nearly all of the justices signaled skepticism of Colorado’s authority to remove Trump from the ballot. They worried about the chaos it would cause if states had the unilateral authority to determine a candidate had engaged in insurrection and worried it could result in a chaotic, partisan tit-for-tat.“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” the chief justice, John Roberts, said during oral argument.The Colorado supreme court reached its conclusion after a Denver trial court judge held a five-day hearing and ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection on January 6, but was not disqualified from the ballot because he was not an officer of the United States.At the end of their opinion, the three liberal justices offered a full-throated defense of why section 3 was still needed.“Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles,” they wrote.“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.” More