Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      New York governor vetoes bill to make conviction challenges easier

      by

      The New York governor, Kathy Hochul, vetoed a bill days before Christmas that would have made it easier for people who have pleaded guilty to crimes to challenge their convictions, a measure that was favored by criminal justice reformers but fiercely opposed by prosecutors.The Democrat said the bill’s “sweeping expansion of eligibility for post-conviction relief” would “upend the judicial system and create an unjustifiable risk of flooding the courts with frivolous claims”, in a veto letter released on Saturday.Under existing state law, criminal defendants who plead guilty are usually barred from trying to get their cases reopened based on a new claim of innocence, except in certain circumstances involving new DNA evidence.The bill passed by the legislature in June would have expanded the types of evidence that could be considered proof of innocence, including video footage or evidence of someone else confessing to a crime. Arguments that a person was coerced into a false guilty plea would have also been considered.Prosecutors and advocates for crime victims warned the bill would have opened the floodgates to endless, frivolous legal appeals by the guilty.The Erie county district attorney, John Flynn, the president of the District Attorney’s Association of the State of New York, wrote in a letter to Hochul in July that the bill would create “an impossible burden on an already overburdened criminal justice system”.The legislation would have benefitted people such as Reginald Cameron, who was exonerated in 2023, years after he pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery in exchange for a lesser sentence. He served more than eight years in prison after he was arrested alongside another person in 1994 in the fatal shooting of Kei Sunada, a 22-year-old Japanese immigrant. Cameron, then 19, had confessed after being questioned for several hours without attorneys.His conviction was thrown out after prosecutors reinvestigated the case, finding inconsistencies between the facts of the crime and the confessions that were the basis for the conviction. The investigation also found the detective that had obtained Cameron’s confessions was also connected to other high-profile cases that resulted in exonerations, including the Central Park Five case.Various states including Texas have implemented several measures over the years intended to stop wrongful convictions. Texas amended a statute in 2015 that allows a convicted person to apply for post-conviction DNA testing. In 2017, another amended rule requires law enforcement agencies to electronically record interrogations of suspects in serious felony cases in their entirety.“We’re pretty out of step when it comes to our post-conviction statute,” Amanda Wallwin, a state policy advocate at the Innocence Project, said of New York.“We claim to be a state that cares about racial justice, that cares about justice period. To allow Texas to outmaneuver us is and should be embarrassing,” she said.In 2018, New York’s highest court affirmed that people who plead guilty cannot challenge their convictions unless they have DNA evidence to support their innocence. That requirement makes it very difficult for defendants to get their cases heard before a judge, even if they have powerful evidence that is not DNA-based.Over the past three decades, the proportion of criminal cases that make it to trial in New York has steadily declined, according to a report by the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. About 99% of misdemeanor charges and 94% of felony charges in the state are resolved by guilty pleas.“In my work, I know there there are a lot of circumstances where people plead guilty to crimes because they are advised or misadvised by their attorneys at the time,” said Donna Aldea, a lawyer at the law firm Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco. “Sometimes they’re afraid that if they go to trial, they’ll face much worse consequences, even if they didn’t commit the crime.”She said the state’s criminal justice system right now is framed in a way that makes it impossible for people to challenge their guilty pleas years later when new evidence emerges, or when they are in a better financial position to challenge their convictions. More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court declines to expedite decision on Trump’s immunity claim in 2020 election case

      by

      The US supreme court on Friday rejected a request by the special counsel to expeditiously decide whether Donald Trump has immunity from federal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, before a lower appeals court issued its own judgment.The one sentence denial means the case is returned to the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, where a three-judge panel is scheduled to hear oral arguments in January, and the case against Trump remains frozen pending the outcome of the appeal.In declining to leapfrog the lower court and fast-track the appeal, the supreme court handed a crucial and potentially far-reaching victory to Trump as he seeks to delay as much as possible his trial, currently scheduled for next March in federal district court in Washington.The decision almost certainly slows down Trump’s federal election interference case. Even if the DC circuit rules against Trump quickly, the former president can first ask the full appeals court to rehear the case, and then has 90 days to lodge a final appeal to the supreme court.Trump was indicted in June by the special counsel Jack Smith for conspiring to impede the peaceful transfer of power, but sought to have the charges thrown out by contending he could not be prosecuted for actions he undertook as president that were related to his official duties.The filing contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment, ranging from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors, were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.At the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that not only was Trump entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of Trump’s intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment.This month, his motion was rejected by the presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan. That set the stage for Trump, who had always expected the motion to fail, to lodge an appeal that would stay the case while the DC circuit considered the matter.Obtaining the stay was always part of Trump’s strategy – he is seeking delay because if he wins re-election before the trial occurs, he could arrange to have the charges dismissed – and his lawyers were counting on a lengthy appeals process that would buy the time.The strategy, according to people close to Trump’s legal team, involved Trump going to the supreme court and securing additional weeks or months of delay – only after weeks of delay before the DC circuit.But prosecutors attempted to preempt Trump’s ploy by asking the supreme court to bypass the DC circuit and resolve the immunity question directly. In court filings, the special counsel suggested keeping the March trial date was in the public interest.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe request from prosecutors that the nation’s highest court rule on a case before judgment by an appeals court – and force Trump to contend with the Supreme Court plank of his delay strategy months earlier than he anticipated – was unusual but underscored the gravity of the moment.On Friday, the court essentially sided with Trump, who had argued the day before for the special counsel’s petition to be denied, arguing on procedural grounds that prosecutors had no basis to appeal a trial court ruling that was favorable to them and where the government had not suffered any harm.The denial, appellate experts said, underscored the peril of allowing trial prosecutors to help frame issues before the supreme court, instead of having the solicitor general’s office – which normally argues on behalf of the government – refine arguments to the sensibilities of the justices.The emergency petition on the Trump immunity question did not involve the solicitor general’s office. Although the filing was signed by former deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, it also included the special counsel himself and two of his deputies, JP Cooley and James Pearce. More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump shouldn’t be eligible to run again. But America’s highest court may disagree | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Should there be a political price to pay for a president who refuses to engage in a peaceful transfer of power and incites a violent coup to stay in office?Common sense says yes.As does a majority vote of the Colorado supreme court. But since their stunning ruling this week that Donald Trump may not appear on their state’s primary ballot, many a lawyer and pundit is arguing otherwise.They say, for example, that it’s not the role of a court but of the voters to decide a matter of such import. They don’t seem to recall that the voters did decide in 2020 when they elected Joe Biden, but that Trump refused to accept that decision and did everything in his power to reverse it.Others allow that the constitution does provide that insurrection is disqualifying but they ponder whether Trump – without a legal conviction – really fits that definition. And in some cases, these critics twist themselves into verbal knots to express their doubt.“I generally say that Trump attempted to secure an unelected second term in office,” wrote Jonathan Chait in New York magazine. “Insurrection,” he notes, may be useful shorthand for Trump’s role but it’s too imprecise to accomplish what the Colorado jurists say it does.President Biden sounded sensible when asked by a reporter if Trump is an insurrectionist. “It’s self-evident … he certainly supported an insurrection. There’s no question about it. None. Zero.”But even Biden, hardly a disinterested party, admits another obvious factor: the US supreme court will make the ultimate decision.The smart money seems to be on the court’s ruling in Trump’s favor.Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for the Nation, predicted that the highest court will overturn Colorado 8-1, that the opinion will be written by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, and only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will dissent.“John Roberts is probably standing outside Elena Kagan’s office like [actor John Cusack] with a jukebox right now,” Mystal quipped, alluding to the iconic pleading-for-attention scene in the 1989 movie Say Anything. “He needs her for cover for what he’s about to do … He’s playing a full 80s mixtape.”Other anti-Trumpers remain more hopeful, for some plausible reasons. One is that that conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, before he rose to his current lofty position, once wrote that states may and should protect the integrity of the political process by keeping candidates off the ballot if they are “constitutionally prohibited from assuming office”.I’m no constitutional lawyer but Trump’s post-election actions like inciting an insurrection and pushing a fake-electors scheme seem strong enough to fit that bill. But, of course, there are ways to justify the opposite.“A serious and careful opinion that reaches a reasonable conclusion,” was how the UCLA law professor Rick Hasen characterized the Colorado ruling. But he noted that, whether on the merits or on doctrinal grounds, the supreme court certainly can find grounds to disagree.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHasen calls it imperative that the court move quickly: “Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for president is eligible.” A later determination of eligibility, especially if it were to involve congressional Democrats, “would be tremendously destabilizing”.For me, it comes down to this. Trump is an anti-democracy candidate, and his actions, over the past eight years, have proven that, time after time.Too many Americans are so inured to his firehose of outrages that they don’t see as clearly as the Colorado jurists do that this man now should not be eligible for the leadership of the free world. Mainstream media’s horserace fixation, and rightwing media’s relentless propaganda, has made that blindness worse. (On Thursday morning, Fox News offered this mind-blowing chyron: “GOP leaders suggest removing Biden from red-state ballots over border crisis.”)Even if the Colorado justices don’t prevail, I am grateful to them for stating some obvious truths: that Trump has gone far beyond the limits of what’s acceptable in a candidate for highest office. That the checks and balances of the branches of government exist for a reason. That Trump doesn’t have to be convicted of insurrection, though he may eventually be, to be disqualified via the 14th amendment of the US constitution.After all he’s done – especially in the shocking wake of the 2020 election – Trump is clearly unfit for office.Whatever the outcome, having that recognized by a well-respected state court is a victory for common sense and integrity.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court urged to make ‘immediate, definitive decision’ on Trump’s immunity

      by

      Jack Smith has urged speed for the supreme court to take up the issue of whether Donald Trump is, as the former president claims, immune from criminal prosecution on federal charges over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.On Thursday the US special counsel submitted a new file to the supreme court in Washington DC, reiterating his argument for urgency in their consideration of such a key element of the federal election interference case, in response to Trump’s latest move the day before.On Wednesday, Trump’s team asked the highest court in the US to stay out of the argument about whether he has immunity from federal criminal prosecution, after Smith asked the court last week to take up review of the matter.On Thursday, Smith submitted to the supreme court that in the public interest it should make an “immediate, definitive decision” on the “important constitutional question” of Trump’s immunity or lack of it in the federal election interference case.“The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves – for the first time in our nation’s history – criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office,” the latest submission said.Smith’s filing added: “Enforcing federal criminal laws that prohibit such conduct is vital to protecting our constitutional processes and democracy itself.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSmith is the veteran prosecutor appointed as special counsel by the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in November 2022, to lead two federal investigations of Trump, the election interference case and the alleged mishandling of classified documents that were discovered at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after he left office. More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Is barring Trump from office undemocratic? Let’s assess point by point | Jan-Werner Müller

      by

      The decision by the Colorado supreme court to ban Donald Trump from the Republican primary has received pushback from some predictable and some not-so-predictable quarters.The former president’s supporters of course consider him the great Maga martyr, temporarily hindered by nefarious elites from his rightful return and revenge; in this morality play, the US supreme court, besieged with accusations of being undemocratic, can now play the savior by putting him back on the ballot and making the people Trump’s ultimate judge.Some liberals also fuss about the political fallout of the decision, worried that barring Trump from running will provoke chaos and violence. And the left, suspecting a “liberal plot against democracy”, is not happy either: they reproach the liberals who welcome Trump’s disqualification for wanting to short-circuit the political process – thereby revealing deep distrust of democracy or at least defeatism about confronting Trump in an open contest. All these concerns are mistaken.The Colorado supreme court comprehensively refuted Trump’s claims, especially the ones bordering on the absurd. The justices patiently argued that parties cannot make autonomous, let alone idiosyncratic, decisions about who to put on the ballot – by that logic, they could nominate a 10-year-old for the presidency. They also painstakingly took apart the idea that the now famous section three of the 14th amendment covers every imaginable official expectation of the president. In terms clearly tailored to appeal to justices on the US supreme court, they explain that plain language and the intent of the drafters of the amendment suggest that insurrectionists – including ones at the very top – were not supposed to hold office again, unless Congress voted an amnesty with a two-thirds majority.The court’s majority also made the case that the House of Representatives’ January 6 report is not some partisan attack on poor Trump and hence could be admitted as evidence; they then drew on that evidence to show that Trump had clearly engaged in insurrection; they did not have to prove that Trump himself had led it (of course, he didn’t valiantly enter the Capitol to “save democracy” – his words – but tweeted the revolution from the safety of the White House).We know that few Maga supporters will be swayed by the evidence – in fact, the entry ticket to Trump’s personality cult is precisely to deny that very evidence. But it is more disturbing that liberals still think that prudence dictates that Trump should run and just be defeated at the polls.For one thing, the same liberals usually profess their commitment to the constitution – and the Colorado court has given an entirely plausible reading of that very document. Should it simply be set aside because supporters of a self-declared wannabe dictator threaten violence?Some liberals also appear to assume that, were Trump to lose in November 2024, their political nightmare would stop. But someone who has not accepted defeat before, doubled down on the “big lie”, and ramped up authoritarian rhetoric is not likely to just concede. Would the logic then still be that, even if the law says differently, Maga supporters must somehow be appeased?The more leftwing critique is the most interesting. Liberals are charged with having a Mueller moment again. By trusting courts to save democracy, they reveal how little faith they have in the people; they appear to hope that, magically, wise old men (it’s usually men) like Robert Mueller, acting for more or less technocratic “institutions”, will solve a challenge through law when it should be solved politically.The only question is: by that logic, are any measures meant to protect democracy but not somehow involving the people as a whole as such illegitimate? Had Trump been impeached after January 6, would anyone have made the argument that this was the wrong process and that he just should keep running in elections no matter what?Countries other than the US are more comfortable with the notion that politicians or parties expected to destroy democracy should be taken out of the democratic game. The threshold for such a decision has to be very high – clearly, there’s a problem if attempts to save democracy are themselves undemocratic. Here the Colorado decision is more vulnerable: as one of the dissenting judges pointed out, Trump might not have been given due process; even prosecutor Jack Smith, a master legal chess player, is not going after Trump for insurrection.Three factors can mitigate anxieties about undemocratic measures to save democracy, though: one is that, before a drastic decision like disqualification is taken, an individual has to exhibit a very consistent pattern of wanting to undermine democracy. Check, for Trump.Second, there has to be some room for political judgment and prudence: disqualification is not automatic and not for life; in theory, Congress could pass an amnesty for Trump in the name of democratic competition.Third, banning a whole party can rightly make citizens with particular political preferences feel that their voices are silenced; in this case, though, no one is removing the Republican party. And, of course, two Trump epigones remain on the ballot.
      Jan-Werner Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton University. He is also a Guardian US columnist More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans are hoping the courts will spare them an electoral reckoning with Trump | Lawrence Douglas

      by

      “This is how dictatorships are born.” Such was Donald Trump’s response to news that the Colorado supreme court had ruled that the former president is disqualified from holding office and so should be removed from the state’s Republican primary ballot.Anytime Trump speaks of “dictatorships” these days we should pay attention. He has all but declared his intention to engage in dictatorial rule should he win in 2024. It isn’t clear, then, whether his statement, in a fund-raising missive fired off minutes after the news broke, was meant as a condemnation of the ruling or a prediction of how he would handle such legal setbacks should he be returned to the White House.The specter of a dictatorial Trump using the presidency to deform the rule of law into a tool of political punishment explains why millions of Americans continue to cling to the hope that our court system will spare us an electoral reckoning with Trump. Biden continues to suffer from inexplicably weak polling numbers while Trump has managed to turn criminal counts into a fund-raising juggernaut. None of this translates into Trump’s defeating Biden in the national popular vote in 2024. But, as we all know, he doesn’t have to. Our grossly defective Electoral College could once again hand Trump the presidency.And so the hope that our court system will insulate us from the infirmities of our electoral system and our own failings as democratic citizens. Yet, however understandable, the hope will find no answer in yesterday’s ruling. This is not because the Colorado supreme court reached the wrong decision.Indeed, the ruling, which turned on the court’s interpretation of the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment, was brave and correct. A lower Colorado court had already concluded that Trump had engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021, but had concluded that the 14th amendment’s bar against insurrectionists from holding office did not apply to the presidency.The Colorado supreme court had little trouble rejecting this latter conclusion. To argue, the court observed, that the 14th amendment, ratified in the wake of the civil war, “disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land” would be utterly nonsensical (italics in original).And so the court concluded that Trump is “disqualified from holding the office of the President” and instructed the Colorado secretary of state to remove his name from the presidential primary ballot.Admittedly, the seven-member court was divided, with three dissenters questioning whether Trump can be disqualified without having first been convicted of engaging in insurrection. The court itself stayed its own ruling until early 2024, anticipating Trump’s already announced appeal. And so this explosive issue will all but inevitably land in the lap of the US supreme court.How will the court act? In an ideal world, it would uphold the Colorado ruling and would do so unanimously. Only a unanimous decision, handed down by a court composed of three Trump appointees – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – and one, the ethically-challenged and ideologically-rigid Clarence Thomas, whose spouse was a committed ‘stop the steal” activist, could possibly weather the storm of protest and civil unrest that such a historic ruling would trigger.Alas, no such ruling will issue from this supreme court. This court will predictably toss out the Colorado decision, insisting that Trump’s name be placed back on the ballot. I say this not because the court is necessarily beholden to Trump, but because, already suffering from historically low and largely self-inflicted approval ratings (see its ruling in Dobbs, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion; and Bruen, elevating gun ownership to a fundamental right), it will hide behind judicial modesty, insisting that voters and not unelected judges, should have the final say about Trump’s fitness for office.Still, in refusing to intervene, the court will be unable to escape the damaging appearance of extreme partisanship. The court has already been asked to review Trump’s claim that he enjoys “absolute immunity” from prosecution, an argument, which, if accepted, would derail his Washington DC federal trial, tentatively scheduled to begin on 4 March 2024, for conspiring to defraud the United States by seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. And it has already agreed to review the scope of the charge that January 6 insurrectionists obstructed an official proceeding, a matter also central to the federal case against Trump.While it’s hard to imagine the court accepting Trump’s unsustainably broad immunity argument, it’s easier to imagine it ruling in a manner that might work to the benefit of Trump’s tried and true legal strategy of delay, delay, delay. So while the supreme court might dodge a reckoning with Trump, there will be no escape for the American people.
      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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Colorado’s ruling to disqualify Trump sets up a showdown at supreme court

      by

      The Colorado ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from the ballot because he incited an insurrection on January 6 sets up another high-stakes, highly controversial political intervention by the US supreme court – a conservative-dominated panel to which Trump appointed three stringent rightwingers.Compromised in progressive eyes by those appointments and rulings including the removal of the federal right to abortion, the court was already due to decide whether Trump has immunity from prosecution regarding acts committed as president.Arising from one of four criminal indictments that have generated 91 charges, that case – concerning elected subversion if not incitement of insurrection – has produced intense scrutiny of Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving justice and a hardline conservative also at the centre of an ethics scandal.Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, is a hard-right activist who was deeply involved in attempts to overturn Trump’s 2020 defeat by Joe Biden, a defeat which according to Trump’s lie was the result of electoral fraud.With the Colorado ruling, calls for Clarence Thomas to recuse from cases involving Trump will no doubt increase – and no doubt continue to be ignored.On Tuesday, the progressive strategist Rachel Bitecofer said: “Justice Thomas will get to weigh in on whether Trump engaged in insurrection for the same plot his own wife helped organise. Extraordinary.”Earlier, in a scene of extraordinary Washington pageantry, Biden addressed Thomas and the other justices at a memorial service for Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to sit on the court.Speaking at the National Cathedral, the president delivered a passage that would within hours assume greater significance.To O’Connor, Biden said, the court was “the bedrock of America. It was a vital line of defence for the values and the vision of our republic, devoted not to the pursuit of power for power’s sake but to make real the promise of America – the American promise that holds that we’re all created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout our lives.”Citing that need for equality before the law, some prominent observers said the supreme court should uphold the Colorado ruling.J Michael Luttig, a conservative former judge who testified before the House January 6 committee and has written with the Harvard professor Laurence Tribe on the 14th amendment, called the Colorado ruling “historic”, “masterful” and “brilliant”.“It will be a test of America’s commitment to its democracy, to its constitution and to the rule of law,” Luttig told MSNBC, adding: “Arguably, when it is decided by the supreme court, it will be the single most important constitutional decision in all of our history.“… It is an unassailable … decision that the former president is disqualified from the presidency because he conducted, engaged in or aided or supported an insurrection or rebellion against the United States constitution.”But others were not so supportive.Jonathan Turley, a conservative law professor from George Washington University who has appeared as a witness for House Republicans seeking to impeach Biden on grounds of supposed corruption, told Fox News: “This court has handed partisans on both sides the ultimate tool to try to shortcut elections. And it’s very, very dangerous.“This country is a powder keg, and this court is throwing matches at it. And I think it’s a real mistake. I think they’re wrong on the law. You know, January 6 was many things, most of it not good. In my view it was not an insurrection, it was a riot.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“That doesn’t mean the people responsible for that day shouldn’t be held accountable. But to call this an insurrection for the purposes of disqualification would create a slippery slope for every state in the union.“This is a time where we actually need democracy. We need to allow the voters to vote to hear their decision. And the court just said, ‘You’re not going to get that in Colorado, we’re not going to let you vote for Donald Trump.’ You can dislike Trump, you can believe he’s responsible for January 6, but this isn’t the way to do it.”Adopted in 1868, section three of the 14th amendment barred former Confederates from office after the civil war. But it has rarely been used. In Trump’s case, much legal argument has centered on whether the presidency counts as an office, as defined in the text. In Colorado, a lower court found that it did not. The state supreme court found that it did. That argument now goes to the highest court in the land.After the Colorado ruling, many observers also pointed out that Trump has not been convicted of inciting an insurrection, or charged with doing so. He was impeached for inciting an insurrection on January 6 but acquitted at trial in the Senate, where enough Republicans stayed loyal.What is clear is that thanks to Colorado, a US supreme court already racked by politics and with historically low approval ratings will once again pitch into the partisan fight. On Tuesday, Trump seized on the Colorado ruling as he has his criminal indictments: as battle cry and fundraising tool. His Republican opponents also slammed the ruling.Last month, the Pulitzer prize-winning historian Eric Foner, an expert on the civil war and Reconstruction, spoke to the Guardian about 14th amendment challenges to Trump, including in Colorado. A successful case, Foner said, would be likely to act on Trump like “a red flag in front of a bull”.So, it seems clear, will anything the US supreme court now does regarding the Colorado ruling.On Wednesday a Trump attorney, Jay Sekulow, said on his own internet show he expected the court to act quickly, with “the next 10 days … critical in this case” and oral arguments likely by mid-January. His son and co-host, Jordan Sekulow, countered that a slow-moving case could not be counted out. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump lashes out after Colorado ruling removing him from ballot

      by

      The Colorado supreme court ruling on Tuesday that bars Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot has kicked off a firestorm among Republicans and legal scholars, and fury from Trump himself.Though the former president did not address the decision during a rally on Tuesday night in Iowa – where he went on abusive rants against immigration – he posted on his social media platform Truth Social on Wednesday. “What a shame for our country!!!” Trump wrote. “A sad day for America!!!”Noah Bookbinder, president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which brought the suit in Colorado on behalf of Republican and independent voters, praised the decision. It was, he said, “not only historic and justified, but is also necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country”.“Our constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government,” he said.Republicans have largely lined up behind Trump, railing against the ruling for allegedly infringing the right of Americans to choose their leaders.Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative from New York, said in a statement: “Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th 2024 that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot.”The Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy pledged to drop out of the Republican primary in Colorado, piling pressure on his fellow candidates to do the same or be seen as “tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences from our country”.The Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, who is also campaigning for the Republican nomination, voiced an unusual theory that the Colorado decision was in fact a move from Democrats to incite Trump’s base and deliberately help him win the primary.“They’re doing all this stuff to basically solidify support in the primary for him, get him into the general, and the whole general election’s going to be all this legal stuff,” DeSantis said on Wednesday, according to NBC News. “It will give [Joe] Biden or the Democrat, whoever, the ability to skate through this thing.”Over the last few months, Trump has been liberally using his 91 criminal charges and assorted civil trials to further the narrative that Washington is against him, calling on his base for financial support. Trump has already seized on the Colorado ruling for fundraising purposes, posting on Truth Social, “Breaking news: Colorado just removed me from the ballot! Chip in now.”The Colorado court postponed the implementation of its ruling until 4 January, giving room for Trump to make an appeal to the US supreme court. Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesperson, said on Tuesday night that the campaign has “full confidence that the US supreme court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits”.Despite confidence from Trump’s team that the supreme court would rule in their favor, legal reactions to the Colorado ruling have so far shown just how murky the debate will be.Trump’s Truth Social feed is already reflecting this. On Tuesday night, Trump quoted Jonathan Turley, a conservative law professor at George Washington University who has appeared as a witness for House Republicans seeking to impeach Biden over nebulous claims of corruption.“This country is a powder keg and this court is just throwing matches at it … for people that say they are trying to protect democracy, this is hands down the most anti-democratic opinion I’ve seen in my lifetime,” Trump quoted Turley as saying on Fox News.But Trump truncated a portion of Turley’s interview where he said that though he believed the Colorado court was wrong, “January 6 was many things, most of it not good”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“In my view, it was not an insurrection. It was a riot,” Turley said. “That doesn’t mean that the people responsible for that day shouldn’t be held accountable. But to call this an insurrection for the purposes of disqualification would create a slippery slope for every state in the union.”The Colorado court ruled that section 3 of the 14th amendment disqualifies Trump from office because the section – referred to as the insurrection clause – bars anyone from holding political office if they took an oath to uphold the constitution but “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” against it. The section was included in the constitution after the civil war to prevent Confederate leaders from holding office in the government they had rebelled against.Turley’s argument is that while Trump incited a riot, it technically does not amount to the insurrection specified in the 14th amendment.“If you dislike Trump, you believe he’s responsible for January 6 … this isn’t the way to do it,” he said.This is just one of the points that will be debated if Trump’s appeal is taken up by the supreme court, which has been facing an onslaught of accusations of politics in the court. As much as the Colorado ruling puts a spotlight on Trump, it will also set up the US supreme court – which has historically tried to maintain itself as a neutral arbiter of the law – to take on yet another case entrenched in politics.Trump appointed three out of the court’s nine current justices, cementing a six-to-three conservative majority in the court that has overturned abortion and affirmative action in the last three years. The supreme court justice Clarence Thomas has also been facing criticism over the last year for taking gifts and vacations from billionaires, as well as for the conservative activism of his wife, Ginni Thomas.The court is also set to rule on another Trump appeal, which will decide whether he is immune from prosecution over any charges that come from his Washington DC criminal trial over the January 6 insurrection.Regardless of whether the Colorado ruling is upheld, the debate will probably force close scrutiny of Trump’s involvement in the January 6 attack. Trump maintains that the more than 1,000 people who were arrested after the attack, including 600 who were eventually sentenced, are political prisoners. He also continues to argue that the 2020 election was stolen, a belief that incited those who carried out the January 6 attack in the first place.“Election interference!” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday night. More