US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 275 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US tells Israel credible aid plan needed before any military operation in Gaza and urges Hamas to accept ceasefire deal – live

      by

      A temporary ceasefire is essential to a deal to release more of the hostages still held by Hamas since they were snatched during the attack by the Islamist group that controls Gaza on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, according to the White House.This news is still emerging over the wires and we’ll bring you details as they unfold. The White House just said there will be additional air drops of US aid over Gaza, which is besieged by Israel and where the north of the territory is almost cut off from aid entirely.Reuters is reporting that the White House stated that the US calls on Hamas to accept terms of a ceasefire and hostage release deal now. More as we get it.An updated summary of the day’s key news from myself and my colleagues.The big politics news: The supreme court overturned a Colorado ruling that barred Donald Trump from the state’s ballot for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection, issuing a decision that judges nationwide will likely cite to allow him to compete in the remaining Republican primaries, and the November general election. However, the court’s three liberal justices and one conservative worried that the authors of the majority opinion went further than necessary, though for different reasons. In remarks from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump thanked the court for their ruling, while also encouraging them to find him immune from prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. That matter has yet to be decided.Here’s what else happened today:
      The US called on Hamas to accept the terms of a temporary ceasefire and hostage release deal currently being negotiated in Cairo. Israel has “provisionally accepted a six-week phased hostage and ceasefire deal,” per reports.
      A day after she called for an “immediate ceasefire,” vice president Kamala Harris had a closed-door meeting with Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet member and prominent centrist rival of right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The White House said in a statement they “discussed the situation in Rafah and the need for a credible and implementable humanitarian plan prior to contemplating any major military operation there given the risks to civilians.”
      As half a million Palestinians are facing starvation in what aid workers call an “all man-made” famine in Gaza, the US state department said on Monday it supported the United Nations doing a review into an aid-related incident in Gaza last week where dozens of people were killed.
      Allen Weisselberg, Trump’s former finance chief, pleaded guilty to perjury in New York City, in a deal that will send the 76-year-old to jail but will not force him to testify against the Trump family, his employers for half a century.
      Trump’s allies in Congress, including House speaker Mike Johnson and potential vice-presidential pick Elise Stefanik were also pleased with the supreme court’s ruling. But the justices did not absolve Trump of the charge that he was involved in an insurrection, noted Neal Katyal, who used to argued before the supreme court on behalf of Barack Obama.
      The White House has released a statement of what vice president Kamala Harris discussed in her closed-door meeting with Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet and a rival of right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.The key news line: “The vice-president and Minister Gantz discussed the situation in Rafah and the need for a credible and implementable humanitarian plan prior to contemplating any major military operation there given the risks to civilians.“She urged Israel to take additional measures in cooperation with the United States and international partners to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza and ensure its safe distribution to those in need.”Relatedly, the US state department on Monday said it supports the United Nations doing a review into an aid-related incident in Gaza last week where dozens of people were killed, Reuters reported.‘Spending his golden years in jail:’ analysis on Trump finance chief’s plea deal This is Lois Beckett, picking up our live politics coverage from our west coast bureau in Los Angeles.Earlier today, the former chief financial officers of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, made a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to perjury charges related to his testimony in Trump’s recent civil fraud trial.Norm Eisen of the Defend Democracy Project argued that Weisselberg’s guilty plea “further strengthens the 2016 campaign corruption and coverup criminal case being brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg” and that “his plea and the associated jail time is a stark reminder to those witnesses in Trump’s orbit of the price for lying in his service” and would likely serve “as a deterrent to other Trump allies who will take the stand during the DA’s case against him.’Jake Offenhartz and Michael R. Sisak of the Associated Press emphasized a different aspect of the plea deal in their reporting, noting that the deal sends Weisselberg, who is 76, “back to jail, but does not require that he testify at Trump’s hush-money criminal trial.”They write:
      In pleading guilty, Weisselberg found himself caught again between the law and his loyalty to Trump, whose family employed him for nearly 50 years and sent him into retirement with a $2 million severance. His plea to perjury is further evidence that, rather than testify truthfully in a way that might harm his old boss, he was willing to again spend a chunk of his golden years in jail.
      Donald Trump’s speech at Mar-a-Lago after the supreme court’s ruling this morning allowing him to stay on the ballot was nothing more than “unhinged, confused ramblings focused only on himself”, in the words of Joe Biden’s re-election campaign.Spokesman Ammar Moussa came out swinging against the former president in a statement:
      Today’s chaotic musings from Trump only remind the American people why they voted him out of office four years ago. While Trump rants and raves from his country club, President Biden is focused on what actually matters – delivering results for the American people, from lowering prescription drug costs to capping insulin prices and building an economy that works for the middle class. Trump thinks this election is about him and his power – not the American people – and that’s why he’s going to lose again.
      The Biden campaign has its own problems, particularly the president’s worrying poll numbers. A closely watched survey by the New York Times and Siena College released over the weekend showed voters remain skeptical of Biden, particularly over his ability to continue doing the job into his 80s:Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, when something like 15 states vote in presidential primaries. It’s supposed to be exciting, but probably won’t be, the Guardian’s David Smith reports:Microphone in hand, Nikki Haley was delivering a well-rehearsed stump speech when a primal cry came from the audience. “He cannot win a general election!” yelled a man, referring to Donald Trump and the ex-president’s chance against Joe Biden. “It is madness!”Haley supporters at a campaign rally in a tiny Washington hotel on Friday signaled their agreement. But they are in a distinct minority within the Republican party as the biggest day of this year’s primary election campaign approaches.Fifteen states and one territory will vote in contests known as Super Tuesday, when more than a third of delegates will be assigned to July’s Republican national convention in Milwaukee. Past results and opinion polls suggest that, by Tuesday night, Trump will have in effect wrapped up the Republican nomination against Haley, his sole remaining challenger.On the Democratic side, incumbent Biden has swept aside token challenges by Congressman Dean Phillips of Minnesota and the self-help author Marianne Williamson and is cruising to the nomination. The lopsided contests and lack of suspense are making Super Tuesday, one of the most celebrated rituals of the American election season, look not so super this time.Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster, said: “It never mattered less. I don’t know any political event that’s got more attention for being less relevant. The decision has been made. The choice is clear. You know who the two nominees are and 70% of Americans would rather it not be so.”Over the weekend, the United States airdropped food into Gaza, but the World Food Programme warned that may not be enough to prevent famine in the enclave. Here’s more on that, from the Guardian’s Emma Graham-Harrison and Quique Kierszenbaum:The deaths of more than 100 people when Israeli forces opened fire near an aid convoy in Gaza was a tragedy that should have been foreseen and could have been prevented, the World Food Programme country director for Palestine has said.Matthew Hollingworth also said an aid corridor into northern Gaza was needed urgently to prevent a “man-made” famine there after Palestinians were starved of food at terrifying speed and scale.“To have a situation today with half a million people facing famine in just five months is extraordinary at that scale,” he said. “There’s nowhere else in the world today with this many people at risk of famine. Nowhere. And it’s all man-made.”From the Guardian’s Emma Graham-Harrison and Julian Borger, here’s the latest on the negotiations aimed at achieving a temporary ceasefire in Israel’s invasion of Gaza, and the release of hostages taken by Hamas:Israel has provisionally accepted a six-week phased hostage and ceasefire deal which would begin with the release of wounded, elderly and female hostages, but it was still unclear on Saturday whether Hamas would accept it, US officials have claimed.Talks took place in Doha, the Qatari capital, on Saturday and were expected to move to Cairo on Sunday as the scale of looming starvation pushed the US to start air-dropping food into the enclave.The US said an extended ceasefire was the most direct route to getting large-scale aid deliveries into Gaza, and suggested that agreement was close. “The path to a ceasefire right now, literally at this hour, is straightforward,” a senior US official said. “And there’s a deal on the table. There’s a framework deal. The Israelis have more or less accepted it. And there will be a six-week ceasefire in Gaza starting today, if Hamas agrees to release the default defined category of vulnerable hostages: the sick the wounded, elderly and women. “We’re working around the clock to see if we can get this in place here over the coming week,” the official said. He said Israel had “basically” accepted the deal, but did not specify whether it still had reservations or what those were.Kamala Harris took some reporters’ questions in Washington, DC, moments ago as she headed for her meeting with Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet member and prominent centrist rival of right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Asked by reporters about her pending message to Gantz, she said they would discuss getting the hostage deal done, getting more aid in to Gaza and “getting that six-week cease-fire”, the pool report said.“The president has been an extraordinary leader in getting us to this point that we have the six-week deal,” she said, adding, in response to a question about whether there is any difference between her and Joe Biden’s stance on these issues right now: “The president and I have been aligned and consistent from the very beginning.”The White House has just issued an additional statement that talks with Gantz will focus on a deal to bring remaining hostages held by Hamas in Gaza to safety, and more progress in delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.Here’s what Harris just posted on X/Twitter a day after marking the civil rights anniversary, Bloody Sunday, in Alabama.Hamas and Egyptian mediators said on Monday they were pressing on with talks on securing a ceasefire in Gaza, despite an Israeli decision not to send a delegation, Reuters reports.The ceasefire talks, which began on Sunday in Cairo, are billed as a final hurdle to establish the first extended ceasefire of the five-month-old war, in time for the Ramadan Muslim fasting month which is expected to begin on Sunday.Israel has declined to comment publicly on the Cairo talks, including its decision not to attend. A source told Reuters Israel would stay away because Hamas refused a request to list which hostages are still alive, information the Palestinian militants say they will provide only once terms are agreed.
      Talks in Cairo continue for the second day regardless of whether the occupation’s delegation is present in Egypt,” a Hamas official told Reuters on Monday.
      Two Egyptian security sources said mediators were in touch with the Israelis, allowing negotiations to continue despite the delegation’s absence.A Palestinian source close to the talks said the discussions remained “uneasy”, with Israel sticking to its demand for only a temporary truce to free hostages, while Hamas was seeking assurances war would not start up again.Late on Monday, officials from Hamas, Egypt and Qatar began a second round of talks for the day, a Hamas source said.Washington, which is both Israel’s closest ally and a sponsor of the talks, says a deal remains close, with an agreement already effectively approved by Israel and only awaiting acceptance from Hamas.A temporary ceasefire is essential to a deal to release more of the hostages still held by Hamas since they were snatched during the attack by the Islamist group that controls Gaza on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, according to the White House.This news is still emerging over the wires and we’ll bring you details as they unfold. The White House just said there will be additional air drops of US aid over Gaza, which is besieged by Israel and where the north of the territory is almost cut off from aid entirely.Reuters is reporting that the White House stated that the US calls on Hamas to accept terms of a ceasefire and hostage release deal now. More as we get it.US vice president Kamala Harris is due to meet in Washington later this afternoon with Israeli war cabinet member Benny Gantz, a centrist and key rival to the hard right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.The meeting is due to take place at 3pm ET and comes a day after Harris, who was in Alabama for the Bloody Sunday anniversary, urged an “immediate ceasefire” and bluntly called out Israel for not doing enough to ease a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza.Gantz is defying Netanyahu’s wishes in his visit to the US and sit-downs with leaders. He also plans to meet up with secretary of state Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan.Joe Biden has been at Camp David since the weekend, hunkered down as he prepares this Thursday’s mega-high stakes State of the Union address.The supreme court overturned a Colorado ruling that barred Donald Trump from the state’s ballot for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection, issuing a decision that judges nationwide will likely cite to allow him to compete in the remaining Republican primaries, and the November general election. However, the court’s three liberal justices and one conservative worried that the authors of the majority opinion went further than necessary, though for different reasons. In remarks from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump thanked the court for their ruling, while also encouraging them to find him immune from prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. That matter has yet to be decided.Here’s what else is going today:
      Allen Weisselberg, Trump’s former finance chief, pleaded guilty to perjury in New York City.
      Trump’s allies in Congress, including House speaker Mike Johnson and potential vice-presidential pick Elise Stefanik were also pleased with the supreme court’s ruling.
      The justices did not absolve Trump of the charge that he was involved in an insurrection, noted Neal Katyal, who used to argued before the supreme court on behalf of Barack Obama.
      But Donald Trump’s business with the supreme court isn’t finished, and the former president made a point of mentioning that in his speech.The justices have agreed to take up his argument that he is immune from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat, and a ruling in his favor could deal a death blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s case against him.At Mar-a-Lago, Trump said he hoped the high court would once again rule in his favor:
      And while we’re on the subject, and another thing that will be coming up very soon, will be immunity for a president, and not immunity for me, but for any president. If a president doesn’t have full immunity, you really don’t have a president, because nobody that is serving in that office will have the courage to make, in many cases, what would be the right decision, or it could be the wrong decision. It could be in some cases the wrong decision, but they have to make decisions and they have to make them free of all terror that can be rained upon them when they leave office or even before they leave office, and some decisions are very tough.
      I can tell you that as a president that some decisions to make are very tough. I took out ISIS and I took out some very big people from the standpoint of a different part of the world, two of the leading terrorists, probably the two leading terrorists ever, that we’ve ever seen in this world. And those are big decisions. I don’t want to be prosecuted for it.
      The charges against Trump don’t deal with his decisions to kill America’s enemies, but rather his multi-pronged strategy to block Joe Biden from taking office.Donald Trump is now delivering a meandering speech at Mar-a-Lago, where he has cheered the supreme court ruling allowing him to stay on presidential ballots, while also issuing familiar denunciations of the criminal cases against him.At the start of his remarks, the former president thanked the supreme court, saying the decision was “very well crafted. And I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs. And … they worked hard.”Donald Trump is expected to soon deliver remarks from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after the supreme court this morning overturned a Colorado ruling that removed him from the presidential ballot.The court’s unanimous decision is expected to allow him to remain on primary and general election ballots nationwide and thwart a legal campaign to remove him over his participation in the January 6 insurrection.We’ll let you know what Trump says.As expected, Donald Trump’s former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg has admitted to committing perjury in New York City. It’s unclear what that will mean for the former president’s upcoming trial on charges related to paying hush money, but one thing that is clear is that Weisselberg is likely headed back to jail.Here’s more on all that, from the Guardian’s Callum Jones:
      Allen Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to Donald Trump, faces five months in jail after reaching an agreement with prosecutors in New York to plead guilty to perjury in the former US president’s recent civil fraud trial charges.
      As the former chief financial officer in the Trump Organization, Weisselberg was key in helping Trump record his net worth. A defendant in the fraud trial, Weisselberg was accused of helping to inflate Trump’s net worth on government financial documents, misleading lenders.
      That trial ended with a judge imposing a huge financial penalty of more than $450m including interest on Trump. Weisselberg, 76, was ordered to pay $1.1m and permanently banned from serving in the financial control function of any New York business.
      Weisselberg also faces five months in jail after pleading guilty to perjury.
      On the witness stand in October, Weisselberg was evasive, often saying he did not recall the real estate valuations that were at the center of the trial.
      Donald Trump’s many Republican allies in Congress welcomed the supreme court’s ruling allowing him to continue his run for president.Here’s speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a leader of the failed effort to get the supreme court to block Joe Biden’s election victory in 2020:
      Today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed what we all knew: the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in a purely partisan attack against the frontrunner for the Republican presidential primary. States engaging in the same activist, undemocratic behaviors should take notice and leave it to the American people to decide who will be president.
      And New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a member of House Republican leadership who is also seen as a potential running mate for Trump:
      Today’s unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision is a victory for the American people, the Constitution, and our Republic. As I have said since the start, extreme Democrats will shred the Constitution in order to prevent the American people from exercising their constitutional right to vote for President Donald Trump. This dangerous attempt by the radical Left to suppress votes was fundamentally unAmerican and why I was proud to sign on to the amicus brief to the Supreme Court. We the people decide elections, not unelected radical leftists.
      Finally, Jim Jordan, the Ohio congressman and chair of the House judiciary committee who has used the committee’s powers to pursue Joe Biden and his officials:
      Big win for common sense and democracy!
      From the Guardian’s Sam Levine, here’s more on what the supreme court’s decision today will mean for Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House: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 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 quickly be reversed.A few points about the supreme court’s decision allowing Donald Trump to continue running for president, from the Neal Katyal, a former justice department official who argued supreme court cases on behalf of Barack Obama: 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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court to issue ruling as Trump Colorado ballot case looms

      by

      The US supreme court plans to issue at least one ruling on Monday, the day before Colorado holds a presidential primary election in which a lower court kicked Republican frontrunner Donald Trump off the ballot for taking part in an insurrection during the 6 January 2021 US Capitol attack.The supreme court, in an unusual Sunday update to its schedule, did not specify what ruling it would issue. But the justices on 8 February heard arguments in Trump’s appeal of the Colorado ruling and are due to issue their own decision.Colorado is one of 15 states and a US territory holding primary elections on “Super Tuesday”. Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the 5 November election.The Republican party of Colorado has asked the supreme court, whose 6-3 conservative majority include three justices appointed by Trump, to rule before Tuesday in the ballot eligibility case.During arguments, supreme court justices signaled sympathy toward Trump’s appeal of a 19 December ruling by Colorado’s top court to disqualify him from the state’s ballot under the US constitution’s 14th amendment.Section 3 of the 14th amendment bars from holding public office any “officer of the United States” who took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.Trump supporters attacked police and swarmed the Capitol in a bid to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s 2020 election victory. Trump gave an incendiary speech to supporters beforehand, telling them to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell”. He then for hours rebuffed requests that he urge the mob to stop.Anti-Trump forces have sought to disqualify him in more than two dozen other states – a mostly unsuccessful effort – over his actions relating to the January 6 attack. Maine and Illinois also have barred Trump from their ballot, though both those decisions are on hold pending the supreme court’s Colorado ruling.During arguments in the Colorado case, supreme court justices – conservatives and liberals alike – expressed concern about states taking sweeping actions that could impact a presidential election nationwide.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThey pondered how states can properly enforce the section 3 disqualification language against candidates, with several wondering whether Congress must first pass legislation do enable that. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Liz Cheney: supreme court delay will deny voters ‘crucial evidence’ on Trump

      by

      A Republican member of the January 6 committee has said the supreme court’s decision to wade into Donald Trump’s immunity case will deny Americans crucial information about the former president’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.Liz Cheney, a former Wyoming congresswoman who was ousted by primary voters angry at her participation in the hearings that followed the insurrection, also demanded the justices come to a speedy decision.In a message posted to X, formerly Twitter, Cheney, a vocal Trump critic, said voters needed to have a verdict on the presumed Republican presidential nominee before they go to the polls in November.“Delaying the January 6 trial suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear,” she wrote.“Donald Trump attempted to overturn an election and seize power. Our justice system must be able to bring him to trial before the next election. SCOTUS [supreme court of the US] should decide this case promptly.”Justices on Wednesday set the week of 22 April to hear oral arguments over Trump’s assertion that he cannot be held criminally responsible for actions he took to overturn his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden.Trump, who is facing a four-count indictment including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy to obstruct the congressional certification of the election results, has declared the decision a victory, mostly because it puts the trial on hold, possibly until after the election.Some Democrats, meanwhile, are also upbeat about it. The California congressman Ted Lieu, who has previously accused Trump of committing multiple election crimes, said such a delay would work to his party’s advantage at the ballot box.“My view of the SCOTUS action: if the trial is delayed until after November, we will see the largest blue wave in history,” he wrote, also on X.“If November becomes a referendum on whether Trump faces justice, then Democrats will absolutely flip the House, keep the White House and expand the Senate.”Some legal experts are warning the supreme court’s action, along with delays already affecting several of the other legal cases Trump is facing, could have consequences for democracy.While many believe the court will ultimately confirm the rejection by a Washington DC appeals court of Trump’s claim, they say the delay could prove harmful.“This case really is most important in terms of democracy, and the most compelling with the evidence. That makes it very difficult in the sense there would be no verdict on this critical issue that cuts to the heart of democracy,” said Carl Tobias, Williams professor of law at the University of Richmond and a veteran supreme court analyst.“Maybe the supreme court just couldn’t resist, as the highest court in the land, weighing in on this very weighty question of presidential immunity, though most people who are clear-eyed about this don’t believe that there’s much of an argument for immunity in this context.“The court could have been perfectly satisfied with the DC circuit opinion, which was comprehensive and clear, and just seen no reason to take it up. But this is about delay. I don’t think anybody really disputes that. Trump’s theory over his entire life in litigation is that delay is his friend, and here it really is. It’s conceivable none of these cases goes to verdict before the election.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a post on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, Trump claimed that “legal scholars are extremely thankful for the supreme court’s decision”, and insisted without irony that future presidents would fear “wrongful prosecution and retaliation” after they left office if he loses.Trump himself has spoken openly of seeking “retribution and revenge” over political foes if he is returned to office, and said he would appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” Biden and his family.A former lawyer and legal analyst Lisa Rubin said she was “beyond terrified for our country” because the supreme court will delay the trial and potentially affect the election.“I honestly thought there would be enough votes on the court not to take this case, for no other reason than bad facts make bad law,” she told MSNBC News. “And the facts here could not be worse. If there was a context in which you wanted to decide the bounds of presidential immunity it’s not this case.”With oral arguments set for April, a ruling might not be handed down until May at the earliest.Alternatively, in the worst-case scenario for special counsel Jack Smith, the supreme court could wait until the end of its current term in July. That could mean the start of a trial expected to take up to three months might be delayed until no earlier than late September.Trump’s legal strategy has been to stall the various cases against him, ideally until after November’s election, in the hopes that a second term of office will allow him to pardon himself or install a loyal attorney general to drop charges.
      Hugo Lowell contributed reporting More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme court to hear Trump immunity claim in election interference case

      by

      The US supreme court agreed on Wednesday to take up the unprecedented claim that Donald Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution in the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, throwing into jeopardy whether it goes to trial before the 2024 election.The justices set oral arguments for the week of 22 April to consider a recent ruling by a three-judge panel at the US court of appeals for the DC circuit, which categorically rejected Trump’s immunity claim in a decision earlier this month.Trump’s criminal case will remain on hold until the supreme court ultimately rules on the matter, inserting it into the politically charged position of potentially influencing whether Trump will go to trial before the presidential election in November.The unsigned order said the court intended to address at oral arguments “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office”.In the federal 2020 election case, Trump faces a four-count indictment in Washington DC brought by the special counsel, Jack Smith, that charges him with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct the congressional certification of the election results, and violating rights.Trump sought to have the charges dismissed last year, arguing in a 52-page filing that the conduct he was charged with fell under the so-called “outer perimeter” of his official duties, which meant he could not be prosecuted because of the broad protections afforded to the presidency.The motion to dismiss contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat detailed in the indictment, from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification of Biden’s victory 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.The arguments were rejected by the presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan, and subsequently by the three-judge panel at the DC circuit, which wrote in an unsigned but unanimous decision that they could not endorse such an interpretation of executive power.“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches,” the opinion said. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”Trump’s lawyers settled on advancing the immunity claim last October in large part because it is what is known as an interlocutory appeal – an appeal that can be litigated pre-trial – and one that crucially put the case on hold while it was resolved.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPutting the case on hold was important because Trump’s overarching strategy has been to seek delay, ideally even beyond the election, in the hopes that winning a second presidency could enable him to pardon himself or allow him to install a loyal attorney general who would drop the charges.The involvement of the supreme court now means the case continues to remain frozen until the justices issue a ruling. And even if the court rules against Trump, the case may not be ready for trial until late into the summer or beyond.The reason that Trump will not go to trial as soon as the supreme court rules is because Trump is technically entitled to the “defense preparation time” that he had remaining when he filed his first appeal to the DC circuit on 8 December 2023, which triggered the stay.Trump has 87 days remaining from that period, calculated by finding the difference between the original 4 March trial date and 8 December. The earliest that Trump could go to trial in Washington, as a result, is by adding 87 days to the date of the supreme court’s final decision.With oral arguments set for April, a ruling might not be handed down until May. Alternatively, in the worst case scenario for the special counsel, the supreme court could wait until the end of its current term in July, which could mean the trial might be delayed until late September at the earliest. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Special counsel urges supreme court to reject Trump’s bid to delay election trial

      by

      The special counsel prosecuting Donald Trump on federal charges involving the former president’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss has urged the US supreme court to reject Trump’s bid to further delay trial proceedings as he presses his claim of immunity.Jack Smith’s filing to the justices responded to a request by Trump’s lawyers on Monday to put on hold a decision by a three-judge panel of the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit rejecting the claim of presidential immunity from prosecution.If the justices do not immediately reject Trump’s request Smith asked the court to take up the case and hear it on a fast-track basis.Trump’s lawyers asked the justices to halt the trial proceedings pending their bid for the full slate of judges on the DC circuit to reconsider the case, and, if necessary, an appeal to the supreme court.The supreme court in December declined Smith’s request to decide the immunity claim even before the DC circuit ruled – a bid by the special counsel to speed up the process of resolving the matter. The justices opted instead to let the lower appeals court rule first, as is customary.A 4 March trial date for Trump in federal court in Washington on four criminal counts pursued by Smith in the election subversion case was postponed, with no new date yet set. Trump has pleaded not guilty and has sought to portray the case as politically motivated.“The nation has a compelling interest in seeing the charges brought to trial,” Smith said in his filing to the justices, adding that “the public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former president is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office”.Smith said Trump’s criminal charges reflect an alleged effort to “perpetuate himself in power and prevent the lawful winner of the 2020 presidential election from taking office. The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy.”“A president’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law,” Smith added.Trump’s lawyers claim a months-long criminal trial of Trump “at the height of election season will radically disrupt” his ability to campaign against Joe Biden.Trump is charged with 91 felony counts across four criminal cases – in New York, Florida, Washington and Georgia. He denies all the charges and faces the threat of prison if convicted.In the federal election interference case, Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, in his relentless pursuit to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election and remain in office.On 6 January 2021, a group of Trump’s supporters broke in to the US Capitol in a deadly but failed effort to prevent the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Trump had urged them to “fight like hell” at a rally near the White House just before the insurrection, then did not take strong action to call the mob off after they attacked police officers and invaded Congress.On Thursday, two hearings will take place in two of the other cases. Trump is expected to attend a hearing in New York in the case involving an alleged hush money scheme during the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors accuse Trump of illegally reimbursing his former fixer Michael Cohen for money paid to the adult film producer and actor Stormy Daniels. This case is due to go to trial in March.And in Atlanta, a judge will hold a hearing in the state election interference and racketeering case brought against Trump and multiple co-defendants, where details will be presented about Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis’s relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.And Trump awaits the decision of a civil judge in New York on the fraud case against his family business, the Trump Organization, which could gut his real estate empire. More