This morning’s oral argument in Trump v. Anderson, the Colorado case ruling Donald Trump ineligible to appear on its ballot by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment’s insurrection clause, wasn’t particularly surprising. The Supreme Court doesn’t want to be in the business of kicking Donald Trump off of any ballots and this morning’s hearing amounted to an extended jam session for the justices to figure out some coherent reason to dispense with the case.
And while Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell wasn’t helping the Court — the justices kept jumping in to offer unsolicited advice on the arguments he should be making that he never quite grasped — by the end it seemed the justices came to the conclusion that, whatever the Fourteenth Amendment means, individual states can’t apply the insurrection clause to federal candidates.
Which honestly makes a lot of sense. Certainly a lot more sense than the “what if when the Constitution says the president is an officer it didn’t mean an officer?” argument Trump’s been rolling with.
That's why the popular vote should be the standard. Not people voting just for the chance that their vote will count. That's a scam election system. Doesn't matter what the reasoning is. We've got people getting into office who didn't get the most votes PERIOD. Flip coin for president? What kind of democracy or republic is that?
ReplyDelete