Supreme Court to the Rescue? Will the High Court Play Savior in America’s Latest Legal Circus?
Supreme Court to the Rescue? Will the High Court Play Savior in America’s Latest Legal Circus?
One might assume that the Supreme Court would feel a sense of obligation to address the issue of a former President being excluded from the ballot in certain states.
The Supreme Court urgently needs to pick up the pace and take on the Trump ballot cases. The nation’s patience and the principles of our democracy are seemingly on a tightrope with each passing day. The phrase "It's a Republic if you can keep it" resonates deeply as each new legal challenge tests our great experiment.
How the U.S. Supreme Court Decides to Hear A Case... Or Not
The United States Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the majority of cases submitted to it. Each year, the Court is presented with thousands of petitions for a writ of certiorari—a request to review a case. However, it only agrees to hear a small fraction of these. The Court exercises considerable discretion in its decision to take a case, though it typically considers factors like the national importance of the case, its potential to resolve conflicts in the interpretation of federal law or the Constitution across different lower courts, and the opportunity to correct serious errors in lower courts' legal interpretations. There are exceptional cases known as "original jurisdiction" cases, where the Court is mandated to hear the case. These are usually disputes between states or cases involving a state as a party, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. These cases are rare.
One might assume that the Supreme Court would feel a sense of obligation to address the issue of a former President being excluded from the ballot in certain states. However, in this particular situation, original jurisdiction does not apply. Considering the significant importance of such a matter, it would seem reasonable to anticipate that the Court might expedite its decision-making process to address the case. Numerous Republicans contend that the very essence of our constitutional republic is at stake. Yet, the Court has been slow to respond.
The Supreme Court lacks original jurisdiction in matters concerning the ballot access of candidates, including Donald Trump or anyone else. State laws and regulations primarily govern presidential candidate ballot access. Disputes or challenges related to this are initially heard in state courts or federal district courts. These cases may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if so, the Court acts in an appellate capacity, not under original jurisdiction. Should a ballot access case reach the Supreme Court, it would be through the appellate process, giving the Court discretion over whether to hear the case.
Consequently, we find ourselves in a kind of limbo, collectively holding our breath as these ballot access disputes make their way up the judicial ladder. Eventually, they will reach the Supreme Court, where the justices have the discretion to choose whether or not to intervene. Several cases are already at the Court’s doorstep, with additional states poised to join the queue.
Legal Cases: The Tug-of-War Over Trump's Election Eligibility
Donald Trump is entangled in various legal challenges, it is hard to keep up!
While this article zeroes in on his ballot access issues, an overarching view of his legal troubles is beneficial. Here’s a brief summary of the key legal battles he’s facing:
The Espionage Act Case: Scheduled for trial in May 2024, Trump faces 32 felony counts for allegedly willfully retaining national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act. These charges relate to documents allegedly kept at Mar-a-Lago post-presidency.
Georgia Election Interference Case: Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia have led to charges including racketeering and solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer.
The Stormy Daniels Saga: Involving purported “hush money payments” during the 2016 campaign, Trump faces 34 felony counts for falsifying business records. The trial is set for late March 2024.
E. Jean Carroll Defamation Suit: Trump faces a defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape in the 1990s. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Trump cannot claim presidential immunity in this case.
Ballot Access Cases: Are They the Democrats’ Ace in the Hole Against Trump?
Alongside these legal battles, which will tie Trump up in court in 2024, there have been efforts to keep Trump off the ballot in future elections. These attempts hinge largely on the legal outcomes and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which bars individuals who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. To date, here are the states that have attempted to boot him from the ballot.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump ineligible to serve as president again. But after the decision was appealed the Court paused its ruling anticipating the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Maine’s Secretary of State determined Trump ineligible for the primary ballot.
However, the tate supreme courts in Michigan and Minnesota, along with California’s Secretary of State, allowed Trump to remain on their primary ballots.
The legal arguments focus on whether Trump’s actions on January 6th constitute participating in an insurrection, and whether the insurrection clause applies to the office of the presidency. The application of this clause has rarely been used outside the context of the Civil War and has never been applied to a presidential candidate before.
The ballot access cases against Trump, pivotal in the upcoming elections, underscore the dynamic interplay between historical laws and current political strategies. These cases, pivoting on the 14th Amendment, have seen varied outcomes across states, reflecting the nuanced legal interpretations of Trump's alleged actions. Our previous article delved into the antique nature of this amendment, highlighting its significance in today's legal landscape. As these cases evolve, they continue to test the resilience of our Constitution.
The writer is a democrat!!!
Great!!! Take Joe Biden off of the ballot in ALL red states.