As Styx says, this was always going to be the outcome. So stop trying to remove Trump from your state ballots, you stupid fuckers.
Doubtless, the left will find another way to channel its desperation.
(I admit I was surprised to see SCOTUS speak with one voice on this.)
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.
AND A NEW RULE (per this post): comments critical of Trump's lying must include criticism of Biden's or Kamala's or some prominent leftie's lying on a one-for-one basis! Failure to be balanced means your comment will not be published.
Not to split hairs, but the title is a bit misleading.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe they're ruling that Trump is eligible, but rather that Colorado doesn't have the right to say that he is not. To me there is a small but important difference.
So Colorado can't deny eligibility... which means he must be eligible. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling is going to apply to all other states where rogue elements think they can misinterpret the Constitution by pulling such a move.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court doesn't seem to be commenting either way on his eligibility. They are saying that Colorado doesn't have standing to exclude him. They are merely saying that his eligibility should be decided by Congress, rather than individual states. If Congress were to vote to exclude him, he would presumably appeal again, and then they would have have to get off the fence and determine his real eligibility.
ReplyDelete(Apologies for repetitiveness.)
ReplyDeleteIf Trump is being allowed back on the ballot because the Supreme Court has denied the state's exclusion of him on the ballot, then they're saying he must be allowed back on. My understanding is that the Court ruled against the state's logic because Trump has not officially been found guilty of insurrection, so the 14th-Amendment reasoning that's been used to exclude him does not apply.
The question is: does can't exclude = must include?
In the abstract, these might not be the same thing logically, but in this concrete case, I think they are effectively the same thing. There's a definite implication about Trump's eligibility if he can't be left off the ballot.
Imagine Trump is barred from entering a restaurant for reasons XYZ. A court finds that XYZ don't hold water, so Trump cannot be barred from entering. This clearly means Trump must be allowed to enter, i.e., the court upholds the potential for him to enter the restaurant. Trump might opt never to visit the restaurant, but if/when he does, he cannot be barred from entry. The restaurant could conceivably offer reasons ABC to bar Trump, but that's a totally separate issue. Until ABC are offered as reasons (and ABC are ruled as legitimate reasons), Trump cannot be turned away.
I think most righties are with me on this: this was a victory for Trump because he's being allowed back on the ballot. By implication, Trump is eligible to be voted for in the primaries and caucuses (I'm not sure whether the ruling applies to the general election in November). A liberal state judge tried to kick Trump off the primary/caucus ballot, reasoning that an office-holder who led/abetted insurrection cannot be eligible to run for office. This reasoning was found to be specious, so Trump is back on the ballot in Colorado; any other states that try the same strategy are put on notice that the same reasoning (14th Amendment, insurrection) will not stand because this ruling sets a precedent.
So it comes down to:
1. Trump got kicked off the ballot and deemed ineligible to be voted for.
2. The reasoning for kicking Trump off was found to be specious.
3. Trump is back on the ballot (i.e., eligible to be voted for).
Trump's presence on the ballot logically implies his eligibility. How can he be ineligible yet still appear on the ballot? To me, that makes no sense.
The initial cause of this exchange was the accusation that my post title was misleading. I don't think it was. Most people on the right (except the Trump-haters) see this as a positive, and as a clear victory for Trump. And by extension, the left is currently having a conniption. I trust, though, that the left will move on to another dubiously legal strategy to either keep Trump off the ballot or see him put in jail.
Now, if you're saying that the Supreme Court did not make an across-the-board ruling on Trump's eligibility, then I agree, but my post title never implied that the Court did that. This is a ruling with a narrow scope: the state-level, 14th-Amendment reasoning being used against Trump is (from what I understand) unconstitutional. Trump could conceivably be found ineligible on other grounds, but not on the grounds that he committed an act of insurrection (because he was never found to have done so)—a charge that even Jack Smith avoided making.
Also of note: Styx starts off his video with the phrase "SCOTUS finally releasing its decision with regards to Trump's ballot eligibility." I realize that quoting Styx is a crass appeal to authority on my part and not a logical argument, but my point is that this is how Americans are viewing the case: through the lens of eligibility. It's an analytical truth: if you're a husband, then logically, you must be married. If you're on the ballot, then logically, you must be eligible to be voted for.
ReplyDeleteIt's getting quite late so I won't write a veritable essay, but will try and set out what I was getting at while sticking with the restaurant analogy.
ReplyDelete1. Customer (Trump) arrives at the restaurant, which has a somewhat nebulous dress code.
2. The valet tells him he can't come in because he doesn't comply with the dress code.
3. Eventually, we end up in the Supreme Court, who make a ruling that says something to the effect of "We are not making a comment on whether or not the customer has complied with the dress code, but we find that the valet is not in the position to impose the dress code. That can only be done by restaurant manager.
Ergo, they are not saying he is eligible to enter the restaurant, but that the valet (Colorado) was not eligible to tell him he could not.
Still, it's your blog and you may phrase things how you wish. And it's very possible that I am missing further insight compared to you, as I have only a moderate interest in US politics.
If it's really not about eligibility, then I guess the first test will be whether Trump is on all ballots for Super Tuesday (he is). The next test will be whether he's eligible to be voted for (i.e., on the ballot) in November. To me, it seems everything the Democrats are doing is about keeping Trump off the ballot, i.e., making sure he can't be voted for. So to my mind, this whole thing is about eligibility. But we'll see.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we are disagreeing over different things. Is he eligible to be voted for? Yes.
ReplyDeleteIs he eligible to stand? There is as yet no definitive ruling on that. Magaloons would say hell yeah, and plenty of others (including the state of Colorado would argue no.
To flip the switch, if we go back to the halcyon days of Obama, Trump is on record questioning whether Obama was eligible to run for President because he claimed he was born in Kenya or Indonesia or whatever. Obama ended up on the ballet, so he was eligible to be voted for but the birther nuts would never (correct me if I'm wrong on this) acknowledge that he was technically eligible to run.
Even now with Biden, is he eligible to make decisions as President. Yes, he's signing things and whatever every day. Do Magaloons believe he is eligible to call himself President? No, because in their eyes there was voter fraud.
My original point related to your title, and I only picked you up on it because in all the years I've been reading your blog, you've always come across as a stickler for grammar and clear meaning. If this was one of those stupid questions on the 수능, where you are given a passage of text and asked to choose the title that best fits the passage, I would suggest the most appropriate title would be something like "Supreme Court denies Colorado's Petition to have Trump Exlcluded from the Ballot" rather than "Supreme Court affirms Trump's eligibility to stand". Technically, you are right in that he is eligible to stand because the Supreme Court told Colorado to naff off, but I think the jury is still out on his eligibility vis a vis having committed insurrection.
On another note, I wonder if, from your position as an apparently right-leaning person, do you ever feel a dichotomy between your political views and your situation as a yank living in Korea, who is somewhat acclimated to life in Korea, but is definitely not Koreanized. We both enjoy favourable immigration regulations here. We both enjoy the benefits of free trade in being able to find goodies from home. We both enjoy the benefits of relatively cheap healthcare. (If you'd've had your stroke back home, you would probably have been completely fucked) etc. etc. Personally, I could never see myself voting Tory, because of the harsh immigration rules they've put in place against international couples that effectively leaves a lot of Brits with foreign spouses and children exiled from the UK, because they can't meet the ridiculously high financial requirements.
Effectively, I see living as an expat long-term in one country is fairly incongruent with being a conservative voter. I imagine if the next President of Korea turns out to be a Trump clone, our lives here would take a turn for the worse. If you have any thoughts on this, I'd be interested to here them.
I think I'll have to write up a blog post to answer all of these questions, so please sit tight.
ReplyDelete