Law above all, and no exception for Trump – a sentiment powerfully articulated by a conservative columnist, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to consider it before their final decision which will seal Trump’s fate in the ongoing presidential race.
Is Trump Above the Law?
In his New York Times piece, David French insists that the Supreme Court must ignore the potential reactions of Donald Trump’s supporters if he’s barred from running for office.
French’s stance is clear: the law must be the guiding principle.
Looming Violence
French also supports the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment, stating it’s time to stop fretting about potential violence from Trump’s actions.
Nation Awaits
French further elaborated, saying that the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the Civil War-era amendment as it relates to the former president will probably polarize the nation. He believes the justices should confront this reality head-on, rather than look for ways around it.
Landmark Decisions
French emphasized the need for the court to show the same resolve as in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education and the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, which significantly disrupted women’s rights to private health decisions.
Breaking the Cycle of “Lies”
Warning about the alleged misleading tactics employed by Trump and his allies, French noted, “This is where we are, and have now been for years: The Trump movement commits threats, violence and lies. And then it tries to escape accountability for those acts through more threats, more violence and more lies.”
Nation at Risk
Addressing the “but the consequences” reasoning against disqualifying Trump, French views it as an implicit acknowledgment that punishing Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 violence could provoke more violence.
“Enough”
“Enough. It’s time to apply the plain language of the Constitution to Trump’s actions and remove him from the ballot — without fear of the consequences. Republics are not maintained by cowardice,” he added.
A Dangerous Game
French argues that endlessly debating the precise definition of “insurrection” is a never-ending task. He argues while Trump wasn’t aiming for a separate republic, his goal was to “illegally” maintain control over the executive branch.
“His foot soldiers didn’t wear gray or deploy cannons, but they did storm the United States Capitol, something the Confederate Army could never accomplish,” he explained.
Reasonable Hopes
Based on French’s logic, he suggests that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a conservative Supreme Court to apply Section 3 to Trump. He also believes it’s within reason to expect the court to involve itself in a presidential race and to make rulings “that have a profound and destabilizing effect” on the political landscape of America.
Integrity vs. Public Reaction
French further advises that the Supreme Court should not allow the “fear” of public backlash to prevent it from upholding the clear wording of the Constitution, noting that Americans are currently in the midst of the crisis that the amendment was specifically intended to tackle
Lost Wisdom?
Highlighting a potential outcome, French warns, “If the court rules against Trump, the nation will be told to brace for violence. That’s what seditionists do.”
He then remarks on the contemporary GOP, “Republicans are rightly proud of their Civil War-era history. The Party of Lincoln, as it was known, helped save the Union, and it was the Party of Lincoln that passed the 14th Amendment and ratified it in statehouses across the land. The wisdom of the old Republican Party should now save us from the fecklessness and sedition of the new.”
On Edge
The Supreme Court’s decision looms, and America is on edge. It’s more than a Trump issue – it’s a crucial test of how our Constitution stands up today, whose impending decision will shape Trump’s future in the present presidential race.
More from AllThingsFinance: Court Finally Unseals Secretive Case of Jan 6 Offender
Samuel Lazar sentenced for Jan. 6 insurrection; previously confidential case now revealed: Court Finally Unseals Secretive Case of Jan 6 Offender
Jack Smith continues pushing Judge Cannon, reminding her that “the speedy trial clock” is ticking
Jack Smith urges Judge Aileen Cannon for a speedy trial in a classified documents case involving ex-President Trump: Jack Smith continues pushing Judge Cannon, reminding her that “the speedy trial clock” is ticking
Defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake advances while people compare her to Rudy Giuliani
Kari Lake loses First Amendment right to accuse Maricopa County recorder; Arizona Republic ponders if she’s channeling Rudy Giuliani in her sleep : Defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake advances while people compare her to Rudy Giuliani
More Democrats are flipping in a crucial swing state than Republicans
In Pennsylvania, a significant number of registered Democrats flipping is sending an unflattering signal to President Biden: More Democrats are flipping in a crucial swing state than Republicans
