The Biden administration made the right move by not engaging in Trump’s legal troubles, especially regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding his eligibility. But could there be a downside to this decision?
Staying quiet
The Biden administration is staying quiet while the country awaits the SCOTUS’ decision regarding the Colorado case, where Trump was removed from the ballot. That is highly unusual because, as Politico noted, in high-stakes cases, “the Justice Department weighs in with the official views of the executive branch” because the outcome affects the federal government.
Law professor describes the delicate situation
UCLA law professor Rick Hasen told Politico, “Even if it is the most cautious, careful, lawyerly argument, having the administration of a sitting president weigh in on whether his opponent is eligible to serve strikes me as a bit too delicate and would be seen as political posturing, even if just meant to help the court.”
The nation is waiting
Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Trump’s ballot eligibility case, which did not sit well with the former president. The oral arguments are scheduled for February 8, and Trump’s lawyers argued in a legal brief that challenging Trump’s eligibility will threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans” and “promise to unleash chaos and bedlam.”
Implications of the ruling
The Politico noted that the ruling might go beyond Trump. The outlet wrote, “It could affect how numerous federal officers are covered under unrelated legal provisions, and it could even implicate other portions of the 14th Amendment that protect civil rights.”
Weissmann is not worried
Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer and Assistant United States Attorney from 1991 to 2002, wrote on X that Biden’s decision not to intervene was a “Smart move.” He added, “This is not a political issue but a legal one.”
No claims of interference
Weissmann, who was a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office, further wrote on X, “Whichever way the Supreme Court goes, it insulates the decision from legitimate claims of political interference. Something a Trump Administration would not think twice about itself doing.”
Division among conservatives
Upon learning that the SCOTUS would hear both sides of the argument regarding Amendment 14 Section 3, numerous GOP lawmakers signed a Supreme Court brief to keep Trump on the ballot despite Colorado and Maine taking him off.
McConnell and Johnson are among them
While Speaker Johnson’s name was not surprising, Senator McConnell’s was since, following the January 6 riots, he stated, “Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” and added, “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”
Many lawmakers need Trump to be cleared of insurrection
As MSNBC previously reported, signing this brief was “self-serving” for many GOP lawmakers. The brief even says, “Although not directly relevant to President Trump, the Colorado Supreme Court would give itself the power to judge the qualifications of those who would be elected to the House or Senate.”
Democrats weighed in
Democratic lawmakers, especially those in the legal field, made it clear that they do not think the former president should be on the ballot. However, most of the comments are personal, like Democratic senator Tim Kaine of Virginia saying, “In my view, the attack on the Capitol that day was designed for a particular purpose at a particular moment, and that was to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power as is laid out in the constitution.” He added, “I think there is a powerful argument to be made.”
Raskin on the 14th Amendment
Raskin, who was a constitutional law professor for decades, argued, “Of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”
People have “disqualified themselves”
Raskin added, “Donald Trump is in that tiny, tiny number of people who have essentially disqualified themselves.” He continued, ” If you don’t like the rules of the Constitution, change the Constitution.”
Conservative Judge’s argument
The Atlantic published a piece by conservative federal judge J Michael Luttig and Harvard law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe echoing Raskin’s statements, “The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.”
Read Next: What Really Causes Donald Trump’s Skin to be So Orange
Former President Donald Trump’s distinctive orange skin has captivated attention, sparking curiosity about its evolution from average pale over the years:
What Really Causes Donald Trump’s Skin to be So Orange
27 Things MAGA Movement Ruined Forever for People
How the MAGA movement left its mark on individuals and disrupted certain aspects of our everyday life forever:
27 Things MAGA Movement Ruined Forever for People
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
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
