The conservative justices' concern about the consequences of disqualifying Trump raises questions about their commitment to originalism and state's rights.
The menacing tone and threats made during the oral arguments reveal a potential bias in favor of protecting Trump's eligibility and a disregard for democratic principles.
Deep dives
Attempts to keep Trump on the ballot despite insurrectionist actions
The oral arguments in the Trump v. Anderson case indicate a bipartisan effort to keep Trump on the ballot despite his engagement in an insurrection. Justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito express concerns about the consequences of allowing Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot, arguing that it may lead to frivolous lawsuits or retaliation from red states. This indicates a departure from their usual stance of state's rights and a potential threat to the principles of democracy. The liberal justices, on the other hand, seem to be speaking from a place of principle, pressing for the application of the Constitution's Section 3, while also looking for some kind of compromise or trade-off in return.
Threats and veiled warnings towards states considering ballot disqualification
The oral arguments in the Trump v. Anderson case featured veiled threats towards states looking to disqualify a candidate from the ballot. Jonathan Mitchell, arguing on behalf of Trump, warned of chaos and threats of frivolous lawsuits if Colorado is allowed to remove Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Justices like Samuel Alito also echoed concerns about vexatious lawsuits arising from red states in retaliation. This menacing tone and threat towards states using their constitutional powers is alarming and speaks to a potential bias in favor of protecting Trump's ability to run for office, rather than upholding democratic principles.
Selective judicial humility and hypocrisy
The oral arguments in the Trump v. Anderson case revealed a selective application of judicial humility, with conservative justices like John Roberts suddenly embracing this principle. They expressed concerns about the court interfering in Colorado's decision to disqualify Trump, citing potential consequences and the need to respect states' prerogatives. However, this stance contradicts their past rulings, such as in gun rights cases, where they've shown little concern for consequences and instead focused on originalist interpretations. This hypocrisy is concerning and raises questions about the motivations behind protecting Trump's eligibility and the treatment of other constitutional issues that arise in different contexts.
Importance of reaching a favorable compromise for democracy
Despite the worrisome arguments and threats made during the oral arguments, there remains hope that the liberal justices will achieve a favorable compromise in the Trump v. Anderson case. While the conservative justices seem inclined to protect Trump's eligibility, the liberal justices can work behind the scenes to negotiate a fair outcome that upholds democratic principles and accountability. It is crucial for the court to consider the long-term impact of their decision and prevent potential abuses of power by red states. By finding a middle ground that ensures accountability without sacrificing democratic values, the court can send a strong message about the integrity of our democracy.
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court Thursday in Trump v. Anderson revealed a lot about some of the justices’ commitment to the primacy of originalism. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss why his organization took up and pursued the long shot case to try to keep former President Donald J Trump off the ballot in Colorado. While the Supreme Court appeared to have little appetite for taking the big swing to find that Trump had disqualified himself from office when he engaged in an insurrection, Noah insists the case is far from having been in vain - eloquently highlighting the dangerous potential consequences of inaction. It's a chilling reminder of what’s at stake.
Next, Dahlia is joined by slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern to discuss whether the liberal justices have some grand bargain in mind as they offered multiple off-ramps for Trump’s side, despite dozens of bipartisan briefs arguing for Trump to be kept off the ballot, the court’s originalist’s sudden concern for consequences in this case, when they have had no interest in weighing the life and death consequences for ordinary people in cases concerning guns and abortion. Finally, they tackle a worrying undercurrent to Thursday’s arguments: an apparent capitulation to threats of chaos and violence as a basis for deciding constitutional cases.
In our Slate Plus segment, Mark sticks around to discuss a landmark gun decision out of the Hawaii Supreme Court, and why it’s a problem that DOJ’s special counsel, Robert Hur, issued a report declining to prosecute, but affirming that Joe Biden is old (hint: the problem isn’t that he’s old).
Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
