The podcast analyzes the Supreme Court arguments in the case about whether the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies Trump. It delves into the authority of states to disqualify federal officials and the implications for choosing the president. The arguments presented in the Supreme Court case are examined, along with remarks made by Trump and Justice Alito. Sponsored ads and discussions on other podcasts are also included.
Read more
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The Supreme Court is considering whether states can disqualify federal office holders without congressional authorization under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The justices focused more on technical procedural questions and interpretations of section three rather than the underlying conduct of insurrection on January 6th.
The court's opinion may be fractured, with different justices leaning towards various interpretations and justifications, making it unclear how they will ultimately justify their decision and which theory will command a majority.
Deep dives
The Oral Argument in Trump Versus Anderson
In this episode, the hosts break down the oral argument in Trump versus Anderson, a case about whether section three of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot or holding the office of the presidency due to his alleged role in January 6th. The argument focused on technical procedural questions regarding who can enforce section three and against whom, as well as whether the provision applies to the president at all. The justices did not seem interested in the argument that states can't disqualify federal office holders without congressional authorization. Instead, it seemed like the court was leaning towards reversing the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on the grounds that states cannot disqualify federal office holders without Congress's authorization. There were multiple theories discussed, including the idea that the 14th Amendment restricts state power and gives authority to Congress to enforce it, that federal supremacy principles suggest states should not have a primary role in matters of national importance, and that there is a strong interest in uniformity when selecting a president for the entire country. However, it was noted that this direction could potentially lead to chaos and practical issues. The arguments regarding the presidential oath and whether presidents are considered officers of the United States did not gain much traction. Overall, it appears that the court's opinion may be fractured, with some justices coalescing around one theory while others explore different justifications.
The Underlying Conduct of Trump and the Definition of Insurrection
During the oral argument of Trump versus Anderson, there was minimal discussion about whether Donald Trump had engaged in insurrection, despite this being a central issue in the case. The justices mostly avoided engaging with the underlying conduct and focused more on technical procedural questions regarding section three of the 14th Amendment. However, Justice Kagan and others did question whether Trump's actions on January 6th constituted an insurrection. Although Jonathan Mitchell, representing Trump, resisted this characterization, he acknowledged that the events were shameful, criminal, and violent. Mitchell argued that the events did not qualify as an insurrection as defined in section three of the 14th Amendment. The limited engagement with this argument suggests that the court's focus was primarily on interpreting the constitutional provisions and determining the role of states in disqualifying federal officeholders.
The Neglected Arguments of Trump's Brief
Several arguments presented in Donald Trump's brief received minimal attention during the oral argument of Trump versus Anderson. One of these arguments was that Trump had never taken an oath to support the Constitution, and therefore section three of the 14th Amendment did not apply to him. Another argument was that presidents are not considered officers of the United States, and thus should not be subject to the provisions of section three. However, these arguments did not gain much traction, with justices showing little interest and even skepticism towards them. Elena Kagan, in particular, questioned the rationale behind exempting the presidency from the provisions of the 14th Amendment, given the potential implications and lack of reasons to support such an exemption. Amy Coney Barrett also expressed doubt regarding the officer argument. Overall, these neglected arguments suggest that the court was more focused on other legal and constitutional interpretations of section three, rather than these specific and less compelling arguments presented in Trump's brief.
Potential Fractured Opinions and Uncertain Direction
The oral argument in Trump versus Anderson indicated that the court's opinion may be fractured, with different justices leaning towards various interpretations and justifications. While there seemed to be a general inclination to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, the specific reasoning and direction of the court remained uncertain. Various theories were discussed, including the restriction of state power, federal supremacy principles, and the interest in uniformity when selecting a president. However, each theory had its limitations and potential practical complexities. Some arguments, such as whether Trump engaged in insurrection or the definition of an officer, received minimal attention and failed to gain traction with the justices. As a result, it is unclear how the court will ultimately justify its decision and which specific theory will command a majority. This uncertainty suggests that the court's opinion could entail a coalescing around one theory with some additional side writings exploring other arguments that did not gain much support from the justices.
First Amendment Argument: Trump's rights to free speech
One of the surprising arguments made in the podcast episode was that the First Amendment could protect Donald Trump from facing any penalty for his actions on January 6th. The argument suggests that because Trump was exercising his rights to free speech, the First Amendment prevents any punishment for his involvement in the events. This argument, while not receiving much airtime in Trump's brief, was discussed, along with the additional argument that there should be congressional authorization before disqualification can occur.
Concerns about Structuralism and Possible Retaliation
Justice Samuel Alito raised some new arguments during the podcast episode, fueling the discussion. One argument centered around the idea that there could be a structuralist argument against disqualification, based on Alito's concerns with the Colorado Supreme Court's proceedings. He also expressed worry about potential retaliation if Colorado were allowed to disqualify Trump, suggesting that other states could use similar tactics to exclude political opponents by labeling them as insurrectionists. This line of questioning seemed to intrigue and excite Trump during the arguments.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case about whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot or holding the office of the presidency because of his role in January 6th. Melissa, Kate, and Leah break down the arguments and what it will mean if the Supreme Court reverses the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.
