The podcast discusses Trump's legal battles to stay on the Colorado ballot, critiquing the Supreme Court's decision. Topics include Justice Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence, dissent from liberal justices, and the lack of consequences for insurrectionist actions. The episode concludes with banter with guest Jay Willis and promotions for social media and Patreon.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Anderson reaffirmed that states cannot unilaterally disqualify candidates based on the Constitution's Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The liberal justices expressed dissent over the implications of the decision, highlighting concerns about potential chaos in national elections if states enforce different standards for candidate eligibility based on insurrection.
Deep dives
Colorado Cannot Bar Trump from Ballot - Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Trump v. Anderson that Colorado cannot prevent Trump from running for federal office. The case addressed whether Colorado could bar Trump from appearing on presidential ballots due to his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. The 9-0 decision stated that states cannot unilaterally disqualify candidates based on the Constitution's Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The liberal justices, while agreeing with the outcome, criticized the reasoning behind the decision.
Liberal Justices' Dissent - Lack of Clarity in the Law
The liberal justices, despite agreeing with the result, expressed dissent over the decision's implications. They raised concerns that the majority opinion was an overhaul of the legal understanding of insurrection and eligibility for office. The liberal concurrence highlighted the potential chaos in national elections if individual states enforce different standards for candidate eligibility based on insurrection. They criticized the lack of clarity in the law and the court's abdication of addressing whether Trump engaged in insurrection.
Broad Language in Question Presented - Open-Ended Inquiry
The Supreme Court's broad question presented in Trump v. Anderson allowed for a range of arguments regarding Colorado's decision to bar Trump from the ballot. Trump's lawyers presented various arguments, including questioning whether the presidency constitutes a federal office under the 14th Amendment. The open-ended framing of the question contributed to the complex legal discussions and allowed for divergent interpretations of candidate disqualification based on insurrection.
Missed Opportunity for Liberal Justices - Impact on Democracy
The liberal justices missed an opportunity to clarify the application of the 14th Amendment's Section 3 on insurrection and office eligibility. By not providing a robust dissent, they failed to challenge the subtle shift in interpreting the law and its implications. This decision, seen as a setback for accountability and democracy, underscores the importance of clear legal principles in upholding the Constitution's integrity and ensuring fair electoral processes.
We're joined by Balls and Strikes' Jay Willis in this emergency episode to talk about Trump v. Anderson, which challenged Colorado removing Trump from the primary ballot. In a shocking twist, the Court held that Colorado can't do that. JK that's not shocking - the twist is that the dogs you hear barking in this episode are Jay's, not Michael's.
If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.
5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.
Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon.