"Strict textualist" Trump "has been hoisted on his own petard," says ex-acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal
www.yahoo.com
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority opinion read. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
A lower court judge
previously found that Trump engaged in insurrection but agreed with his lawyers’ arguments that Section 3 does not apply to the president. The state Supreme Court majority disagreed.
“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the majority opinion wrote. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”
Conservative attorney George Conway told MSNBC that he had been “skeptical” until seeing how “weak” the dissents were in the case — even as he acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn the ruling anyway.
“I have been a little skeptical of this theory until last night," Conway said. "Now I'm completely sold. I was sold by the dissents. I have been skeptical of this theory not because I found anything that [legal experts] said was wrong…I just thought, well, it's a little too good to be true. I really do want to see Donald Trump beaten at the polls, so I have been a little skeptical.
"Then I read the dissents," he added. "They are so unbelievably weak that I'm now convinced there really isn't an argument against what the Supreme Court did."
Conway argued that Section 3 does not mention requiring a conviction and none of the dissenting judges disagreed with the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection. (huh, even the dissenting judges think trump engaged in insurrection)
"It's strong evidence," he said. "You don't see the dissents challenging those findings at all, and in fact, there's no basis to challenge the findings. When you go to the majority opinion and read the 30 or 40 pages on what happened on Jan. 6 and what Donald Trump did before and during Jan. 6, there's no dispute. We saw it on television, and we know what happened. He engaged in an insurrection. He wanted this to happen, and not only that, there's another provision that talks about giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution. He did that, he was an enemy of the Constitution. If this decision gets overturned, it's not going to be on the basis of the factual findings."
Retired conservative federal Judge J. Michael Luttig called the ruling a “masterful judicial opinion of constitutional law” that “will stand the test of the time.”
Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that the ruling “follows pretty much directly from the text of the Constitution. So you know, someone like Donald Trump who claims to be a strict textualist when it comes to the Constitution has been hoisted on his own petard.”
Katyal predicted that the Supreme Court may vote to uphold the ruling, noting that the court ruled against his post-2020 election challenges and executive privilege claims.
“So, you know, I think that a fair-minded reading of this provision really compels this result,” he told
MSNBC, adding that the Colorado Supreme Court “took pains to say, you know – this is just a quote from the opinion – ‘we’re mindful in our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.’ And I think that the United States Supreme Court would apply that same standard. Trump will be disqualified from the ballot.”
“I think this case will be handled quickly, I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump,” former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said in an interview on CNN. “I do believe it could be 9-0 because I think the law is clear,” he added.
“The real key issue in this case is — is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article Three of the 14th Amendment,” he explained. “And in 2010, Chief Justice Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.” (So apparently this trump lawyer thinks the supreme court will go against this measure 9-0. But not because he doesn't think trump engaged in insurrection. He thinks that according to the constitutional law its ok for presidents to engage in insurrection and still be on the ballot. Just not anybody else. presidents are above the law.)
If the president is not an officer of the United States...then the 14th amendment should be interpreted to read that "the president is the only elected official that has the ability to engage in an insurrection against the United States".
nypost.com
