Trump got a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment question, but the ruling doesn’t take on whether Trump engaged in insurrection.
Why Trump’s 14th Amendment Win Isn’t That Big
Andrew Weissmann explained on MSNBC:
One is the fact that it is unanimous in result. I think that makes it complicated for people who want to view the decision as political, and that this is the, you know, the conservative wing which is now — it’s a very large wing of six taking this on. I mean, the problem with that analysis, of course, is that you have the three so-called liberal justices agreeing with this conclusion. So this is really, I think, best viewed as a decision about the — about a legal call.
I also as my second point, think it doesn’t take on and say that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection. In other words, the issue of the facts, is he an insurrectionist or not, was not before the court, and they do not in any way that I’ve seen so far, and after quick skimming, take that on to say that we are saying that that was an incorrect, factual finding. They’re simply deciding this as a legal basis, and I think the third thing which, again, I would have to read it more closely, is it will put more questions to why jack Smith didn’t charge essentially insurrection, didn’t charge a criminal statute which was passed of course, by congress whereupon conviction it disqualifies you from holding office because that would seemingly potentially qualify for what the supreme court says is necessary, that sort of federal action that they’re looking for as opposed to individual, unilateral state action. So those are my three sort of quick takes on a quick reading of the — or skimming I should say of the opinion.
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
Video:
Andrew Weissmann, "It doesn't say that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection. In other words, the issue of the facts, is he an insurrectionist or not, was not before the court, and they do not in any way that I've seen so far, and after quick skimming, take that on." pic.twitter.com/X13WrLRAGj
— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) March 4, 2024
The Supreme Court ruled on the enforcement mechanism for removing a presidential candidate from the ballot, not Trump’s guilt or innocent. Trump will try to spin this ruling as exoneration, but the reality is that the Supreme Court reached the only decision that it could.
If each state had the power to disqualify presidential candidates, it would shatter the presidential electoral system.
By getting removed from the ballot in three states, the damage has been done to Trump politically. Three states have determined he is an insurrectionist.
That fact will following him through the presidential election.
A Special Message From PoliticusUSA
If you are in a position to donate purely to help us keep the doors open on PoliticusUSA during what is a critical election year, please do so here.Â
We have been honored to be able to put your interests first for 14 years as we only answer to our readers and we will not compromise on that fundamental, core PoliticusUSA value.
Jason is the managing editor. He is also a White House Press Pool and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.
Awards and Professional Memberships
Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and The American Political Science Association
