Trump won a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment issue, but the ruling does not address whether Trump was involved in an insurrection.
Why Trump’s 14th Amendment victory isn’t that big
Andrew Weissmann explained on MSNBC:
One is the fact that the result is unanimous. I think that makes it complicated for people who want to see the decision as political, and that this is, you know, the conservative wing that is now – it’s a very large wing of six people taking on this responsibility. I mean, the problem with this analysis, of course, is that there are three so-called liberal justices who agree with this conclusion. So, I think, this is really, best viewed as a decision about a legal call.
Also, as a second point, I think it doesn’t hold water and assert that Donald Trump did not engage in the insurrection. In other words, the factual question of whether he is an insurrectionist or not has not been addressed in court, nor is it addressed in any way that I have seen so far, and after a quick skimming, I move on to say that we claim that it was an incorrect factual finding. They’re just deciding this as the legal basis, and I think the third thing that, again, I should read more closely, is that it’s going to ask more questions about why Jack Smith didn’t essentially charge the insurrection, he didn’t charge a criminal law that it was approved, of course, by congress, after which the conviction disqualifies you from holding office because that apparently would qualify for what the supreme court deems necessary, the kind of federal action that they’re looking for as opposed to individual, unilateral action of the State. So those are my three kind of quick interpretations of a quick read of the — or a skim, I should say, of the opinion.
For more stories like this, sign up for our The Daily newsletter.
Video:
Andrew Weissmann: “It doesn’t mean that Donald Trump didn’t participate in an insurrection. In other words, the factual question of whether he’s an insurrectionist or not has not been addressed in court, and it doesn’t appear to me in any way that I’ve seen so far and, after a quick look, accept it.” 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 on Trump’s guilt or innocence. Trump will try to turn this ruling into an exoneration, but the reality is that the Supreme Court has made the only possible decision.
If every state had the power to disqualify presidential candidates, it would shatter the presidential election system.
By being removed from the ballot in three states, Trump suffered political damage. Three states have determined that he is an insurrectionist.
This fact will follow him during the presidential elections.
A special message from PoliticusUSA
If you are in a position to donate exclusively to help us keep the doors open on PoliticusUSA during what is a critical election year, please do so here.
We are honored to be able to put your interests first for 14 years as we respond only to our readers and will not compromise on that core, core value of PoliticusUSA.
Jason is the managing editor. He is also a member of the 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.
Professional rewards and subscriptions
Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Political Science Association