Former President Donald Trump’s appeal of a Colorado ruling barring him from the ballot may force the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in directly on his 2024 election prospects, a case that legal experts said will likely pull its nine justices into a political firestorm.

That state was the first, followed by Maine, to rule that Trump was disqualified from seeking the Republican presidential nomination due to his actions ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an unprecedented legal decision that the nation’s top court could find too pressing to avoid.

“I doubt that any of the justices are pleased that they’re being forced into the fray over Donald Trump’s future. But it seems to me that the court will have no choice but to face these momentous issues,” said attorney Deepak Gupta, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

The justices, Gupta said, will have to act with “unusual speed and, hopefully, in a way that does not further divide our deeply divided land. That is a daunting and unenviable task.”

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Article 3, Section 1 and 2 state that SCOTUS is the supreme court of justice for everything to do with the Constitution. There is nothing there that says SCOTUS can abdicate its job by bumping anything to do with the Constitution to a lower court.

    • skydivekingair@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Right, they interpret the Constitution. If their interpretation of Article 1 Section 4 says it’s up to the states then they have done their job and interpreted the constitution.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Article 1, Section 4 does NOT give the states control over Presidential elections … only for senators and reps.

        The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

        • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Article 1, Section 4 does NOT give the states control over Presidential elections … only for senators and reps.

          You’re kind of right. Article 1, Section 4 does not address presidential elections but Article 2 does, by handing it directly back to the states to pick their own electors for the Electoral College. Electors elect the president, hence the name.

          (This is exactly why Mike Pence refused to get in the car on January 6: the voters had voted, the electors had represented them (or not) but constitutionally the president isn’t elected until Clause 3 of Article 2 is fulfilled and the Electoral College votes are certified by the President of the Senate, who at the time was Mike Pence, and that was the point of getting Pence out.)

          Take a moment and go back and look at Article 2, the article that addresses the executive. Note that it only addresses the Electoral College and says nothing about popular votes, SCOTUS, or even how electors should be chosen.

          You’re looking at the US Constitution’s entire provision for presidential elections. That’s it. Article 2. **

          Now understand that along with that, through time and tradition over some 200+ years (depending on what event you want to count from), including various SCOTUS rulings, EVERYTHING involving federal elections that is not otherwise specifically addressed does indeed devolve to the states under Article 1, Section 4.

          EDITED TO ADD current relevancy regarding Trump’s attempt to remove Mike Pence

          **I am specifically referring to the original Constitution and not to the later rulings on the First and Fourteenth Amendments in case anyone wants to get picky, lol