Bah Humbug! Dems Put Fetterman On The Naughty List
NewsGuard Rates the Headlines Covering Woman Set on Fire by Illegal
CNBC: Biden Administration Withdraws Student Loan Forgiveness Plans
'Mary Was An Earthworm:' J.K. Rowling Absolutely Roasts India Willoughby's Take on Christi...
University Employee Who Told Trump Supporters to Kill Themselves Sent Packing
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Still Pushing to Publish the Equal Rights Amendment With 'One...
Global Engagement Center for Countering 'Disinformation' Closing Down
Take a Chill Pill! UNGLUED Hollywood Producer Warns This 'Radical' Movie Will Be...
Krystal Ball: We’re Returning to a ‘Global Order of Unchecked Savagery'
Stop Making Holidays Political! Gun Control Group Gets DRAGGED Over Push to Talk...
Hot Take: Today Mary and Joseph Would Have Had to Cross 15 Israeli...
GRINCH ALERT: New York Times Runs Christmas Eve Op-Ed Telling Us Jesus Had...
Rep. Ayanna Pressley Says Death Penalty Is Weaponized Against the Black Community
DIGNITY?! CA Judge Rules Male Housed in Female Prison Be Called She/Her During...
After Four Years of Hiding Biden's Disaster, Eugene Robinson Thinks the Media Must...

Colorado Lawyer 'Jarvis' TEARS APART Colorado Supreme Court Decision on Trump Ballot Eligibility

gif

There are many legal minds of various weight classes that populate Twitter; when your job involves charging people by billable hours you sometimes end up with unaccounted for down time to spend wandering around posting random stuff. Ever since the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its decision on Donald Trump's eligibility (or lack thereof) for the Colorado Primary Election Ballot it's seemed like every lawyer on Twitter (and some enthusiastic amateurs) has had something to say about it. These have been of varying quality, but some like George Washington University Law School professor Johnathan Turley's breakdown have been extremely helpful in clarifying the nuts and bolts of the law on this issue.

Advertisement

Into this category of informative and helpful we can add this thread by Twitter gadfly and licensed attorney in the state of Colorado 'Jarvis'. It's a lengthy thread but worth reading.

I forgot I have an actual job so this will have to be fast. Thread:  There are five judicial opinions out of Colorado on this Trump ballot thing: the trial court opinion, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and three Supreme Court dissenting opinions.  None of the opinions agree with each other (except maybe the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Boatright and Justice Berkenkotter).

The most compelling and - in my view - correct decision was the dissent from Justice Samour.  Justice Samour reached holdings that none of the other four groups did.  He examined the issues with the depth and close examination of the case law that is most like how SCOTUS does it.  I think SCOTUS will reverse the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, and will largely follow the dissent of Justice Samour. I think the SCOTUS decision will be either 9-0 or 7-2.  When the SCOTUS does so, I will remind of you this tweet and gloat. There will be no dealing with me after that.

Advertisement

Before we get to Justice Samour, first some background on the Colorado Supreme Court. It is not typically a deeply divided or partisan Court. They are all Democrats, and they were all appointed by Democrat governors with similar liberal/libertarian leanings.  We get a lot of unanimous opinions. Divisions when they occur are typically respectful and intellectually honest. No vitriol.  I was surprised that this case was a 4-3 opinion, and even more surprised at how sloppy the majority opinion was. Knowing that SCOTUS absolutely has to take this case, I figured they would write something stronger. Ah well.

Advertisement

This case is about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, Section 3 says that insurrectionists can't hold certain offices.  The trial court held that Section 3 did not apply to the President, and the trial court might be right. Justice Samour did not need to resolve that issue, though . . .

Because of Section FIVE of the 14th Amendment. That section says hey -- you know the whole insurrection thing we just talked about?   How is this supposed to work?  Who gets to decide who engaged in an insurrection? What sort of standard of proof applies? Is it a civil trial or a criminal trial? Is it a judge or a jury or someone else who decides that a particular person engaged in insurrection and therefore disqualified?  What if they're already appointed - do they still get paid while  the proceedings are going on?  The 14th amendment doesn't answer any of these questions. Instead, Section 5 says that Congress gets to pass legislation to give enforcement power to carry out Section 3.

Advertisement

1948:  Congress replaced the 1870 statute with a criminal insurrection law, 18 U.S.C. § 2383.  If convicted under that statute -- with full criminal due process afforded the defendant -- one of the punishments is to be banned from holding office in the United States. Trump has not been charged under this statute.

So.  Congress -- and only Congress -- gets to pass legislation enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Congress did so, and it chose to enact a criminal statute that bars anyone convicted under it from holding any office in the U.S. Trump has not been charged or convicted under that statute. Therefore, Trump can appear on the ballot.

Advertisement

This analysis renders a lot of the other questions irrelevant.  Did Trump engage in an insurrection? Does Section 3 apply to the President? Should Trump be off the ballot nationwide or just in states like Colorado that found that he engaged in an insurrection?  None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that Congress followed the 14th Amendment and established a procedure for barring someone from office for engaging in an insurrection, and that procedure was not followed here.

For all of the general absurdity found on Jarvis's timeline, every once in a while he likes to stretch out his legs and remind you that he isn't just a guy who goes by a one-word name like Cher and uses as his profile picture the 1882 self-portrait of Norwegian painter Edvard Munch. This seems like an excellent breakdown of the topic and, honestly, none of us should be surprised if this all turns out just as he predicts.

After all, despite all apparent evidence to the contrary when it comes to the law the man knows what he's doing.

***

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement