Oh, Please.

Today was the day when the SCOTUS heard arguments, and asked questions about them, regarding whether or not Colorado can disqualify Trump from running for office.

The background is that a Judge Wallace in Colorado found Trump guilty of insurrection, but decided that the penalty for insurrection did not apply to the office of president.  But the Colorado Supreme Court overruled Judge Wallace, and said Trump was, in fact, disqualified.  Trump, of course, appealed the disqualification, and that's what today's SCOTUS hearing was about.

The basis for declaring Trump disqualified is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and in particular, Section 3.

I heard snippets on the radio, but it appears that someone thinks most of the Justices, including the ones appointed by Democrat presidents, will be disinclined to agree that Trump is disqualified.  And the seeming reasons are worth noting.

One reason, raised some time ago, is that the president of the US is not an "officer."  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson resurrected that argument today.  Justice Jackson noted that some "offices" were specified, but the "office" of president was not.  Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, OR HOLD ANY OFFICE, CIVIL OR MILITARY, UNDER THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ANY STATE [emphasis mine, but quoted directly], who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Note the word "any."  I have never known nor heard of a candidate for anything who did not say he or she was running for "office."  Trump's website repeats the phrase "Donald J Trump for President 2024."  It sure sounds like Trump thinks he's running for office.

Someone, possibly also Justice Jackson, suggested that "offices" are occupied by people who were appointed, not by people who were elected.  It is entirely unclear how or why Justice Jackson invented this semantic and illogical suggestion.  Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifies "offices" that are very clearly elected (Senator, Representative, etc), so the concept that electeds don't hold "office" was cut from whole cloth.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he thought it was unfair, or not right, to deprive the public of the chance to vote for their preferred candidate.  But we already have that limitation.  If someone wants to be president, but they're 27, and they were born in some country other than this one, they can't run, no matter how many people want to see them as president.  They'll eventually reach age 35, but they can still never run if they weren't born in this country.

Elena Kagan's concern had to do with the thought experiment problem of disqualifying a candidate because one state's judge said he was guilty.  (Not to mention that state's Supreme Court, which said he couldn't run.)  Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't say that the guilty determination has to be federal, and it doesn't say how many states have to agree.  The fact is that although Trump was only convicted in Colorado, Maine agreed he should not be on the ballot.  Because he was disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  Imagine someone who is convicted of a crime, and incarcerated in some state.  Can the convict request to be set free in some other state, as long as s/he doesn't return to the state where s/he was convicted and sentenced?  What if the crime was related to sexual abuse?  Is the convict only required to register as a sex offender in the state where the conviction happened?  What about when you die?  Are you only dead in the state where you died?  I have no idea why Justice Kagan was tentative, but her concern didn't make any sense.

The far right wing Justices are going to conclude that Trump can run, and he can occupy the..."office"...of president, if he wins.  They'll conclude that because they're far right.  It's unclear why the Justices who are not far right are reluctant to conclude what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says they have to conclude.  This country is irreparably broken if the Justices' concerns are for their safety if they agree to disqualify Trump.  And interestingly, Trump's appeal is not that he was not guilty of violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  It's that he thinks he should be able to run anyway.  We can add this to the list of examples of Trump's disregard for the Constitution and its Amendments.  It's not a short list.