To do that though the Supreme Court would be stating that it’s ok for a President to lead an insurrection to stay in power, that basically the President is above the law. Very much in line with the immunity claim Trump has before them now. I don’t see how they could state the law is both against a President having absolute immunity, and also that insurrection is fine for a President. He is either above the law (and the Supreme Court) or he isn’t. And I don’t see the Supreme Court wanting to defer power to anyone else, especially a dictator that will do away with the court as to prevent any oversight.
To do that though the Supreme Court would be stating that it’s ok for a President to lead an insurrection to stay in power, that basically the President is above the law.
They don’t HAVE to. They could say “for this to apply the person has to be convicted of the crime of insurrection, Trump hasn’t been, until he is, he is back on the ballot.”
There’s all sorts of legal arguments against that interpretation but there are legal arguments for it too, and it doesn’t say the president is above the law it just says this former president is not being removed from ballots yet…de facto not ever for this person because he hasn’t even been charged for “insurrection” but it leaves open the possibility that someday a former president could be.
To do that though the Supreme Court would be stating that it’s ok for a President to lead an insurrection to stay in power, that basically the President is above the law. Very much in line with the immunity claim Trump has before them now. I don’t see how they could state the law is both against a President having absolute immunity, and also that insurrection is fine for a President. He is either above the law (and the Supreme Court) or he isn’t. And I don’t see the Supreme Court wanting to defer power to anyone else, especially a dictator that will do away with the court as to prevent any oversight.
They don’t HAVE to. They could say “for this to apply the person has to be convicted of the crime of insurrection, Trump hasn’t been, until he is, he is back on the ballot.”
There’s all sorts of legal arguments against that interpretation but there are legal arguments for it too, and it doesn’t say the president is above the law it just says this former president is not being removed from ballots yet…de facto not ever for this person because he hasn’t even been charged for “insurrection” but it leaves open the possibility that someday a former president could be.