Thread by @GregTSargent

I’m calling BS on a narrative that’s become widespread: The idea that liberals hope the 14th amendment is the “magical cure-all” that finishes Trump once and for all.

This NYT piece leads with this claim. 1/

nytimes.com/2023/12/21/us/…

This narrative is everywhere. It’s often meant to imply that there’s something delusional or escapist about taking the Colorado ruling and the 14th amendment question seriously.

But that's ridiculous. This claim is even actively bad and destructive in civic terms. 2/

People saying this have many motives. Some leftists suggest Dems feel they can’t beat Trump electorally and want to avoid owning their own political failures. Some on the right imply liberals want to evade reckoning with the authentic populist underpinning of Trump's support. 3/

All this is absurd. Liberals/Dems organized and beat Trump and his movement in three straight national elections (in 2022 it’s a bit more mixed but still). Sneer about “the Resistance” all you want, but on-the-ground organizing has been central to the story of Trump’s defeats. 4/

There is nothing inherently escapist in taking the 14A question seriously. Many liberals fully recognize the need to defeat Trump politically *while also* wanting the law and Constitution to apply to Trump.

These positions are in fact perfectly consistent with one another. 5/

Whether Trump committed insurrection under the Constitution, and what to do about it, is obviously a legitimately contested question. Ironically, the real evasion here is declaring he self-evidently didn’t commit insurrection and then handwaving this away as a settled matter. 6/

I agree with @jonathanchait that ruling Trump invalid could produce dangerous consequences. It's possible this case isn't unambiguous enough for such a fraught step. 7/

nymag.com/intelligencer/…

But this alone can’t settle the question. No one can honestly read the Baude/Paulsen paper and deny Trump *really might* be disqualified under a reasonable reading of history and the law.

This is inconvenient, because it means there’s no easy civic answer to this matter. 8/

It's said loss of faith in institutions gave us Trump. But via @brianbeutler, a SCOTUS ruling for him would arguably *undermine* its institutional integrity. MAGA voters' feelings can't be controlling here. 9/

offmessage.net/p/disqualifyin…

@brianbeutler Indeed, as @dahlialithwick notes, the Colorado court's handling of this matter has arguably demonstrated more institutional integrity than SCOTUS itself has been showing of late. 10/

slate.com/news-and-polit…

Trump is consciously trying to *destroy* faith in our electoral institutions by conditioning his movement to reject election losses as illegitimate. It’s perverse to argue that the way to restore faith in our institutions is to let Trump try to wreck them with impunity. 11/

Elections and democracy require underlying rules of political competition. Those are often litigated by courts. Perhaps no rule is more fundamental than the requirement that you accept that competition’s outcome and not try to negate it illegally and with mob violence. 12/

Aren't there civic dangers in NOT enforcing that rule? Any serious reckoning with this matter requires grappling with those dangers, too. Failing to factor them in as well deprives the American people of the debate they need. 13/

I don't claim to know the right legal answer here. And yes, SCOTUS will probably find a legal rationale to side with Trump.

But nonetheless, dismissing all this as a self-evidently easy call simply won’t do. 14/

Our institutions might even benefit from wrestling with the question of whether Trump’s efforts to destroy our system disqualify him from seeking such awesome powers within it. Our system can handle this. 15/

https://x.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1699033382485733588?s=20

All this is to say that expecting the courts to apply the law and Constitution to Trump is not a negation or evasion of democracy. It’s an affirmation of it.

This position holds that American democracy *is good* and as such, its rules must be upheld. 16/

Trump rejects that principle at its core.

If the courts legitimately determine Trump committed insurrection (which is at least arguable) and effectively conclude the prohibition on trying to destroy lawful constitutional government invalidates his candidacy, then so be it. 17/17