Roger Parloff Profile picture
Dec 22, 2023 29 tweets 8 min read Read on X
Some belated thoughts on the Colorado Supreme Court’s historic ruling Tuesday that Trump is disqualified from the presidency as an insurrectionist. I’ll start with the dessert and then get to the medicine. ...
/1bit.ly/3vcCJTW
... Right after Jan. 6, when people first started talking about § 3 of the 14th Am, I assumed that when the matter finally reached SCOTUS, Justices Alito & Thomas would write separately—no matter what the rest of the court did—to say that Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection. ...
/2
... But today, with more knowledge about both § 3 & J6, such an opinion “won’t write,” as clerks say. You'd have to ignore every relevant judicial ruling, dictionary definition, grand jury charge, & treatise and rely, instead, on @WSJ op-eds by former Trump Adm folks. ...
/3
... As the SCOCO majority wrote, one can quibble about the outer contours of "insurrection," but “[a]ny definition ... would encompass a concerted & public effort ... to hinder ... the US govt from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power.” /4 Image
... Claiming that Trump didn’t “engage in” the insurrection also fails. Even if a SCOTUS justice isn’t willing to disqualify, he/she won’t try to make that argument. Doing so would enshrine their disingenuousness in the US Reports forever. ...
/5
The SCOCO majority wrote (with no dissents on this): “As our detailed recitation of the evidence shows, President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection. Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it ...
/6 Image
... by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional dutyand by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”
/7 Image
SCOCO also found (with no dissents) that Trump’s Ellipse speech overcame 1st Am bars & constituted incitement : “We agree that President Trump intended that his speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action on J6 to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. ...”
/8 Image
“ ... Despite his knowledge of the anger that he had instigated, his calls to arms, his awareness of the threats of violence that had been made leading up to January 6, and the obvious fact that many in the crowd were angry and armed, ... “
/9 Image
... “Pres. Trump told his riled-up supporters to walk down to the Capitol and fight. He then stood back and let the fighting happen, despite having the ability and authority to stop it ..., thereby confirming that this violence was what he intended.”
/10 Image
... The trial judge's escape hatch—that the presidency isn’t an “office” and the president isn’t an “officer” within the meaning of § 3—did not win a single vote at SCOCO. It will be a heavy lift at SCOTUS, where conservatives see themselves as “plain meaning” originalists.
/11
... In its landmark 2008 gun-rights ruling, SCOTUS conservatives scoffed at reading into constitutional provisions “secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens” at the time of drafting. The SCOCO majority quoted that language here ...
/12 Image
... in overturning the trial judge’s finding on that issue. “The drafters of Section Three were motivated by a sense of betrayal; that is, by the existence of a broken oath, not by the type of officer who broke it.” ...
/13 Image
“A construction of Section Three that would nevertheless allow a former President who broke his oath, not only to participate in the government again but to run for and hold the highest office in the land, is flatly unfaithful to the Section’s purpose.”
/14 Image
... Now for the medicine. SCOTUS faces a stark choice. On the one hand, it can disqualify—something only 4 of 7 Democratic-appointed judges had the cajones to do at SCOCO. ...
/15
... A SCOTUS ruling to disqualify would likely incite violence and, doubtless, serious death threats against justices. Ideally, you'd like a 9-0 ruling to gain public acceptance, and gaining even 5 is hard to imagine. ...
/16
... But what’s the escape hatch? There aren’t many credible ones left. The §-3-doesn’t-apply-to-presidents argument always had trouble passing the laugh test, and it emerged from the appellate crucible even worse for wear. ...
/17
... How did the dissenters find their way out? Two cited state law issues. SCOTUS can’t do that, tho, both because it’s not supposed to decide state law & because that won’t give guidance for the other cases now rising up thru the court systems of other states.
/18
... That leaves the route that dissenting Justice Samour took: that § 3 isn’t “self-executing” and only Congress can devise an enforcement mechanism for it. This is the argument that Chief Justice Salmon Chase adopted in Griffin’s Case while sitting as a lower court judge ...
/19
... in Virginia in 1869. Since then, some of the nation’s best constitutional historians & scholars (including originalists) have picked gaping holes in Chase’s nonbinding reasoning. E.g., this link:
/20bit.ly/3QxDqzA
... Chase’s ruling was crudely result-oriented and anything but “originalist.” Still, justices looking for a way out may grab that one. ...
/21
Although @gtconway3d has written that the dissents in the Colorado case reinforced in his mind the strength of the majority opinion, I had a slightly different takeaway. ...
/22bit.ly/3Nxl0fZ
@gtconway3d ... I agree that none of the 3 dissenters bowled anyone over with a bullet-proof legal argument. But the emotional cri du coeurs from two of them may have a impact on some SCOTUS justices—including the liberals. ...
/23
@gtconway3d ... Chief Justice Boatright bemoaned the “breakneck pace” of the CO election-challenge procedures, which he said just weren’t “commensurate” with the “extraordinary” issues being decided. “Just because a hearing was held ... doesn’t mean ... due process was observed.”
/24 Image
@gtconway3d ... Justice Carlos Samour was the most impassioned. “I have been involved in the justice system for 33 years now,” he wrote, “& what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.” ...
/25 Image
@gtconway3d ... Samour said the “the Section Three challenge brought by the Electors was a square constitutional peg that could not be jammed into our Election Code’s round hole,” and that “what transpired in this litigation fell woefully short of what due process demands.”. ...
/26 Image
@gtconway3d ... Personally, I thought Judge Sarah Wallace presided over a very fair 5-day bench trial. (And ruled for Trump!) After all, this isn’t an Agatha Christie whodunit. Thanks to the House Select Committee, everyone subject to compulsory process has already been deposed. ...
/27
@gtconway3d ... Furthermore, Trump chose not to testify. That can and should be used against him at a civil trial (though neither the trial judge nor SCOCO justices appear to have held that against him). ...
/28
@gtconway3d Still, I can’t see SCOTUS voting to disqualify. While there isn’t a good “plain meaning” originalist basis for *not*disqualifying, five justices can turn to Griffin’s Case and say “I’m just following precedent.” That's their least implausible escape hatch.
/29-end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Roger Parloff

Roger Parloff Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rparloff

Apr 1
The govt’s admission, in the Abrego Garcia case in Md, that it mistakenly removed him to El Salvador despite protective status, may reverberate in the Alien Enemies Act case, where plaintiffs allege that many with open asylum cases were wrongfully removed. ...
1/7 Image
Image
Plaintiffs have alleged, for instance, that Andry Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist was wrongfully removed. He’d fled Venezuela due to persecution & entered the US with a CBP One app appointment, his lawyer says. ...
/2 Image
He alleges that he was removed based on his tattoos. But two criminologists have filed affidavits saying Tren de Aragua doesn’t use distinctive tattoos. ...
/3 Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Mar 19
Some notes on Judge Chutkan’s temporary restraining order yesterday in 3 cases spurred by the Trump Adm’s hunt for criminality in Congress’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund—a hunt that has already led to a top federal prosecutor's resignation in protest. ...
1/11 Image
The programs stem from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which appropriated $27b for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Under it, EPA awarded grants to nonprofits to partner with the private sector to finance 1000s of clean tech projects nationwide. ...
/2
... In Oct 2023, EPA awarded the 3 plaintiff nonprofits, including Climate United Fund (CUF), grants collectively worth ~ $14b. Climate United has already drawn down & committed $392m of those funds on such matters as 18 solar projects in rural Arkansas ...
/3 Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 3
There’s a hearing before Judge AB Jackson right now regarding the dismantling of CFPB. I can’t monitor it because of phone line problems, but wanted to describe the extraordinary exchange of declarations that’s occurred in that case in the last 2 days. A short thread. ... 1/6
... Yesterday, the day before the hearing, CFPB’s COO filed an affidavit admitting that, early on, he referred to the impending “closure of the agency” & its being in “wind-down mode.” But he claimed everything later changed on 2/7, when Vought was appointed acting chief... /2 Image
... The COO claimed in his declaration that Vought was now merely “right sizing” the agency. But plaintiffs then submitted 5 affidavits from current CFPB employees asserting that Vought ordered all work to stop on 2/10, with no exception statutorily req’d functions. ... /3 Image
Image
Image
Read 6 tweets
Mar 1
Judge Alsup has issued his written TRO, directing that OPM’s terminations of probationary employees across govt be stopped & rescinded. “No statute—anywhere, ever—has granted OPM the authority to direct termination of employees in other agencies.” ...
1/3
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…Image
Though acting OPM director Ezell claimed agencies made independent decisions, Judge Alsup found a "mountain of evidence" to the contrary, from DOD, the VA, USDA, IRS, NSF, & others. ...
/2 Image
The crux of the final order is here and ...
/3 Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
Yesterday, in declining to enter a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring DOGE from accessing data systems at the Dept of Labor, CFPB, & HHS, Judge Bates actually delivered a blow to DOGE—though it may only be felt in other cases. A thread. ...

1/10storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Different suits challenge DOGE on different grounds. The suits challenging its access to data systems in Treasury, Labor, CFPB, & HHS focus on the Privacy Act. The claim is that DOGE is rooting around in our ultra-sensitive data without our permission. ...
/2
... The hurdle for plaintiffs is that DOGE is structured so that DOGE cadres are “detailed” from US DOGE Service to the agencies and then become “agency employees.” (I’m simplifying.) It’s set up that way so that DOGE cadres appear to fit into ...
/3
Read 10 tweets
Feb 10
Trump Adm brings emergency motion to dissolve NY judge's TRO re DOGE; claims it bars TreasSec from access [based on comma ambituity]; threatens mandamus to appeals court arguing no executive action can be insulated from political appointees. ...
/1

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
... Judge Vargas (the judge now assigned to the case, not the emergency motions judge who entered TRO) has ordered parties to confer to see if they can narrow issues. If not, plaintiff state AGs respond by tonight at 5pm, with govt reply by 11pm tonight. ...
/2 Image
... Trump Adm eager to tee up key "unitary executive" claims—that no executive function can be insulated from political appointees of President—for appellate courts. ...
/3 Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(