Thread by @dilanesper

You are going to hear a bunch of takes this week about how the Supreme Court is "required" to take Trump off the ballot.

Whether or not you buy the argument that he's disqualified, remember this-- nothing is "required".

SCOTUS can do whatever it wants. 1/

Moreover, even if there's some notion that plain text should constrain SCOTUS from considering pragmatic issues (such as how half the country would react to disenfranchisement), this case is NOT about plain text. Section 3 is an old, very ambiguous, seldom invoked provision. 2/

A court can always consider pragmatism, policy arguments, and what the country might think in construing ambiguous provisions. If plain text binds, that argument applies only to just that, plain text. 3/

Now, you may conclude that the better argument is that Section 3 covers President Trump and that he is disqualified. But if you are going to tell me that the terms used in that provision-- "insurrection", "officer", etc., are unambiguous, you are lying. That's right, I said it 4/

Lying that things are unambiguous when they aren't is a very tolerated form of lying that has become somewhat common in the legal profession. Some contract or statute has some term with 2 obvious possible meanings and a lawyer says "not ambiguous". That lawyer is lying. 5/

It's a form of lawyering that assumes that conceding that the other side even has half of a point is terrible and that you should never do it. And sadly, some judges buy into it too. Indeed, supposedly textualist judges are especially susceptible to this tactic. 6/

But it still is a lie. If you want to tell me that the provision that says the Vice President takes over when the President dies is unambiguous, fine. Not everything is ambiguous. But "insurrection"? I'm sorry, if you are saying that is unambiguous that is a baldfaced lie. 7/

This is litigation involving a disused, ambiguous constitutional provision that could potentially, if given a broad construction, tear the country apart. Don't let ANYONE tell you that SCOTUS has no right to consider that latter point because "the law is the law". End/