Taking the 14th

​The other day, I posted something on social media about the court ruling in Colorado turning down the 14th Amendment challenge.  I noted that as disappointed as many on the left might be, it's probably more important that the judge ruled that Trump incited the Insurrection.  After all, however the court decided on the 14th Amendment question, it was going to get appealed and end up in the Supreme Court.  But there is now a legal ruling that says Trump incited Insurrection. And even more to the point, Trump is not challenging that.  In fact, as appeals make their way through the legal system, Trump is now in the position of defending the ruling...despite it saying he incited the Insurrection.  Furthermore, given that the core, critical point of the court decision was to say that Trump could not be removed from the ballot, it seems near-impossible for Trump ever to do anything but defend it and never try to get it overturned.  Which in the end means him accepting the ruling that he incited Insurrection.  This, then, is something that the Biden campaign -- and all Democratic campaigns can now use.  And should use.  With bright lights shining full attention on it.

After posting that, my friend Don Friedman wrote a reply that focused solely on the question of the 14th Amendment being used to challenge Trump.  He said --

"I have to say I'm extremely uncomfortable with courts deciding whether Trump can be on the ballot, particularly under present circumstances. Terrible as I think it would be if he were to be elected again, he is the preferred candidate of one of the two major parties and to deny that party and his and its millions of supporters their choice on the basis of a complicated set of facts open to some interpretation strikes me as undemocratic. I'm also concerned that the tactic can be turned against Democratic candidates in the future."

I have mixed feelings, too, although I think for slightly different reasons.  In large part that's because I'd like to see an election where Trump is not only beaten but badly beaten, along with the GOP candidates.  (Though the risk, of course, is that that might not happen.)  But that's still a far better way -- should it occur -- to make the point that Trump and the GOP's fascism have been rejected by the American public. 

On the other hand, as for the court challenge -- it is the law.  It's the 14th Amendment.  It's there for a legitimate reason.  Along with other laws prohibiting people to run for president, all of which we accept.  It's against the law to run for president if you're not 35, even if a political party wants you.  It's against the law to run for president if you weren't born in the United States, even if a political party wants you.  And it's against the law to run for president -- and any political office -- if you engaged in Insurrection.  That's a very high bar.  Could it be used against Democrats?  If they were involved in Insurrection, it not only could be used, but it should be.  However, if they weren't involved in an Insurrection, if they were just challenged by a Republican opponent with a claim of the 14th Amendment violation out of spite, it seems profoundly unlikely that they would be blocked from running.  After all, Trump did clearly try to incite Insurrection -- the evidence is not only overflowing, the Colorado court just stated it! -- and the bar is so high he probably won't be prohibited.

Again, I agree that I'd much prefer Trump to be beaten and beaten badly.  And not being permitted to would be awkward and uncomfortable.  But the reason he'd be blocked -- inciting Insurrection -- is itself pretty darn awkward and uncomfortable.

Ultimately, this will go to the Supreme Court.  And I doubt Trump will be blocked.  But if this very conservative Supreme Court does block him from running, I'd say it was because they felt the legal evidence was so massive it couldn't be ignored and was proper.  But I doubt that will happen.​