Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - Following is the incoherent pattern of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in Trump v Anderson, (602 US __ (2024): “Does 1 equal 1? It does.” Nothing more needed to be said, but the majority did not stop so that their published opinion was similar to that “special math for GOP only” about which Megyn Kelly Fox News anchor asked Karl Rove, “Is this some special math for GOP only?” The absurd nature of the majority’s rambling was as if they explained why “1 equals 1," by saying, “First we took 1, multiplied it by 1, subtracted 2, added 3, and then divided by A x Z.”
The Trump v Anderson case is the simplest case which ever reached the Supreme Court. Here are the operant words of 14th Amendment Sec 3:
No person ...may hold ... as an officer of the United States . . . But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Rules of Judicial Construction
(1) When reading a constitutional provision, a statute, or a case, courts are limited to those words which are relevant to the issue.
(2) Words have their plain meaning unless some special meaning has been assigned to them. Certain words are “words of art”, and their special legal meanings are applied by Courts. “Hold” is not a word of art.
(3) Courts do not provide “advisory opinions.” Courts of law are limited to deciding actual controversies between parties and not providing the court’s opinion on additional matters which may interest it. This was the majority’s grievous error.
Thus, in Trump vs Anderson, only those few above-quoted words are relevant. In plain English the issue was “May Trump hold office as President?;” another acceptable issue with the same outcome could have been “May candidate Trump be removed from an election ballot?”
Judicial Gatekeeper Rules
Before anyone may proceed with a court case, certain threshold tests must be passed. In this case, the foremost issue is Ripeness. Ripeness means whether the legal issue is ready for judicial action. For example, a married couple applies for their unborn child to admitted to prestigious preschool. The school rejects the application, and the parents sue. The court should reject the parents’ lawsuit since there is no child. The case is not ripe and should be dismissed – easypeasy.
Another threshold issue is whether the plaintiff has standing to bring the lawsuit. Another is “Does the court have jurisdiction to hear the case?” In Trump v Anderson, these threshold tests also bar the case and it is should have been dismissed ab initio by the trial courts. The case was not ripe, the plaintiffs had no standing, and the courts lack jurisdiction.
What the Supreme Court Should Have Written
The court had a one-step analysis: “Since the 14th amendment Sec 3 applies only to holding office and not running for office, it does not apply to any candidate. As Trump is a candidate, any lawsuit prior to candidate Trump's winning the election is not ripe. Case dismissed.”
Advisory Opinions Prohibition
As the high court is filled with intellectual Lilliputians, the conservative majority plunged ahead in egregious disregard for judicial restraint and added a befuddled, rambling advisory opinion. For no valid judicial reason, the majority discussed which courts may hear 14th Amendment Sec 3 cases. They were obviously focusing on the future situation where Trump wins the November 2024 election. While it is quite likely, he will win, that case is for the future based on facts which will be known only in the future. To make the majority’s opinion more inane, the proper answer is: For 14th Amendment Sec 3 purposes, Congress and only Congress has the constitutional right and power to determine whether Donald Trump may hold the office of Presidency if he should win the election. The issue would be ripe, but the 14th Amendment Sec 3 excludes any court from making that determination with the words: But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Officious Intermeddling Noodle-heads Do Not Belong on the Supreme Court
No matter if every court in the land determines that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist under the 14th Amendment, only Congress has the power to decide whether he gets to hold office. Let all courts issue orders barring Trump from holding office; Congress can evaporate them all by a 2/3rds vote, making Trump President. In casting their votes, it matters naught whether Congressmen believe Trump is an insurrectionist. If they believe Trump is not an insurrectionist, then the 14th Amendment Sec 3 doesn’t bar him, and if they believe he was an insurrectionist, they may vote to allow him to hold office. It is none of this court’s business what happens in the future.
The concurring opinion by liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson stated, “We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.” As justices, the three used judicial restraint in their word choice. As a columnist, I am free to point out that the conservative justices are officious intermeddling noodle-heads who are not fit to serve. They are eternal blowhards, lecturing others about judicial restraint. This observation is not a blanket endorsement of the liberal wing. It is another warning about the disintegration of the Republic where virtually all officials behave as if they have some God-given right to ignore the Republic in order to push Their personal agendas .
(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a Realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor. You may email him at [email protected].)
