Tweet Share Share Comment

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in Trump v. Anderson, which challenges Donald Trump’s ability to appear on the ballot in Colorado. A group of voters brought the case under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officeholders from returning to power if they have “engaged in insurrection”; the plaintiffs argue that Trump’s participation in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol subjects him to disqualification under the amendment. On a new episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed a strange and discomfiting threat that emerged from the right flank of the court during arguments. Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

To listen to the full episode of Amicus, join Slate Plus.

Advertisement

Dahlia Lithwick: Mark, I want to ask you about something that struck me only at 3 a.m. when I was trying to figure out what I thought about oral arguments. And the thing I was really clocking that we hadn’t talked about enough is the mob-like threat that emerged from some justices, like—nice democracy you got, it’d be a shame if something happened to it. By that I mean, there was this subtle threat, right? And it starts in Jonathan Mitchell’s briefing, when he says there’ll be all sorts of chaos and mayhem and violence if Trump is removed from the ballot. There was a question from Chief Justice John Roberts about how, if the court sides with Colorado, Republicans are going to knock Democrats off the ballot next. It’s there in Justice Samuel Alito’s questioning about vexatious, frivolous lawsuits that will surely follow.

I think we are so used to that kind of menacing tone. Alito was saying: “Well, if you allow Colorado to knock Trump off the ballot, there’ll be more lawsuits by people who are willing to weaponize the legal system.” And I guess there’s only one answer to that, the answer that Jason Murray gave, which was that courts actually do know what to do with frivolous, threatening lawsuits that have no point. But another answer could be: “I’m sorry, Justice Alito, are you threatening me?” Since when do we accept the idea that if Colorado is allowed to deploy Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to be used, other people will use it for shitty outcomes and therefore we shouldn’t use it at all?

Advertisement

Related From Slate

Richard L. Hasen

A Grand Bargain Is Emerging in the Supreme Court’s Trump Cases, but Chaos May Be Ahead

Read More

Mark Joseph Stern: I mean, it is a threat, right? It’s a threat that if a majority of the court allows Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot, justices like Alito are going to come out swinging for the frivolous, ridiculous cases that follow—which really should not be compared to this one, since it’s very much rooted in the Constitution. It’s a threat that red states will try to retaliate, that Ron DeSantis will remove Joe Biden from the ballot because he’s a traitor or a Chinese spy or whatever other reason, just fill in the blank. And Sam Alito will be ready to let it happen.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

I think our friends Steve Vladeck and Lee Kovarsky wrote a great piece about this saying, “Well, actually, the check here is the Supreme Court.” The justices have full authority to step in and say: This is a meritorious case that we’ll consider seriously, and that is a frivolous one that we’ll reject out of hand. The Supreme Court has the last word on this and could easily shut down any of those absurd, retaliatory moves by red states. So the slippery slope argument, it’s a classic Alito grievance-based line. Like, If you squeeze out a win over my dissent, I will find a way to get back at you twice as hard and twice as fast.

Advertisement

I think you’re telling on yourself when you say that, right? Like, every accusation is a confession.

I think it ties into the piece we wrote on Thursday about selective judicial humility. Like Roberts and Alito, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh kept fretting that a ruling for Colorado could lead to such dangerous places. If we let Colorado remove a presidential candidate from the ballot, we’ll have to get involved in each and every other case out of red and blue states alike. So we have to look at the consequences of our decision.

Popular in News & Politics

  1. A Grand Bargain Is Emerging in the Supreme Court’s Trump Cases, but Chaos May Be Ahead
  2. Tucker Carlson’s Putin Interview Was Even Worse Than Expected
  3. How Bad Is This for Joe Biden, Really?
  4. The Supreme Court Sure Picked a Curious Moment to Embrace Humility

Where was that concern in literally any other case? Especially in gun rights cases, which are an apt comparison, I think. In 2022’s Bruen, the court declared all gun restrictions presumptively unconstitutional and created an entirely new test out of thin air for assessing them. We have since seen scores of gun laws struck down, and now the Supreme Court’s docket is getting flooded with these cases. Every gun restriction under the sun is being invalidated because the Supreme Court decided to change the rules and overturn centuries of precedent. And they didn’t care about the consequences. They specifically said that judges are not allowed to consider the consequences of gun safety laws when assessing their constitutionality. It doesn’t matter if a gun restriction could save a thousand lives or a million—if it doesn’t have enough historical analogues from 1791, it’s unconstitutional. Judges cannot look to the consequences, period.

Advertisement

Advertisement

And yet on Thursday, it was all consequence-based judging! From top to bottom! And I think that’s another example of the hypocrisy disparity between the different sides of the court. In Bruen, the liberal justices were very focused on consequences. They’ve said that the court can’t close its eyes to the reality of what’s going to happen in the real world because of a decision. The conservative justices said the opposite. And yet here, they’re magically all on the same page. Justices like Roberts have rediscovered judicial humility and the beauty of letting the people decide and democracy working itself clean.

That’s true of Dobbs, too, where the court said originalism was the hill they would die on regardless of the consequences. Now they’re saying, “Never mind originalism, we can’t have Colorado deciding an election for the other states.”

Tweet Share Share Comment

QOSHE - The Most Galling Thing About the Supreme Court’s Trump Ballot Arguments - Dahlia Lithwick And Mark Joseph Stern
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

The Most Galling Thing About the Supreme Court’s Trump Ballot Arguments

7 34
10.02.2024
Tweet Share Share Comment

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in Trump v. Anderson, which challenges Donald Trump’s ability to appear on the ballot in Colorado. A group of voters brought the case under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officeholders from returning to power if they have “engaged in insurrection”; the plaintiffs argue that Trump’s participation in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol subjects him to disqualification under the amendment. On a new episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed a strange and discomfiting threat that emerged from the right flank of the court during arguments. Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

To listen to the full episode of Amicus, join Slate Plus.

Advertisement

Dahlia Lithwick: Mark, I want to ask you about something that struck me only at 3 a.m. when I was trying to figure out what I thought about oral arguments. And the thing I was really clocking that we hadn’t talked about enough is the mob-like threat that emerged from some justices, like—nice democracy you got, it’d be a shame if something happened to it. By that I mean, there was this subtle threat, right? And it starts in Jonathan Mitchell’s briefing, when he says there’ll be all sorts of chaos and mayhem and violence if Trump is removed from the ballot. There was a question from Chief Justice John Roberts about how, if the court sides with Colorado, Republicans are going to knock Democrats off the ballot next. It’s there in Justice Samuel Alito’s questioning about vexatious, frivolous lawsuits that will surely follow.

I think we are so........

© Slate


Get it on Google Play