“Slippery slope” arguments are important in the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence, since the Court sets precedents that will be followed in a wide range of circumstances. Anticipating those circumstances and where they might lead is essential in tailoring decisions that go no further than is necessary to resolve the case before the justices.
But in the oral arguments for Trump v. Anderson, involving Colorado’s decision to bar Donald Trump from the ballot as an “insurrectionist” under the authority of the 14th Amendment, a particular “slippery slope” fear emerged that’s a bit startling when you think about it. In questioning Jason Murray, counsel for the Colorado voters who sought Trump’s exclusion, Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to know if other states might retaliate by excluding Joe Biden on the same grounds:
If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side. And some of those will succeed.
I would expect that, you know, a goodly number of states will say, whoever the democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot. And others for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.
Murray promptly described the possibility of states disqualifying Biden as an insurrectionist as a “frivolous application of a constitutional provision,” but Robert interrupted:
Well now, hold on. You might think they’re frivolous but the people who are bringing them may not think they’re frivolous. Insurrection is a broad, broad term. And if there’s some debate about it, I suppose that will go into the decision and then eventually, what, we would be deciding whether it was an insurrection when one president did something as opposed to when somebody else did something else? And what do we do? Do we wait until near the time of counting the ballots and sort of go through which states are valid and which states aren’t?
This wasn’t just a matter of Roberts being argumentative; to some extent liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson shared his concern about a need for uniformity in the face of states that might have widely varying standards for disqualifying presidential candidates. Murray struggled again and again to point out the obvious: neither Joe Biden nor any other president in the history of the Republic had undertaken conduct similar to Trump’s effort to overturn an election result and obstruct the orderly transition of power via acts of violence and physical intimidation of Congress. And that’s what makes Trump at least arguably but in any case uniquely subject to the kind of sanctions the 14th Amendment designed for the rebels of the Confederacy.
What may have been in the minds of the Justices is the incredible fact that Donald Trump and his backers have indeed tried to argue that by pursuing policies they don’t like Biden has become an insurrectionist. On the third anniversary of his own January 6 treachery, Trump told Fox News Digital: “The only insurrection is the insurrection that is taking place at our border where he is allowing millions of people from parts unknown to invade our country at a level far worse than even a military invasion.” And the threat of a red state retaliation to any denial of ballot access for Trump isn’t strictly hypothetical: it was articulated by the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, as the Hill reported in December:
“Seeing what happened in Colorado tonight … makes me think — except we believe in democracy in Texas — maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been president, disrupting our state far more than anything anyone else has done in recent history,” Patrick said in an interview with Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham.
Similarly, Missouri Attorney General Jay Ashcroft argued that Biden’s border enforcement policies constituted an “insurrection” just as much as Trump inciting a mob to attack the Capitol:
What has happened in Colorado & Maine is disgraceful & undermines our republic. While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden! https://t.co/Zx2P4k9A8w
So does this absurd analogy coupled with a threat justify Roberts’s fears and require quashing Colorado’s ballot disqualification decision? Perhaps. But it also will in the future encourage insurrectionists and their enablers to argue in their defense that everybody does it. We’re already pretty far down a slippery slope to legal and moral relativism.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.
Supreme Court Justices Fear Red States Will Label Biden an Insurrectionist, Too
4
10
09.02.2024
“Slippery slope” arguments are important in the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence, since the Court sets precedents that will be followed in a wide range of circumstances. Anticipating those circumstances and where they might lead is essential in tailoring decisions that go no further than is necessary to resolve the case before the justices.
But in the oral arguments for Trump v. Anderson, involving Colorado’s decision to bar Donald Trump from the ballot as an “insurrectionist” under the authority of the 14th Amendment, a particular “slippery slope” fear emerged that’s a bit startling when you think about it. In questioning Jason Murray, counsel for the Colorado voters who sought Trump’s exclusion, Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to know if other states might retaliate by excluding Joe Biden on the same grounds:
If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side. And some of those will succeed.
I would expect that, you know, a goodly number of states will say, whoever the democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot. And others for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It’ll come down to........
© Daily Intelligencer
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Mohamad Elmasry
Belen Fernandez
Brahma Chellaney
Tarik Cyril Amar
Petra Lesjak Tušek
Rachel Marsden
