I spent hours trying to be a good citizen — reading arguments on both sides of the 14th amendment and stripping Trump off the ballot. After carefully weighing both sides, I had made my own “perfect decision.“

Then I listened to the Supreme Court.

  • They argued over semantics:
    • “It doesn’t say President”
    • “Is the President an officer”
    • “How do you define insurrection.”
  • They argued over process:
    • “Who decides?”
    • “The 14th amendment is about federal power not state power.”
    • “Can one state decide a national election”

As Neil Katyal said: “They allowed Donald Trump to read the 14th Amendment like a tax code, looking for a loophole here, and a loophole there.”

Fucking cowards.

The entire tone of their discussion was fear. Fear of making a call. Fear of being blamed. Fear to take a stand. To deal with their fear they hid behind technicalities.

The Supreme Court sat and argued semantics while the US Constitution burned… What’s the point of making amendments if no one will enforce it?

They ran away from the actual history of the case. No one asked why the founders added Section 3. No one looked at the history of insurrection BEFORE the Civil War. The actions in 1859 and 1860 to prevent Lincoln from taking office. The people who led the “first insurrection” before the Civil War were never convicted of insurrection — there was no law from Congress, but they were banned from office under Section 3.

The Supreme Court knew this (or they should have known). They were told in this brief: the tale of John B. Floyd, who was secretary of war in 1859 and early 1860 and tried to seize Washington DC before the war. And the people who wrote the 14th Amendment knew it all too well — they had lived it.

John B. Floyd — one of the main reasons they wrote section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He tried to take over Washington DC before Lincoln’s inauguration. As US Secretary of War he also supplied southern states with military equipment right before the war. Never convicted of insurrection. The founders used him as an example of a traitor the 14th amendment would ban.

Today’s Court ran away from the principles of democracy. The constitution is a framework to implement checks and balances and preserve democracy against the tyrannical forces of would-be kings, and usurpers. Especially popular ones.

But the justices made no mention of their role to interpret the purpose of the constitution. Only to fight over its legalese and look for a means to run away from their duty. I don’t remember a single sentence about “principles” or “purpose” of the 14th amendment in protecting democracy from a demagogue and a liar. You know, the orange liar who told us in 2017 he would protect and defend the constitution only to try and terminate it in 2020 to keep himself in office.

I don’t remember anything in front of the court about those who break an oath — only fighting over the specific words in each oath like “protect and defend” is somehow different than “support.”

They seemed to land on “one state cannot decide a federal election.” Which would give the president (the only national role elected by the entire nation) some special protection from states removing them from office.

But states always decide who gets on their ballot. How is this different than limits on third parties or independent candidates getting on different state ballots. Ralph Nader may have pulled enough votes in Florida to keep Al Gore from winning the entire country. Ross Perot may have pulled enough votes in key states to throw the national election to Clinton. Did those states decide the national election by who they put on the ballot? (The answer is yes. Yes they did.)

They were so concerned about chaos at the state level, “What if someone in a different state wants Joe Biden off the ballot — who are we to decide…” (not an exact quote, but you get the gist.) They could have stepped in and taken responsibility for making a decision at the national level. Saying “Trump broke his oath. He’s out.” Or even “Trump didn’t break his oath” would have been a better way to think about the issue. But they ran from that too.

They seemed to want to treat this case like a criminal trial, but they didn’t want to be the court to decide the case. Banning one person from office is not a prison sentence. It’s not even denying a political party a chance to enact its platform. A party could pick someone else. It’s just limiting the office to people who don’t break their oaths. No one person has a “right” to be President. There is no single “savior” for this country. There are plenty of talented people who could be good Presidents.

As of this writing, the Court has yet to make its decision. But based on how they framed the argument, I highly doubt they will do more than find a loophole. One that does not hold them responsible. One that will be difficult to challenge later if Trump actually pulls another miracle and wins an election. But they will be wrong. And they will remain cowards for all the world for all time to see.