God knows they tried.  Members of  the U.S. Congress in 1866 (the 39th, if you’re interested) saw to it that the 14th amendment was passed and ratified.  One of three Reconstruction Amendments, it has within it a section, section 3, called the Disqualificaion Clause, that deals with insurrectionists.  After the Civil War, of course that is something that needed to be addressed.

As with all constitutional amendments, I am sure  its prescribers felt they did their best to provide for furture implementation.  Unfortunately, the 39th Congress did not include in the wording of the Disqualification Clause any procedure for determining who is subject to disqualification.  And so the current Supreme Court found itself dealing with its third case involving a former president of the United States in Trump vs Anderson.  That is the case which the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump should be disqualified from state ballots because   of his invoment in the January 6th attack on the Capitol Building.

Long story as short as I understand it, SCOTUS decided to avoid the nasty political entanglement of labeling Trump an insurrectionist.   They did reverse the Colorado Supreme Court, but not on grounds of insurrection.  They took the easy way out,  simply used a federalist apporoach and ruled no state can determine the eligibility of candidates for a federal election.

OK.  Understandable.  Kind of spineless, but as Justice Barrett stated, “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volitle season of a presidential election…the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”  That’s thoughtful, but in the end did not address the primary issue.  In fact, their decision made the clause almost moot, by fiat. SCOTUS ruled that any case involving an insurrection must be enforced through legislation enacted by congress.  In other words, the Court passed the buck back to congress.

Good luck with that.  Republicans will never disqualify thier presidential candidate on insurrectionist grounds. They already proved that by not convicting Trump when he was impeached for just that.  How about Democrats.?  Hopefully that party will never be bllindsided by a presidential candidate who turns out to be a conniving, egomaniacal sexual preditor hellbent on grabbing power at any cost, but should it happen who knows.  So neither the Supreme Court, nor congress, will shoulder the responsibilty of determining when an act committed by a presidential candidate is insurrection.  Not now, probabaly not ever, if we continue to be locked into the belief of party infallibility.  I honestly think that 39th Congress would be embarrased by our current Supreme Court.  What they did is maybe politically prudent, but constitutionally negligent.

What happened on January 6th 2021, was an insurrection, and Trump incited it.  We all witnessed it with our own eyes.  If Trump should loose his 2024 presidential bid, there is a very good chance there will be more MAGA rampage.  That is the very stark reality of our political/cultural environment today, where a deranged narcissist has the perplexing capability  to cajole misguided members of his cultish following into believing his lies to the point of inflicting personal injury.  Trump has conducted a relentless attack on our laws and institutions, and exposed  ambiguity in our constitution.  Sadly, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clarify one of those constitutional defects.  It seems to me there should be urgency to repair any flaws in our democratic process that Trump has revealed.  November is not that far away.

This is nuts.  How can a group of nine supposedly super intelligent people make such a  simple issue so complicated?  The case before the court: Does the  President of the United States have absolute immunity while in office. That’s it.  All there is to it.  The case is sitting there to be considered at its extreme.  If a president commits murder, robbery, espionage, rape, any capital crime*, he should be prosecuted as any ordinary citizen would be.  The basic constitutional provision for the presidency is that that person” take care that laws are faithfull executed.”  It doesn’t take a law degree to understand that in a democracy the person in charge of supervising the law should be expected to abide by those same laws.  Jesus Christ can something be more black or white?  Well somehow SCOTUS has to muck it all up in neon colors.  Yes the president should have some immunity  from prosecution for actions performed while exercising normal duties of the office.  But that’s not the issue here.  It clearly states “absolute” immunity.

This petition by Trump’s defense team has been lingering since December 1 of last year.  The entire nation awaits a decision, and this Supreme Court you would hope is smart enough to understand  its time-sensitive importance.  But as it stands now, nothing will be done until late April.  Delaying a decision till then would likely mean any federal trail would never be completed before the November presidential election.

What the f*** is going on over there?  Are those supreme black robes all in the bag for Trump, complicit in his ongoing judicial delay tactics?  Is it all just vainglorious Supreme Court hubris?  Maybe it’s all too much for them.  After all, the country has never been subjected to a president with such mind boggling  disregard for what are considered normal constraints of the office.  Who knows what upcoming conflagration they will have to extinguish.

But come on!  It’s SCOTUS’s job to expeditiously address judicial matters in order of importance.  Other high courts have made relatively rapid decisions concerning presidential matters.  The Nixon tape case, Bush/Gore case.  In fact this court has a well documented history of  using a shadow docket to make consequential, divisive decisions about Covid vacine, gun rights, and immigration. More to the point, their decision to allow Trump on Colorado’s state ballot was a fairly quick decision.  It is clear they understood they should act before Colorado voters were slated to cast ballots. These are supposedly very smart people.  This issue should not take a lengthy deliberation, and a decision is imperative before people vote in November. The country’s opinion of this group is already lower than whale shit.  Please suprise us with some expedited decisions and maybe start  resurecting your reputation from the unplungable depths.

*In some circles you might hear the argument Trump should already be disqualified on grounds of criminal conviction- rape, and robbery.