The Supreme Court cannot stop working hard for Donald Trump

When he’s not making enemies Taylor Swift or claiming to look like Elvis Presley, Donald Trump spends much of his day complaining about the mistreatment of various government officials – usually prosecutors but sometimes also former presidents and members of his own Cabinet – how contrary to him. But on Monday, he heaped praise on nine DC administration officials, that is, the Supreme Court, for ruling that states could not remove him from the ballot despite his attempted coup made just over three years ago.

Speaking from Mar-a-Lago after the decision was made, Trump praised the justices for working “long,” “hard,” and “very quickly on things that will be talked about for about 100 years.” to and for the next 200 years, [something] extremely important.” Then, referring to the unanimous decision, he said he was “honored by a nine-to-no vote.” The court not only allowed Trump to remain on the ballot. votes in Colorado, the state that ousted him, but the five-member majority also assured that it would be difficult to prevent other insurrectionists from running for president in the future.

Each The Washington Post:

The justices drew a clear distinction between state and national elections, writing that “States may disqualify persons who hold or attempt to hold state office. But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] for federal positions, especially President.” Five of the six conservative justices went further, writing that the disqualification clause can only be enforced against national office through federal legislation — not by federal court challenges or executive actions. illegal actions of the National Assembly.

The three liberal justices, in a scathing concurrence, said the majority’s approach “shuts down other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot take a position that decides important and difficult issues unnecessarily.” The majority, they said, foreclosed enforcement through the courts if, for example, “a party was indicted by an insurrectionist and entered a plea on that point.”

In their concurring opinion, justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, And Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority for “trying[ing] to protect all alleged insurgents from future challenges to their holdings. Even conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed, but did not join the liberals’ views because she did not like their tone. (She commented separately that the case the Court was being asked to consider “does not require us to resolve the complex question of whether federal law is the exclusive means by which Section 3 can be execute or not.”)

Of course, Monday’s ruling is not the only ruling the Supreme Court is expected to issue this term regarding Trump and essentially the fate of democracy. Next month, they will hear arguments regarding the former guy’s immunity claim, which he hopes will lead to the justices agreeing that presidents cannot be held responsible for their actions. As he has stated before, Trump wrote today on Truth Social that unless presidents have complete immunity from the law both in office and afterward, they “will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, at the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation, after they left office. This can actually amount to extortion and extortion of a President.… A President must be free to make the right decisions. His mind must be clear and not be led by fear of retribution!

While it would be truly shocking — and seemingly unlikely — if the Court sides with Trump’s absurd immunity claims, as my colleague Eric Lutz noted last month, the justices were Satisfied helped the former president win by (1) agreeing to hear the case and (2) scheduling arguments for late April, which would delay his lawsuit to overturn the federal election until someone know when. So the only question now is how big the next gift they want to give him will be.