Welcome to the Weekly Newsletter. The plan—subject to change—is to apply the Morning Newsletter’s sensibility—snark, healthy skepticism, intellectual consistency—to a more fulsome analysis of the week’s major news events. Basically, same voice but more thought. We’ll see how it goes.
On Tuesday night, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a Florida man with anti-social and authoritarian tendencies (not to mention grandiose delusions and strong indications of psychopathy) was ineligible to appear on the state’s presidential primary ballot. The court ruled, in a 4-3 decision, that Donald Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that no person shall “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.
Reactions online were swift. And as with all hasty reactions, they were well thought out, even-keeled, deliberative and nuanced—online and cable pundits once again distinguished themselves. Despite bathing themselves in valor, the pundits may have missed a few things worthy of note, so let’s run through some of issues the Supreme Court will wrestle with.
While the Colorado Supreme Court arrived at its decision thoughtfully and in good faith, it was not cut and dry. The court ruled 4-3, with three justices, including the chief justice—all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors—ruling against removing Trump from the ballot. The arguments made by the minority are certain to come up when the case comes before the Supreme Court.
In his dissent, Chief Justice Brian Boatright argued the court did not have the authority to reach any decision on the matter of Trump’s eligibility. Boatright said in his dissent that under the Colorado statute at issue, the court has jurisdiction to rule on things like eligibility to run for president based on age or country of origin, but in the case before them, the court did not have the authority to rule on whether Trump engaged in insurrection. It’s a strong argument, not least because the court never heard evidence in support of or against the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. It reached its conclusion absent any legal fact finding.
Justice Carlos Samour also wrote a dissent and made a similar argument, effectively saying Trump should not be stripped of his right to pursue the presidency without due process.
There are equally strong arguments on the other side. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require that the individual in question has been convicted of insurrection. The section was written this way intentionally. There were tens of thousands of Americans who fought for the Confederacy, most of whom were allowed to return to their homes and families following the war. The federal government had neither the interest nor the ability to prosecute them. But Congress did want to make sure that they could not serve in a government they had engaged in armed rebellion against. Section 3 was drafted in a way that addressed that issue.
There’s another argument that’s been made in opposition to the ruling that’s both political and legal, but fails under close inspection. That argument says that removing Trump from the ballot is antidemocratic. Yes and no. It’s true that ruling Trump ineligible strips voters of their right to choose who they want for president. But it’s also true that Section 3 exists as an option of last resort, triggered when all the political options have been exhausted, which is the case here. It’s further the case that the 14th Amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the states. Essentially, the electorate has already had its say on the matter.
On the political side of this argument is the question of the larger effect it would have on the country. If the court were to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, it’s almost a certainty that political violence would follow. It’s also true that the court’s legitimacy would take a hit, this time on the right. But this issue is a 7-10 split, however the court rules, it will take a hit. It will be just one more instance of Donald Trump stressing the system to the extent it undermines our institutions.
In the end, the court is likely to rule for the least disruptive option on some type of due process grounds. In other words, it’s likely to overturn the Colorado decision on the basis that the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection was never fairly adjudicated, or some similar justification. It’s a defensible position, even if it’s the wrong one.
The U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution on Friday calling for the immediate delivery of aid to Gaza civilians. The United States and Russia both abstained (for different reasons) from the vote, allowing it to pass. In order to avoid a U.S. veto, language calling for a permanent ceasefire was removed from the resolution. Instead, the resolution calls for "extended humanitarian pauses and corridors throughout the Gaza Strip".
The United Nations is one of the most toothless and ineffectual international organizations in the world, so the resolution will have very little effect. But it does speak to the international isolation the United States is facing because of its support for Israel’s war against Hamas.
This newsletter has stated before that it supports Israel’s right to defend itself. It’s the manner in which it is defending itself that presents supporters of Israel with a problem. The world has come to the conclusion that Israel’s assault on Gaza has been indiscriminate. That’s almost certainly not true but what seems to be true is that Israel’s criteria for what constitutes a legitimate military target is insufficient given the asymmetric nature of the enemy. It’s also certain that officials from the United States have made this argument privately to Israeli leaders repeatedly but to no avail.
The war is having two significant knock-on effects that could impact the 2024 presidential election. First, Biden’s support among young Democrats has cratered as a result of his staunch support for Israel. While many of those voters are likely to “come home” to Biden once the race becomes more of a binary choice later in the year, a non-trivial number of voters may stay home or vote third party. Biden is going to need every last vote, so even shaving off a few fractions of a percent could have a major impact in swing states.
The second issue is the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, who have made life miserable, dangerous and expensive for shipping in and around the Red Sea. In response to Israel’s war against Hamas, the Houthis have taken to piracy and rocket assaults on ships making passage through the Suez Canal, one of the world’s major shipping chokepoints. As a result, food and fuel prices are likely to rise worldwide.
After two years of generationally high inflation, prices have finally begun to level off in the United States. Biden’s campaign is already weighed down by the high inflation the country suffered following the pandemic, he is desperately in need of excellent economic news and an overall sentiment among voters that things are improving. A new round of inflation would be potentially catastrophic for Biden’s prospects in 2024.
What else do we know this week?
Two Denver-area paramedics were convicted Friday in the 2019 killing of Elijah McClain. Aurora Fire Rescue paramedics Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide for administering a lethal dose of the sedative ketamine after police put McClain in a neck hold. McClain had been walking home from the store when cops stopped him following a complaint of a suspicious person in the area. A short time later, McClain was dead
Cornel West spent this past week campaigning in the critical swing state of Michigan, where he made his case to Arab Americans that they should vote for him rather than Joe Biden. Cornel West is one of a handful of certifiable wackadoodles who have decided, for reasons entirely born from ego, that it would be a good idea to siphon votes away from Biden in an election year when the country’s future as a vital democracy hangs in the balance. Biden won Michigan in 2020 by 150,000 votes
California Governor Gavin Newsom indicated Friday that he was opposed to the idea of disqualifying Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot. It’s a win/win for the guy who wants to be the backup should Joe Biden shuffle off this mortal coil between now and election day. Newsom gets to look like a champion of democracy, secure in the knowledge that his reliably blue state would never give its 54 electoral votes to Donald Trump
If right-wing media is to be believed, the War on Christmas rages on. At least from where I’m sitting, the battle does not appear to be going well for the godless heathens. Exhibits A through D: