Trump Ballot Access & Florida’s Proposed Abortion Amendment - Top 3 Takeaways – February 8th, 2024
- Trump’s Ballot Access. In less than a week we’ve already had a rollercoaster ride of Trump related legal news. Friday was an especially good day for Trump and his supporters as there was positive news involving two of the four outstanding criminal cases pending against him. The juiciest bit of news pertained to the formal disclosure by Fulton County, Georgia DA Fanni Willis that she has had a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired, at above market rates and with no RICO prosecution experience, to prosecute the Trump RICO case. The disclosure and the potential fallout for Willis and her office, as she’s now under congressional and state investigations for potential criminal conduct, calls into question the legitimacy of her attempted criminal prosecution of Trump and various associates pertaining to the alleged effort to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results. The most important news for the Trump team on Friday came in Washington D.C. when Judge Tanya Chutkan, assigned to Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s January 6th case, removed the case from the docket indefinitely. That was the first criminal case scheduled to take place against Donald Trump, March 4th. It also happens to be the criminal case posed in the least favorable setting for Trump as he won only 5% of the vote in D.C. in 2020. The good news from a Trump legal perspective was tempered on Tuesday when the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled against Trump’s attempted use of presidential immunity to avoid prosecution in the January 6th related case, which was expected, but that also came with an order stating that Trump’s team only had until Monday to appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court or they would allow Judge Chutkan to reschedule the case. That ruling, and the timing associated with it, clears a path for the January 6th trial to take place before the Presidential election in November (unless the Supreme Court decides what no one on either side expects them to and rules in favor of the presidential immunity challenge). Today figures to be the start of another good legal day for team Trump. As I’ve previously stated in discussing the Trump ballot access case... The United States Supreme Court’s decision to take up the Trump-Colorado ballot access case, following the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove him from state ballots, is most certainly outrageous but necessary. It was outrageous when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled, without due process, that Donald Trump was guilty of insurrection – a crime which, despite four pending criminal cases against him, and with a total of 91 outstating charges against him, Donald Trump’s not even alleged to have engaged in. There is nothing more anti-American or anti-Democratic than a court finding a person guilty of something he’s never been charged with doing. It’s also outrageous that the Constitutional Amendment cited by the Colorado Supreme Court to attempt to justify their anti-American, and anti-Democratic decision, quite literally doesn’t allow for any other body outside of Congress, through the impeachment process, to do such a thing. It’s that much more outrageous that Donald Trump was tried under the impeachment process for insurrection, as is constitutionally prescribed, and was acquitted. For those reasons, as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Trump ballot access case today, team Trump figures to be in a winning position on this matter. One that the Supreme Court, when it eventually rules, figures to put to rest for consideration in all states and in all elections, including most importantly, the general election.
- There is no question that voters know what viability means. Yesterday’s hearing before the Florida Supreme Court to consider whether to allow the proposed constitutional abortion amendment on the ballots of Floridians in November was revealing. First, and foremost, both sides were met with significant skepticism by the justices. The attempted case being made against the ballot amendment’s language as misleading by the state’s representation and a prolife interest group were effectively dismantled by Chief Justice Carlos Muniz, Justice Canady and Justice Couriel. However, there was a particular moment in an exchange with Justice Sasso that may have been a turning point in the proceedings. At least it was for me. It was during an opening exchange between Courtney Brewer, council representing the PAC which brought the proposed abortion amendment before the court, Floridians Protecting Freedom. Justice Sasso asked the question “how do we expect the voters to know the legal effect when there is no explanation at all given to the legal effect?”. The answer provided was: “Because the words that are used are understood by voters in the context in which they are used. There is no question that voters understand what viability means in the abortion context.” That struck me for two reasons. First...
- Do you know what viability means in the abortion context? I mean yeah – it means when a baby could live outside the womb, but do you have any idea when or how exactly that’s determined? Neither did I because to the best of my understanding there’s not a finite timeline pertaining to viability. And as it turned out when I looked up the research on the topic that’s precisely what I found. According to a study by the National Institutes of Health, it is possible for 10% of fetuses to live outside the womb at 23 weeks, with 50% able to survive at 24 weeks and most fetuses surviving beyond 25 weeks. So how exactly does everyone understand what the word “viability” means in the abortion context when the answer is that there isn’t an exact answer? I’m pretty sure that as a reasonably informed person, if I have to look something up to confirm a government study which concluded that there isn’t any hard and fast answer to the question – that's a solid enough case to throw the proposed ballot question out. With that said I’m not so sure that they will. I got the overall sense that the ballot question may win approval from the Supreme Court. We shall see...