Turley and Even the CNN Legal Analyst Lay Waste to Maine SecState's Decision on Trump
I wrote earlier about how the Maine Secretary of State defended her decision to boot former President Donald Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment, claiming he'd committed insurrection. Shenna Bellows even bragged about voter participation, as her move deprived millions of the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Bellows suspended her decision pending court review, but it was still deeply flawed, as George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out. He noted it was a "litany of conclusory statements" that claimed to be defending democracy, while preventing people from casting their votes. He also explained how it wasn't an insurrection and the question of whether it even applied to presidents.
Even Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) said he didn't think Trump should be disqualified without a conviction on the charge of insurrection, which had not occurred so he said the decision was wrong.
The final nail in Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' opinion may come from CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. He pointed out how it wasn't a court decision and how Bellows wasn't even an attorney.
Honig said there were questions of due process or whether this was fair, and there was an argument it was not, that Bellows only heard from one fact witness, a law professor. He added
She based her ruling on a lot of documents, but also YouTube clips, news reports, things that would never pass the bar in normal court. She’s not a lawyer, by the way.
In other words, she didn't hear more witnesses as to the real facts of the case and what she did hear could be problematic. Which YouTube clips and news reports -- how biased and wrong were they? This exposes why this process is such a problem, and was even worse than the Colorado Supreme Court decision.
Honig said the arguments you could hear from critics would be:
1) it's not up to the states to make this decision, that's why you have all the varied decisions from the different states on the matter
2) the procedures were not up to snuff.
Both are true, and the first is why we need SCOTUS to weigh in and take up the case, to make a proper determination as to the 14th Amendment so there is one law on the matter that settles the question.
As we reported, the Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows made the decision to boot former President Donald Trump off the ballot on the basis of the 14th Amendment for insurrection, despite him never being convicted or even charged with insurrection. Not to mention that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to presidents and the facts don't support the claim of insurrection in any event. Her decision was even worse than the decision in Colorado, her decision wasn't even a court decision. You can read her decision here.
Bellows hit the airwaves to defend her decision. She even had the temerity to brag about voter participation as she disenfranchised millions with her decision. But as with the Colorado decision, she suspended her decision pending court review and the Trump team said they would be taking it to court.
Maine SecState Defends Move to Boot Trump, but Suspends Decision and Gets Blasted
George Washington professor Jonathan Turley decimated her decision in a thread on X.
He said he had decided to "add her name to the ignoble list of Democratic officials claiming to defend democracy by preventing its exercise for millions of Trump supporters" and that "Maine shows why the Court needs to rule quickly, clearly, and hopefully unanimously in rejecting this pernicious theory."
He did not think much of her reasoning.
The "decision" is a litany of conclusory statements consistent with Bellows' prior public condemnations of the "insurrection" and Trump. It will now be subject to judicial review where Maine judges will hopefully show the same fealty to the constitution as other courts in rejecting this theory...
He explained that he believed the 14th challengers to Trump in Maine went there because of Bellows' statements after Jan. 6 that it was an insurrection [thinking that they would have a better shot]. Turley emphasized this was the Secretary of State's decision and not a court decision. He noted that she was a Democrat. He reiterated this would still have to face judicial scrutiny and hoped that the court in Maine would have the same integrity as states other than Colorado to reject this.
"It is really striking how Bellows cloaks herself as a defender of democracy in this statement when she is preventing voters from casting their vote for what is currently the leading candidate for the presidency. So it’s, it''s a very odd claim to make in my view."
Turley went on to call her take fundamentally flawed, saying it wasn't an insurrection -- it was a protest that turned into a riot. "There are a host of problems, including applying this provision to Donald Trump." He hoped that it "added to the urgency" for SCOTUS to rule on and settle the question. He hoped SCOTUS should act "with unanimity to put this dangerous theory away for good."
I believe Turley is correct, that SCOTUS is likely to take it up, particularly given the varying takes from the different state courts and secretaries of state, and that they will rule against it applying to Trump. But in the meantime, don't be surprised if more courts/Secretaries of State jump aboard this bad bandwagon in the pernicious effort to take out Trump.
Post a Comment