Sargent announced: "I’m calling BS on a narrative that’s become widespread," noting how "everywhere" the narrative has become.
"It’s often meant to imply that there’s something delusional or escapist about taking the Colorado ruling and the 14th Amendment question seriously," Sargent wrote. "But that's ridiculous. This claim is even actively bad and destructive in civic terms."
ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives
He thinks those who are making the claim have their own motives behind it. They want to use the frame that Democrats think this is the only way that they can beat Trump and that they want to avoid facing "their own political failures."
"All this is absurd," Sargent explains. "Liberals/Dems organized and beat Trump and his movement in three straight national elections (in 2022 it’s a bit more mixed but still). Sneer about 'the Resistance' all you want, but on-the-ground organizing has been central to the story of Trump’s defeats."
He continues:
"Whether Trump committed insurrection under the Constitution, and what to do about it, is obviously a legitimately contested question," he writes. "Ironically, the real evasion here is declaring he self-evidently didn’t commit insurrection and then handwaving this away as a settled matter."
He goes on to cite columnist Jonathan Chait, who wrote that the Colorado ruling booting Trump from the ballot could ultimately lead to consequences.
"It's possible this case isn't unambiguous enough for such a fraught step," wrote Sargent. "But this alone can’t settle the question. No one can honestly read the Baude/Paulsen paper and deny Trump *really might* be disqualified under a reasonable reading of history and the law. This is inconvenient, because it means there’s no easy civic answer to this matter."
New Republic editor Brian Beutler said that a Supreme Court ruling would "undermine" its institutional integrity, something the High Court is already fighting with.
"MAGA voters' feelings can't be controlled here," said Sargent.
Slate legal analyst Dahlia Lithwick writes that the Colorado court's handling of the case showed more institutional integrity than the Supreme Court has lately.
"Trump is consciously trying to *destroy* faith in our electoral institutions by conditioning his movement to reject election losses as illegitimate. It’s perverse to argue that the way to restore faith in our institutions is to let Trump try to wreck them with impunity," wrote Sargent. "Elections and democracy require underlying rules of political competition. Those are often litigated by courts. Perhaps no rule is more fundamental than the requirement that you accept that competition’s outcome and not try to negate it illegally and with mob violence. Aren't there civic dangers in NOT enforcing that rule? Any serious reckoning with this matter requires grappling with those dangers, too. Failing to factor them in as well deprives the American people of the debate they need."
He confessed he doesn't know the legal answers but acknowledged that Trump will likely win at the Supreme Court. Dismissing all of it as "self-evident" isn't an acceptable option, the columnist added.
U.S. institutions could also benefit from the debate, he explained, noting that the system can handle it.
Read the full thread right here.
