Dem
51
GOP
49
Fresh off of making Donald Trump virtually Fourteenth-Amendment-proof, the Supreme Court has declined to consider the case of Couy Griffin. So, Griffin is barred from holding office under the Insurrection Clause, while Trump is not.
Inasmuch as the Court did not hear the case, the Supremes did not explain their reasoning in allowing Griffin's disqualification to stand. There are two big differences between him and Trump: (1) Griffin has been convicted of an insurrection-related crime (for participating in the events of 1/6) and Trump hasn't, and (2) Griffin was disqualified by his state for a state-level office. Presumably, it was one of these two things that caused SCOTUS to draw a distinction between Griffin and Trump.
That said, either of these possibilities raises questions. If Griffin's disqualification stands because he was convicted of an insurrection-related act, then does that mean a Trump conviction in the court of Tanya Chutkan would automatically disqualify Trump? If so, then shouldn't SCOTUS prioritize his presidential immunity case, so the American people have that rather important piece of information?
On the other hand, if Griffin's disqualification is because he was not a federal officeholder, does that mean he could still run for Congress? Or the presidency? And if being disqualified from federal office requires federal enabling legislation, then how come being disqualified from state office does not require state enabling legislation?
In short, it seems to us like SCOTUS should have probably taken this case, so as to resolve at least some of the ambiguities present in the Trump decision. As it is, we're more confused than ever as to what the Insurrection Clause does, and does not, do. (Z)