Rep. Raskin and others in the House are now full speed ahead in efforts to ‘disqualify’ former President Trump in the 2024 election
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, along with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Eric Swalwell of California, have announced plans to reintroduce a previous bill aimed at disqualifying not only former President Donald Trump but also a significant number of Republicans from holding office. Raskin describes this as just one item on a lengthy list of priorities.
Their actions suggest a reluctance to allow the public to democratically elect their next president and congressional representatives. It seems Democrats are wary of the potential for genuine democratic participation resulting from a unanimous decision. While the courts have warned of potential chaos in elections, Raskin and others appear willing to risk creating chaos within Congress.
Shortly after the decision, Raskin appeared on CNN to reassure viewers that he and his colleagues would take action to prevent the restoration of voting rights to citizens in the upcoming election. He pledged to reintroduce a previous bill that would label January 6th as an “insurrection” and classify those involved as having “engaged in insurrection.”
I previously discussed these “ballot cleansing” efforts because they aim to disqualify not only Trump but also potentially dozens of sitting Republican members of Congress. Rep. Bill Pascrell, a Democrat from New Jersey, attempted to bar 126 members of Congress using the same theory. Similarly, Rep. Cori Bush, a Democrat from Missouri, introduced legislation to disqualify members and garnered 63 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
Raskin’s involvement in this endeavor is notably ironic. In 2016, he sought to block the certification of the 2016 election under the very same law, amid violent protests occurring before the inauguration.
The previous bills were broad in scope and targeted members who didn’t partake in any violent acts (as no member has been charged with such violence or incitement), but simply opposed certification.
Raskin recently presented an argument for the disqualification of Trump and his congressional colleagues that some may find Orwellian. He stated, “If you think about it, of all the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”
In essence, Raskin’s assertion that preventing voters from voting is “the most democratic” because they choose to oppose certification mirrors his own actions in 2016.
After the ruling, Raskin made the curious claim that the justices “didn’t exactly disagree with [the disqualification theory]. They just said that they’re not the ones to figure it out. It’s not going to be a matter for judicial resolution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it’s up to Congress to enforce it.”
This stance sharply contrasts with Raskin’s pre-decision position, where he insisted that there was no real legal question and that the case before the justices was “their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.”
Indeed, the Supreme Court acted as “real Supreme Court justices” by unanimously opposing what the Court described as the “chaos” that would ensue from such state disqualification efforts. However, Raskin seems to be pursuing a new avenue for chaos through Congress.
Raskin’s statement is also perplexing in suggesting that the justices agreed with him and others advocating for disqualification. No one, not even the Trump team, disputed Congress’s authority to bar individuals from office. It’s explicitly stated in the Constitution, making it a fact rather than a mere argument.
Certainly, the Democrats would need to carefully draft the legislation to meet the standard and gain the support of both houses, which doesn’t seem likely at this juncture.
However, Raskin is achieving success in one aspect. He and his colleagues have effectively eradicated any moral high ground they may have held after January 6th. While many of us condemned the riot on that day as an attack on our constitutional process, the Democrats’ response has been marked by some of the most anti-democratic efforts aimed at preventing voters from exercising their rights in the upcoming election.
For these members, they believe citizens cannot be trusted with this power, especially as Trump leads national polls as the preferred presidential candidate. It’s akin to a constitutional version of the Big Gulp law, where voters, like consumers, must be shielded from their own potentially harmful choices.
Raskin has continued to criticize the nine justices for not supporting the concept of ballot cleansing. He told CNN that the court “doesn’t like the ultimate and inescapable implications of just enforcing the Constitution, as written.” In other words, Raskin suggests that all nine justices, including the three liberal justices, are disregarding clear constitutional mandates to protect Trump.
The same delusional perspective was echoed by other liberals who were outraged by the decision. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared, “The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members, including Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor, have proven themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively, the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”
After all, what screams democracy more than ballot cleansing and calls for dissolving courts just before a national election?
The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
— Keith Olbermann⌚️ (@KeithOlbermann) March 4, 2024
It must be dissolved.
With the revival of efforts to disqualify Republicans from appearing on ballots, Raskin and his colleagues appear to be channeling the spirit of former Mayor Richard Daley during the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.
Amid allegations of police brutality in quelling protests, Daley famously declared, “The policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.” As Democrats prepare to return to Chicago for their convention this year, Raskin and others seem to be sending a similar message to the Court: “The party isn’t there to create chaos, the party is there to preserve chaos.”