HALEY CAN'T WIN, BUT SHE CAN HELP

 Like any woman that doesn't worship him like the god he thinks he is, Nikki Haley has gotten under Donald Trump's skin.  Trump, after winning the New Hampshire presidential primary over Haley by double digits, instead of giving a magnanimous speech as he had a few days earlier after winning Iowa, spent most of his victory speech ripping into her.  Previously he had childishly called her "birdbrain", in this speech he decided to insult her outfit ("I watched her in that fancy dress, that probably wasn't so fancy").  But in his usual morass of lies and boasts, he also stumbled on a truth when he said that Haley was"doing like a speech like she won,” though “she didn’t win, she lost.”

The thing that obviously needles Trump the most is that Haley did not immediately endorse him after losing.  Ron DeSantis, who for over a year had been seen as Trump's biggest possible challenger for the Republican Presidential nomination, immediately endorsed him after losing in Iowa.  But Haley, even though she came in third behind Trump and DeSantis, decided to continue her campaign, saying that she was polling well in New Hampshire.  And she continued her campaign after New Hampshire, even though the path ahead looks impossible for her.  Let's face it, the majority of the Republican party faithful still adore Trump, think that he won in 2020 and that he can't lose in 2024.  The idea that a woman, particularly one of color, would take Trump's place, even if she's doing better in polls agains Biden than Trump is, is crazy.

In the past few years, Haley has acted like a lot of  Republicans since Trump arrived.  At one point in 2016 she said of him, “I will not stop until we fight a man that chooses not to disavow the KKK. That is not a part of our party, that is not who we want as president. We we allow not allow that in our country.”  And like so  many other Republicans (like say Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham) she quickly forgot all her criticisms of him once he won and eventually she accepted a job in his regime  as US ambassador to the United Nations.  But unlike so many people who worked in the Trump administration, she was not forced out, found guilty of  a crime, or left because she couldn't stand him. (Perhaps because as UN ambassador, I doubt she dealt with Trump a lot directly).  Really, she's one of the few people to encounter Trump and emerge unscathed and relatively complimentary of him.

At first as a candidate, Haley was reluctant to openly criticize Trump, only making a few mild jabs at his age.  But now with DeSantis gone,  it seems like the gloves are off: she recently referred to him as "totally unhinged", and attacked his mental acuity.  Given that there's no way that Trump will ever forgive her for staying in the race and going after him, it seems possible that Haley has now thrown herself into the "never Trump" camp, even if she won's admit it.  While she has no chance of winning, her words (which will inevitably wind up in numerous attack ads against Trump), may hurt Trump with those crucial suburban women voters that can turn an election, especially, if Trump continues to make usual misogynistic comments about her.  The important question is, after she loses, will Haley support Trump, or will she just offer no endorsement of either candidate? Is it possible that she could even endorse Joe Biden?  I doubt it, but then, fellow Republican presidential hopeful Chris Christie has already, so it's not impossible.  Whatever happens, given how close the 2024 election appears that it will be,  Haley may help turn the tide against Trump.

DISQULIFYING TRUMP?

 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. -Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

As we all know, around 2 weeks ago the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution disqualifies Donald Trump from holding the office of president of the United States.  Now, this amendment states that no one who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" can hold office.  The Colorado court ruled that, by inspiring the riot of January 6th.  Trump disqualified himself from holding the office of the presidency in the future, because the riot counted as an insurrection.  Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has said that they will take this case up soon, settling the matter for good in Colorado and other states that have challenged Trump's placement on the ballot.  And while this ruling has been cheered by many progressives, it should be pointed out some of the first people to make the case for Trump being disqualified under this amendment were   law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, both members of the conservative Federalist Society.

Personally, I am of two minds on this issue.  On the one hand, I am certainly sympathetic to the argument that Trump's behavior not only on January 6th but also beforehand invalidates his right to be president.  His refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, leading somewhat inevitably to violence, was a despicable stain on American history and on democracy itself.

On the other hand, the 14th Amendment was written in the wake of the Civil War to prevent any Confederacy leaders from holding office.  Was what Trump did, as horrible as it was, rise to the level of an insurrection?  Can it be compared to the Confederate states leaving the union?  It's hard to say. And I am sympathetic to the idea that Trump's fate should be chosen by voters and not the courts.

One interesting point here is that  the amendment itself never mentions the Confederacy specifically, just using the words "insurrection or rebellion", which would seem to me  that the Colorado Court was reasonable to use the broadness of the amendment's wording to disqualify Trump.  So, again I'm torn. A big part of the question is whether what happened on January 6th was a genuine insurrection, or whether it just a an angry mob venting its frustration at the outcome of an election.

Sadly, this ruling plays into Trump's constant narrative that he is always a victim of "the deep state".  Already he has used the court's ruling to fund raise for his campaign and polls of Republicans show them naturally rallying around him over the ruling. Even worse, the judges making the ruling have been flooded with violent threats, and if the Supreme Court does rule that Trump can be stripped from the ballot, those threats could very well become actions.  One thing that January 6th taught us is that Trump's strongest followers aren't afraid of using violence, and disqualifying Trump could push some of them over the edge.  Of course, no judges or politicians in a democracy should ever live in fear of making a controversial ruling or vote, but that is where the ascendency of Trump since 2015 has lead us.

In any event, the question of whether or not Trump can be disqualified is soon going to be decided by the Supreme Court, and I can't imagine that they will rule against Trump on this issue. Even though this court has ruled against him in the past, this issue will be seen as too important to take out of the hands of the voters.