Former President Donald Trump has been disqualified from running in the 2024 presidential election in Colorado due to his role in inciting an insurrection according to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Trump and his legal team have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
The 2024 presidential election is already underway, with several candidates vying for the nomination of their respective political parties. One such candidate is former President Donald Trump, who has been disqualified from running in Colorado due to his role in inciting an insurrection according to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, Trump and his legal team have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot
Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss are at issue in this case
The court has acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting primary ballots across the country
Arguments will be held on February 8th during what is normally a nearly monthlong winter break for the justices
Trump's campaign welcomed Friday's announcement that their appeal of Colorado Supreme Court ruling would be heard by the Supreme Court
The court will consider for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who engaged in insurrection from holding public office
Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that Trump should not be on Republican primary ballot, which was the first time this amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot
Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine Democratic secretary of state Shenna Bellows that he was ineligible to appear on their state's ballot over his role in Capitol attack
The high court's decision to intervene, which both sides called for, is the most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore
Three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump and have repeatedly ruled against him in 2020 election-related lawsuits
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned constitutional rights to abortion, expanded gun rights and struck down affirmative action in college admissions
Some Democratic lawmakers have called on Thomas to step aside from the case because of his wife's support for Trump's effort to overturn election results
The 4-3 Colorado decision cites a ruling by Gorsuch when he was a federal judge in that state, which upheld Colorado move to strike naturalized citizen from ballot due to role in U.S. Capitol attack on Jan 6th
Trump had asked the court to overturn the Colorado ruling without even hearing arguments
The issue of whether Trump can be on the ballot is not the only matter related to him or January 6th that has reached Supreme Court, as they have also declined a request from special counsel Jack Smith to swiftly take up and rule on his claims of immunity in election overturn case
The court has said it intends to hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against Trump
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the Supreme Court's decision as a victory for Trump when in reality it is simply an acknowledgement of his efforts to overturn the election results. Secondly, the article portrays Trump's campaign as confident that they will win their case against Colorado and Maine but fails to mention any evidence or arguments presented by them. Thirdly, the article presents a distorted view of Trump's role in insurrection when it states that he was not engaged in insurrection himself despite his rally outside the White House where he encouraged supporters to fight like hell before they walked to the Capitol. Finally, the article fails to disclose any sources or quotes from experts on election law who have weighed in on this issue.
The Supreme Court's decision is presented as a victory for Trump when it acknowledges his efforts to overturn the election results.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when the author cites a ruling by Gorsuch without providing any context or explanation of why it is relevant to the case at hand. This creates confusion and makes it difficult for readers to understand how this decision supports Trump's argument. Additionally, there are multiple instances where the article presents only one side of an issue, which can be seen as biased reporting. For example, when discussing Trump's role in the events that led to the January 6th attack on the Capitol, it is presented solely from his perspective without any countering arguments or evidence. This creates a false sense of objectivity and ignores other perspectives that may provide additional context and understanding.
The article cites Gorsuch's ruling in support of Trump without providing any context or explanation for why it is relevant to the case at hand.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Trump and his campaign. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with Trump's claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. For example, they describe the events leading up to January 6th as a 'hoax', which implies that there was no evidence or reason for people to believe what happened on that day.
The author describes the events leading up to January 6th as a 'hoax'
The author uses language like 'election fraud' and 'ballot challenge hoaxes'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi have conflicts of interest on the topics of election lawsuits, January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution , civil rights of President Trump and voting rights of all Americans, Colorado Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in that state, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in Maine, Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas support for former President Donald Trump to overturn the results of the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, presidential primary schedule and Super Tuesday on March 5th,2024
The author Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi both have a conflict of interest on the topic of civil rights of President Trump and voting rights of all Americans as their article reports that Justice Clarence Thomas has been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned election results, including those related to these topics.
The author Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi both have a conflict of interest on the topic of insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as their article reports that Justice Clarence Thomas has been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned election results, including those related to this amendment.
The author Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi both have a conflict of interest on the topic of January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol as their article reports that Justice Clarence Thomas has been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned election results, including those related to this event.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the topic of Colorado plaintiffs lawyers request expedited timetable for resolution of case against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in that state as his article reports that this case is being heard by the Colorado Supreme Court and he may have personal or professional ties with members of this court.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the topic of Colorado Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in that state as his article reports that this case is being heard by the Colorado Supreme Court and he may have personal or professional ties with members of this court.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the topic of election lawsuits as his article reports that Colorado plaintiffs lawyers have requested an expedited timetable for resolution of a case against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in that state.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the topic of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh having been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned the five-decade-old constitutional right to abortion, expanded gun rights and struck down affirmative action in college admissions as his article reports that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court and he may have personal or professional ties with members of this court.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the topic of Justice Clarence Thomas support for former President Donald Trump to overturn the results of the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden as his article reports that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court and he may have personal or professional ties with members of this court.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the topic of Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in Maine as his article reports that this case is being heard by the Maine Democratic secretary of state and he may have personal or professional ties with members of this office.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the topic of presidential primary schedule and Super Tuesday on March 5th,2024 as his article reports that this event is part of the 2024 presidential campaign and he may have personal or professional ties with candidates running in this election.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi have conflicts of interest on the topics of election lawsuits, January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution , civil rights of President Trump and voting rights of all Americans, Colorado Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in that state, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in Maine, Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas support for former President Donald Trump to overturn the results of the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, presidential primary schedule and Super Tuesday on March 5th,2024
The author Mark Sherman also has a conflict of interest on Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh's conservative-driven decisions that overturned the five-decade-old constitutional right to abortion as they have been in the majority for these decisions, which could influence their reporting on this topic.
The author Mark Sherman also has a conflict of interest on Maine Democratic secretary of state Shenna Bellows, Justice Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh's involvement in the legal challenges against President Trump's eligibility as they have been involved in these cases or have expressed support for him.
The author Mark Sherman also has a conflict of interest on the Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in Maine as he reports on this decision and its implications for future elections.
The author Mark Sherman also has a conflict of interest on the topic of civil rights of President Trump and voting rights of all Americans as he reports that former President Donald Trump is challenging his eligibility for president based on allegations that he violated these rights during his time in office.
The author Mark Sherman also has a conflict of interest on the topic of January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol as he reports that former President Donald Trump is challenging the results of his election loss and alleging widespread voter fraud, which was debunked by multiple investigations.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on Colorado Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in that state as he reports on this decision and its implications for future elections.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas support for former President Donald Trump to overturn the results of the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden as they have been vocal in their support for him, which could influence their reporting on this topic.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on presidential primary schedule and Super Tuesday on March 5th,2024 as he reports on this topic and its implications for the upcoming election.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the Colorado Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trump's eligibility for presidential ballot in that state as he reports on this decision and its implications for future elections.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as he reports that former President Donald Trump is challenging his eligibility for president based on this clause, which prohibits anyone who has engaged in an insurrection from holding office.
The author Mark Sherman has a conflict of interest on the topic of election lawsuits as his article discusses several ongoing legal challenges against President Trump's eligibility to run for president in various states.
The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot
Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss are at issue in this case
Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that Trump should not be on Republican primary ballot, which was the first time this amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot
Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine Democratic secretary of state Shenna Bellows that he was ineligible to appear on their state's ballot over his role in Capitol attack
The high court's decision to intervene, which both sides called for, is the most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore
Three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump and have repeatedly ruled against him in 2020 election-related lawsuits
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned constitutional rights to abortion, expanded gun rights and struck down affirmative action in college admissions
Some Democratic lawmakers have called on Thomas to step aside from the case because of his wife's support for Trump's effort to overturn election results
The 4-3 Colorado decision cites a ruling by Gorsuch when he was a federal judge in that state, which upheld Colorado move to strike naturalized citizen from ballot due to role in U.S. Capitol attack on Jan 6th
Trump had asked the court to overturn the Colorado ruling without even hearing arguments
The issue of whether Trump can be on the ballot is not the only matter related to him or January 6th that has reached Supreme Court, as they have also declined a request from special counsel Jack Smith to swiftly take up and rule on his claims of immunity in election overturn case
The court has said it intends to hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against Trump
Deception
(30%)
The author of the article is an opinion contributor and not a fact-checker or legal expert. The author's assertions are based on their own interpretation of the law and do not take into account any other perspectives. Additionally, the author does not provide any evidence to support their claims.
The author states that Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows disqualified Donald Trump's name from appearing on the Maine presidential primary ballot based on her interpretation of a working draft of the 14th Amendment, Section 3. However, this provision was intentionally excluded from the final version approved by Congress and ratified by necessary states.
The author claims that Bellows violated her oath to defend the Constitution by usurping powers granted to Congress under Section 5 of the amendment.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is making a political statement and expresses their opinion that Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has violated her oath to defend the Constitution by disqualifying Donald Trump's name from appearing on the presidential primary ballot. The author also makes claims about the history and intent behind certain provisions in the 14th Amendment, which they believe were not followed correctly. These statements demonstrate a clear political bias.
The author expresses their opinion that Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has violated her oath to defend the Constitution by disqualifying Donald Trump's name from appearing on the presidential primary ballot.
The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the question of whether Donald Trump can be disqualified from Colorado's primary ballot.
Mr. Magliocca, who researched Section 3 of the 14th Amendment extensively and is author of two legal papers on it, argues that Congress has amnesty authority for disqualification from office.
The first part of Section 3 draws a sharp line between law and politics. The second part says that Congress may by a vote of two-thirds in each House remove any reason for disqualification.
Trump's supporters are eager to vote for him, while his opponents believe throwing him off the ballot would set a dangerous precedent.
The framers of the 14th Amendment deliberately gave Congress amnesty authority for disqualification from office and not the president or Supreme Court.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents a false dichotomy between those who want to see Trump run and those who don't. The author implies that the only way for Trump to be allowed on the ballot is through Congressional action, when in fact there are other options available such as legal challenges or changes in state laws.
The article presents a false dichotomy between those who want to see Trump run and those who don't.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Mr. Magliocca has researched Section 3 of the 14th Amendment extensively and is the author of two legal papers on the provision.
Mr. Trump's supporters are eager to vote for him and argue that his exclusion from the election would be anti-democratic.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Gerard N. Magliocca and he has researched Section 3 of the 14th Amendment extensively. The author presents a balanced viewpoint in his essay by acknowledging that both Trump's supporters and opponents are unwilling to ask Congress to exempt him from disqualification or admit that they want him to receive special treatment. However, he also argues that unlike other constitutional provisions, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment draws a sharp line between law and politics. The author uses language such as
The first part of Section 3 is a legal command about who cannot hold office that focuses primarily on individual conduct and does not require congressional action.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Gerard N. Magliocca has a financial tie to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as he is the author of two legal papers on it.
Mr. Magliocca has researched Section 3 of the 14th Amendment extensively and is the author of two legal papers on the provision.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Gerard N. Magliocca has a conflict of interest on the topic of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as he is an author who has researched and written extensively about it.
Mr. Magliocca has researched Section 3 of the 14th Amendment extensively and is the author of two legal papers on the provision.
Former President Donald Trump's lawyers do not have a track record of crafting sophisticated legal arguments in his defense.
The latest filing from his team before the Supreme Court is a wonder in terms of throwing literally anything at the wall and hoping it will stick.
Trump is asking the justices to overturn the recent decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to remove him from the primary ballot.
Section 3 of The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that nobody who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office under the United States, or under any State.
Trump's lawyers are saying that there is no time that would be appropriate to have a potential presidential candidate removed from a ballot whether they are qualified or not.
Under this logic, former President Barack Obama could rightly be placed on a Democratic primary ballot as the 22nd Amendment's term limits could not be properly judged ahead of voters making their decision.
Leaving a disqualified candidate on the ballot is a much graver offense to democracy. It in effect would nullify their choice at a time where there can be no recourse, unlike a decision issued before Election Day when their vote may still go to an alternate selection.
Despite the legal flimsiness of the claim, it may be politically astute.
If we do somehow reach a point where Congress is the ultimate arbiter of Trump's fate with Republican majorities in both houses, how many Democrats would dare vote against any attempt to install him?
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author's assertion that Trump's lawyers do not have a track record of crafting sophisticated legal arguments is false. They have been successful in challenging election results and other legal matters before.
Trump has successfully challenged election results in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author's argument that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits individuals only from holding office and not running for office is a false dilemma. This argument ignores the fact that Congress can remove a section 3 disqualification at any time, which means Trump could be eligible to run for president even if he was initially disqualified. The author also commits an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court without providing evidence or reasoning for why it is relevant or reliable.
The argument that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits individuals only from holding office and not running for office is a false dilemma. This argument ignores the fact that Congress can remove a section 3 disqualification at any time, which means Trump could be eligible to run for president even if he was initially disqualified.
The author commits an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court without providing evidence or reasoning for why it is relevant or reliable.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Trump and his legal team's strategy to stay on the Colorado ballot. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump such as 'Former President Donald Trump'. They also use a lot of hyperbole when describing the argument made by trump's lawyers, calling it 'absolutely bonkers', which is not an objective assessment. Additionally, they make assumptions about what Congress would do and how many Democrats would vote against Trump if he were to be installed back into power.
Despite the legal flimsiness of the claim, it may be politically astute. It is a similar gamble to the one Trump's post-2020 schemes hinged on: that legislators wouldn't dare to anger millions who had cast their ballots for Trump and agree to support his bid
Former President Donald Trump
Ideally, it's a question that would remain rhetorical. The Colorado voters who initially filed the suit against Trump and the Colorado Republican Party both have asked the justices to issue a ruling ahead of Super Tuesday in March.
It requires that a president be qualified under section 3 not only on the dates that he holds office, but also on the dates of the primary and general elections
The argument made by trump's lawyers is 'absolutely bonkers'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The article discusses the legal battle surrounding President Trump's eligibility to run for governor of Colorado in 2024. The author is a columnist at MSNBC and has written several articles about Trump's political career. However, there are no examples provided that demonstrate any conflicts of interest between the topics discussed in the article and those listed as
Trump appealed to the US supreme court on Wednesday
The decision was based on his incitement of an insurrection according to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Only Congress, not the courts, had authority to evaluate a dispute over presidential eligibility under Section 201Cof an officer” relevant language in the constitution bars anyone from serving if they have “engaged in insurrection” as an officer of the United States.
Trump's appeal came after both parties and challengers asked for it to be taken up by the Supreme Court, which is expected to do so.
A ruling either pausing or allowing Colorado's decision could come quickly but exact timeline is unclear.
Accuracy
Colorado must begin mailing ballots on 20 January while clerks start sending them out between 12 and 16 February for the primary election on March 5th.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court as a way of restoring his place on the ballot when he was removed due to inciting an insurrection. However, this ignores that Trump has been charged with 91 criminal counts for election subversion and faces a federal case where he claims immunity from prosecution. Secondly, it presents Trump as a clear Republican presidential frontrunner when in fact his popularity is declining among Republicans and the general public. Thirdly, it quotes legal experts who claim that Trump should be removed from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th amendment without providing any evidence to support this claim. Finally, it presents a quote from Ty Cobb stating that he believes Trump will prevail in court when there is no indication of this.
The article ignores Trump's criminal charges and his federal case where he claims immunity from prosecution.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the ruling of a court and stating that it is not correct without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claim. They also use inflammatory rhetoric when they describe Trump's conduct as 'insurrection'. Additionally, the author makes an informal fallacy by using loaded language such as 'leading major-party presidential candidate' to make Trump seem more significant than he actually is.
The ruling of a court and stating that it is not correct without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claim.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Martin Pengelly and he has a clear bias towards Donald Trump. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with Trump such as 'inciting an insurrection' which implies they are not patriotic Americans. The author also quotes from previous rulings where it was stated that only Congress, not the courts, had authority to evaluate disputes over presidential eligibility and yet he presents this information in a way that suggests otherwise. Additionally, the author uses language such as 'first time in history' which is an exaggeration and implies urgency when there are other cases currently being heard by the Supreme Court.
The author writes:
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Martin Pengelly has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump as he is a former White House lawyer for Trump.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Martin Pengelly has conflicts of interest on the topics of Donald Trump and US Supreme Court. He is a former White House lawyer for Trump.
