Last Friday (1 Sept. 2023), a federal judge in South Florida decided that she lacks “subject matter jurisdiction” (i.e. judicial power) to decide whether Donald J. Trump is disqualified from running for president under the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment because the plaintiffs supposedly lack “standing” to sue. (FYI: here is the court’s ruling.) But isn’t it the duty of the courts to say what the law is? Alas, the standing doctrine has become a veritable shitshow: courts have historically applied this controversial doctrine in a selective and inconsistent fashion. Be that as it may, the nationwide effort by some shadowy progressive groups to keep the former president off the ballot (see here, for example) continues to receive a lot of media attention; below are just a few of the most recent prominent examples I could find:

1. This report from today (5 September) by Maegan Vazquez (via the Washington Post).
2. Another report from yesterday (4 Sept.) by Houston Keene (via Fox News).
3. Yet another report from Friday (1 Sept.) by Erica Orden (via Politico).
4. And this report from Thursday (31 August) by Nicholas Riccardi (via the Associated Press).

So, will the metaphorical “Trump Train” even be able to leave the station? As it happens, I have been blogging about this fascinating topic since the end of last month (see here, here, and here), but I still have much more to say. Among other things, I want to explain why it must be a regular court of law or a duly-elected legislature that gets to decide whether Trump is disqualified from running for federal office. Stay tuned! I will resume my analysis of the disqualification clause in the next day or two.

PS: I also just finished reading Travels with Tocqueville this weekend and will have a few things to say about this beautiful book soon.