every time one of these dipshit andrew weissman types pops up all I can think of is
oh danny! how could you be so naive!?
real ones will remember
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-not-partisan/index.html
Iâm sure the total immunity case will also be 9-0 in the spirit of unanimity embraced by the libs today
MJS:
On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Colorado Supreme Court decision removing Donald Trump from the ballot because of his engagement in an insurrection on Jan. 6. But that top-line holding is where the unanimity ended because five conservative justices just couldnât help themselves: They went much further than the case required, announcing an entirely new rule that Congress alone, through âa particular kind of legislation,â may enforce the constitutional bar on insurrectionists holding office. As the three liberal justices pointed out, in a separate opinion that glows white-hot with indignation, the majorityâs overreach âattempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.â They are, of course, correct. After this decision, it is impossible to imagine a federal candidate, up to and including the president, ever being disqualified from assuming office because of their participation in an insurrection.
I think the above post says it best - conservative SCOTUS is all for statesâ rights when thatâs what allows red states to run wild, but put Trump under threat and all of a sudden they have a new respect for the importance of Congress making federal decisions limiting what states can do with elections
This ruling feels like it increases the likelihood of a 5-4 ruling that of course Trump has complete and total immunity. Not saying itâs a favorite, but itâs not even close to being out of the realm of possibility.
jesus christ i only saw the headline about him being allowed on the ballot
Wow it was ACB who was with the liberals, Roberts was down for some insurrectionist-boosting.
That is really bad.
Also worth noting this was 5-4, Thomas didnât recuse, and his wife was involved in the insurrection. Good times!
Conservatives my whole life: originalism! You see its very simple you read the text of the constitution!
Constitution: you cant engage in insurrection and be president
Conservatives: hahahahahaha losers get rekt
Hey we all know that the reconstruction amendments are only 3/5 as original as the other ones.
Serwer (gift link):
Every one of them decided, as transparently as possible in this case, that the text of the Constitution would have forced them to do something they did not want to do or did not think was a good idea, and so they would not do it. The justices did not want to throw Trump off the ballot, and so they didnât. Not only that, but in order to head off the unlikely scenario of Congress trying to disqualify Trump after the election, they said that Congress must specifically disqualify individual insurrectionists, despite such a requirement having no basis in the text. Even if you agree with the majority that this was a wise decision politically, it cannot be justified as an âoriginalistâ one; it was invented out of whole clothâand in doing so, the justices basically nullified the section entirely. As the three Democratic-appointed justices note, âAlthough federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate.â
The thing to understand about this case is that, with the exception of the rulingâs partial unanimity, it is little different from many other recent big cases in which âoriginalismâ supposedly carried the day, whether the topic was abortion rights, guns, voting rights, or something else. The conservative justices have a majority, and they may work their will. But the originalism they purport to adhere to is nothing more than a framework for reaching their preferred result in any particular circumstance. They felt that a plain reading of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment would lead to chaotic or adverse outcomes, so they not only ignored it but also essentially amended the Constitution by fiat.
https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/1764692145632362651
https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/1764699306315940012
In a world where the House passed a bill calling Trump an insurrectionist ineligible for office, and the Senate nuked the filibuster on matters of insurrection and did the same 52-48 (Romney joining Dems/Is), would SCOTUS allow Trump to be removed from the ballot, or would they come up with some bullshit (too late, requires supermajority, etc)?
- He would be removed
- Calvinball all the way
I think if the Congress actually went through all that means the winds of public opinion would be blowing so strong that scotus would sit it out
They donât care about public opinion on guns or abortion, why would they care now?
Maintaining Trump specifically doesnât seem to be a longterm legal goal that they were building scotus for decades to accomplish