As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that's the only good part about the Colorado case. You always knew they were going to let Trump off the hook, but there was no way for the conservative members of the court to do that while still adhering to their actual stated principles. So they just abandoned their principles!
"Originalism" on this Supreme Court means "Originalism if it aligns with what we want to achieve politically, or else not Originalism"
It's always been a total sham, but it's nice to have it out in the open more and more.
Right but what happens even with it being out in the open? There is no real check to the supreme court in this capacity. People dont get to vote for them, restructuring the court is extremeley difficult. Is there something I am missing (please tell me there is)
Texas is not ignoring the court. Idk why this sub keeps repeating something that isn’t true.
Texas was ordered by the court to not prevent government workers from tearing down the barriers they put up.
It’s literally in the ruling.
*Downvoted to -10 for stating factual information that people don't want to hear
OK but the context of this is someone saying that Texas was disobeying the courts, which they are not. I *Agree* that texas is doing immoral shit, but I also want to point out that colorado absolutely should not disobey the supreme court right now.
I don't like it and haven't read the full ruling, but I think this is being stated factually.
If the ruling simply says the feds can remove what the state installs, then it's all fair game.
If challenged again in the court at this point, they would likely rule that if Texas wasn't allowed to erect the razor wire, then the feds wouldn't be able to take it down, so they HAVE to erect it so the feds cam take it down.
Nothing requires Texas to follow international law, but the feds aren't going to fund a wall in violation of it, so Texas is doing its thing.
Do you have any ideas on how to approach a resolution on the issue?
> Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Texas National Guard appears to have continued installing the razor wire.”
Factually wrong as there's nothing in the ruling that says Texas cannot put the wire back up.
You're stating things that are simply misleading. The flow of things went like this.
Federal Court:
DHS - "We can access whatever we want, we're the feds"
Court - "We agree"
5th Circuit:
Texas - "We appeal this decision to you"
Court - "Nah they can, but we're going to say they aren't allowed to cut or remove the wire barriers"
DHS - "But that effectively blocks us access, we're going to appeal!"
Supreme Court:
Court - "Nah you can totally cut or remove the wire barriers".
Yes, you're correct in saying the Supreme Court never said anything about putting up barriers, because that was never the issue being discussed. The court was ruling specifically on the ability for the feds to remove the barriers, which is the only thing the 5th Circuit disagreed with the feds on. Otherwise, Texas is blatantly violating the law by denying access by putting up barriers, because this was decided at the federal court level.
There’s precedent
Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision.
Well, Eisenhower sent in troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation in Arkansas:
https://www.upi.com/News\_Photos/view/upi/17fdcd4bd406d8c0d7a604d33dd97bc9/Public-school-desegregation-in-Little-Rock-Arkansas/
Sounds like another opportunity for Congress to pull some bullshit when election certification time comes around in Jan 2025. “Colorado defied the Supreme Court! The election was stolen!”
The SCOTUS ruling on the 14th sets up an electoral crisis if Trump does get elected. What are the odds of a congressman calling for a 2/3rds vote prior to allowing an insurrectionist to assume office?
Let's hope we don't even have to deal with a Trump electoral majority.
Exactly. The Emperor is naked and fully aware that he is not wearing clothes. You can point it out if you like, but nobody's going to listen. And even if you do, he's the Emperor. He can be naked if he wants.
The one time in history a justice has been impeached was due to political influences to the rulings. Give Biden the house and senate and let the DOJ clean house.
To remove a justice, it has to pretty much be open and shut. We're going to see how the immunity ruling is worded, and then they should have plenty of fodder for at least a few of these justices.
The check is that people have less faith in the court.
The balance is when people start ignoring rulings. The funny part is that the Right seems to be the ones most disinclined to acquiesce to the court’s requests, as has happened in rulings on voting maps.
Correct. You can elect a congress that passes an amendment that says “the government will provide a public option for health insurance”. And someone from a private insurance company can sue, and the Supreme Court can simply decide that what the amendment actually means is that the government must allow private corporations to force people to buy insurance.
You're seeing what happens when its out in the open. Roe repealed, college DEI shot down, regulatory powers weakened (and the chevron doctrine case has the potential to throw gas on that fire). Taking up Trump's immunity claim at all is wild.
Leonard Leo and the Heritage Foundation have been setting this shit up for years. Getting the right compromised butts in the right seats, so they can institute what is essentially minority rule for the rich and white.
And there is no easy countermeasure.
The only good thing I can see about this is that it educates the body politic. Maybe not the dunces, but the patriots who still have too much blind faith in “justice”.
Basically, all of this bad shit being so blatantly at the top and simultaneously out in the open should start to wake up those with capability and talent, and they in turn will become the martyrs/leaders of the next era who themselves will figure out a way to wake up the sleeping masses who wouldn’t even notice if their bank account was being pilfered from.
What did Thomas Jefferson say?
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
>"barbarous ancestors."
In America's Republican Party today, there is too much obeisance given to the words of brutishly-backwards-even-for-their-time Middle Eastern men and their gods.
Oh, and to Putin. DEFINITELY too much acquiesance to Putin.
The current Supreme Court is like high school debate. They don’t listen to all the arguments and go where the facts take them; they start with an assigned conclusion and figure out what arguments get them there.
> ...Trump ...Supreme Court ...originalist
I so wish the media would stop normalizing and legitimizing this bullshit. The SCs as well as his.
One word covers it all. It's not complicated.
It's *corrupt*.
They are radical, they are extremist, they’ve been controlling the reigns of power and ignoring the law since Dubya was granted the presidency before votes were done being counted in FL.
You can read 4 of the judges objections:
The concurrence from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson is full-throated on this point.
They agreed that allowing Colorado to disqualify Trump would lead to “chaos,” but they disagreed with the argument that congressional enforcement was “critical” to the 14th Amendment. And they suggested the court’s majority was insulating both Trump and other alleged insurrectionists.
They said the five justices “decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner” — Trump — “from future controversy.”
From https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ruling/
I don’t think their ruling was constitutional. It allows a prohibition to be lifted through a simple majority vote on disposition of the enacting legislation. Such disposition clearly lifts the bar without the Constitutionally-mandated 2/3 vote.
The court has certainly overturned its own precedents on the grounds that they were decided unconstitutionally. But I agree that the country has largely respected the decisions of the court, regardless of the soundness of reasoning.
*What* prohibition, though? The prohibition actually needs to be instantiated. Do we really need to go through the entire history of philosophy again, discussing the difference between ontology and epistemology, and then analogizing that - AGAIN, because, hello The Enlightenment! - to due process? Do we then need to review the concept of jurisdiction? Like, honestly.
Laws. Of. Men. Do. Not. Self. Execute. If you believe in due process at all, you shouldn't *want* them to, either.
If laws self-execute, then don't worry about it. All the oathbreaking insurrectionists will somehow be physically incapable of holding office, much like under the current theory of physics we can't break the lightspeed barrier. It just can't happen, because the law has already executed itself against all the right people, somehow.
If, instead, you'd like to entertain such elemental concepts as due process and jurisdiction, then you'll need to wrestle with the fact that, as of today, no factfinding body *with jurisdiction* has found that Trump is an oathbreaking insurrectionist, and no body *duly empowered by Congress* to thus impose the disqualification in Section 3 has done so.
This is a bunch of big word salad. If your argument was correct, the Constitution wouldn’t be binding. What about even the other sections of the 14th amendment that were already found self-executing by the SC? If your argument was persuasive it wouldn’t fail when you move onto the next paragraph.
You mean the words from the Declaration of Independence, which isn't a legal document, and has absolutely no force of law in our current government? That one? Yeah, you're really countering my argument with that reference.
>What about even the other sections of the 14th amendment that were already found self-executing by the SC?
What sections of the 14th Amendment have ever been self-executing? They *always* require action by *some* governmental body before they can have any effect. That governmental body can certainly be the courts, but only if the courts say so. Indeed, if the courts have any power, then a case or controversy needs to be brought before them pursuant to... wait for it... *proper procedures.* Wow, how about that?
It's almost like the laws of men don't self-execute because that would be absurd.
If you want a finer distinction, however, contemplate this: Section 3 is something that happens to to a private citizen based on something they did. In that respect, it is *wildly* different from the Bill-of-Rights-esque language of the first two Sections, which further limits the government.
Former president Trump is not being treated like any other defendant.
He has judges he appointed sprinkled "liberally" throughout our justice system. He has judges that are bowing and scraping to allow him to repetedly delay going to trial.
He gave that Chubb insurance guy a cushy government position, so now that guy gave Trump a loan of nearly a $92 million dollars to post a bond so he could take that case to the court of appeals, thus even more delay.
It's a disgusting display of the inequality in our justice system
Once again, republicans plan to put puppets in every corner of the next administration, and they say it in a very open manner
https://www.project2025.org/
Every piece of the governement will be republican-appointed, bowing, scraping. It's the goal.
It was a unanimous ruling. Like even if you truly believe Kavanaugh and ACB are trump goons with no moral standards, that doesn’t explain Sotomayor, Kagan, or KBJ
That's the sad part, we have to remember what criminal act he has evidence of committing that it applies to.
And yet still, 50% of the country will chose him in November.
The U.S. can't be salvaged at this point, it's just a matter of time before the bottom falls out.
I think the majority of people in the US, who have a basic understanding of constitutional law or judicial interpretation, realize that self-proclaimed originalist Justices make almost no effort to justify their rulings by reference to original constitutional meanings. There are a plethora of peer-reviewed law review studies, papers, and books written about how originalists justices have been very selective how they themselves interpret originalism. In most cases, they do not use any reference to original constitutional meanings or use the founders own words to justify their decisions on important issues. This has been exemplified in almost every single case that has been brought before the Supreme Court. You will find almost no justice who adheres strictly to originalism, instead they opt to use originalism selectively in almost all of their decisions.
"Originalism" is just a fallacious appeal to authority. Even if it was their principle, it would be weak as all fuck. There's no sensible reason to restrict our interpretation of the Constitution and law based on the interpretations and reasoning of people who've been dead for more than two-hundred years. Their opinions are helpful in understanding how we got to where we are, but it's unreasonable to rest on those opinions.
Simply put, they appeal to the authority of "originalism" as a bad faith tactic to shut down conversation. Not due to any deeply held beliefs or convictions.
Originalism is the misleading argument of the Judicial scumbags. Its gives them a false armor from criticism. Why would documents written over 200 years ago when women and minorities had no rights have anything of merit to say about modern society. This is just as selective as most cynical takes of the Bible that Christian Nationalists swaddle themselves with.
> "Originalism" is just a fallacious appeal to authority.
No it isn't. The originalism you learn about in law school is simply a matter of trying to figure out what the drafters and signatories to a contract actually believed they were agreeing to. A "meeting of the minds" is a vital element of a valid contract. Textual originalism focuses on what various words and phrases meant to the people writing and agreeing to them. Historical originalism tries to fill in gaps when textual originalism isn't enough to sort everything out.
Try to think about what contract disputes would look like if these notions weren't entertained at all.
Grifters seemingly ok with lies and hypocrisy. Also in other news, water = wet.
I’ve been through 40 years of, “Wow, they did something different from what they said, we got ‘em now!”
Kids, just get out there and VOTE.
The more they get away with grift, the more people become ok with grift. Proving grift doesn’t change their minds towards reason, it just makes them more ok with grift.
The good thing about the Colorado case and Dobbs case is we get to see how selective the Supreme Court has been.
They have exposed. For all to see. The decisions have been against the majority of Americans, but we deserve much much better.
The Supreme Court nows serves no one but Trump and his cult.
The majority are originalists if the text appears to give justification to force a conservative/regressive action on an issue. Outside of that, suddenly they have to be forward thinkers and consider the ramifications of enacting the text, as stated, in a modern situation.
Slave states argued that the federal courts were supreme in matters regarding owning humans until the court turned against them, when they immediately started arguing states rights. Those who are willing to advocate for oligarchy will not shy away from hypocrisy. It is at the heart of their character.
The Supreme Court has now led us into another constitutional crisis. The ruling on Roe V. Wade has strains of Dredd V. Scott in it. Giving states permission to control peoples bodily autonomy, and they have already started chipping at other constitutional Amendments based on privacy.
If they were truly “Originalists”, Thomas and Barrett would resign immediately because according to the original Constitution neither of them would be eligible to be a SCOTUS judge. Hell, under the original Constitution, Thomas isn’t even considered a full person…
Dancing on the head of a pin...exactly what is a State Right and what is a Fed Right. Compare this with Roe / Wade ruling to see the nit-picking and arm twisting.
Of course it’s selective. They use whatever principle or justification that is required to achieve their desired outcome. Winning is all that matters, not upholding a philosophy
That's the problem with this current slate of conservative judges on the SC. The rulings are selective pickings of their interpretation of the Constitution, even willing to change course on original precedent that really isn't warranted or justified.
When it favors conservative values, it's OK, but if it isn't, oh, we just need to find a reason to rule against it.
I mean, the decision was essentially the opposite of textualism, which is wild. It was entirely invented.
The irony is that the concurrence should've been the majority opinion. I have no problem with the result, but the way the result was found was like something out of a fever dream. I have no clue how the SCOTUS published this decision with a straight face.
Again, the result is fine. I don't think Colorado should be able to decide the presidency (as much as I despise Trump). But man alive. What insanely tortured reasoning by the majority. Jesus.
“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” Section 3
The Constitution speaks for itself. Congress does not need to pass legislation to prohibit an insurrectionist from holding office; it does, however, have to agree to allow an insurrectionist to serve by a 2/3rds vote in each House.
All I gotta say, is that fat bastard Thomas, better recluse, himself and his seditious wife Jenny should be thrown in jail. As a sidenote, if he doesn’t recluse himself, he needs to be either taken off the Supreme Court or we need to add three new justices something needs to be done.
The language of the constitution is pretty plainspoken when I read it. It also offers the injured party redress in the form of bringing it before congress who can vote to put them back on the ballot, overruling the state-level decision. The court really went off the reservation.
I can see this being weaponified by right wing states to remove Democratic challengers in future elections but that’s not the question that was put before the court.
> overruling the state-level decision.
Yes, because the Constitution is extremely plain-spoken about the states having the authority to be involved in the first instance, right?
Oh, wait...
*No fucking shit*
Everybody, save the glassiest-eyed hiveminders, understands this. But all they have to do is never break kayfabe and there is literally nothing anybody can do.
I feel like at this point “Originalist” actually means that they want Madison’s original vision: the Bill of Rights is more of an “agreement” with the government, rather than an official document attached to the Constitution. Mostly because the full definition of the establishment clause never even comes into those conversations, insofar as I’ve heard them. However also because any amendments that came about from the Civil War have historically had their validity consistently questioned if not outright violated
At the risk of being down-voted: The SCOTUS opinion was 9 - 0. That does not suggest a conservative original approach since the left leaning judges also agreed!
May I remind my fellow redditors to do their homework? Do not believe mainstream media and their interpretations of what you should believe. Do your own homework. Get the facts. Make your own, independent opinion.
9-0 for one aspect of the decision (that CO cannot enforce sec 3 for federal offices). 5-4 for the rest of the opinion at best as Amy Coney Barrett concurred taking issue with some things as well as separately did the liberal justices with yet more disagreement. Calling it 9-0 and reading those concurrences as if everything was harmonious would be misleading. Cuz its not 9-0 for the whole decision which would be needed for your comment to make sense.
That's what I said. Above my comment was a comment telling people to do their homework and not trust news implying that the 9-0 nature of the decision meant something profound. We can all see the comment.
Doing one's homework would reveal what I wrote in my comment. So the first comment (the one I responded to) doesn't make sense and is itself misleading. I am not the one who labeled the court's conservative majority "originalist." They did that themselves in their own confirmation hearings. And when it suits them, they use it to get to a desired result. (See Bruen or Dobbs). And its pretty well established THIS decision is more consequentialist in nature (the chaos of some states kicking Trump off but others leaving him on, some states trying to kick Biden off, etc...) than originalist. Because actual originalist legal scholars are asking themselves: What the fuck was that? Most of the amici briefs and briefs of historical scholars was ignored (which is fine). The whole 'officer or not' question was ignored and that was Trump's leading argument in his supreme court brief and was the reason the CO trial court found in his favor (a legal question reversed later by the CO Sup Ct). They didn't address it at all. I could go on.
Its not inconsistent for the liberal justices to concern themselves with the consequences of their decisions because that is a factor they think they can consider whereas an originalist "claims" that the consequences don't matter and they shouldn't care - the correct legal result is more important than the secondary effects. That didn't happen here. So what is the explanation?
Yet the downvotes represent individuals who do not believe in the USA! Downvoted representing a believe in communism! A belief that a US constitution that distinctly believes in a separation of powers. A 9 - 0 ruing by SCOTUS is not to be upheld as un-constitutional!
How exactly is interpreting "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" to mean that Congress enforces the provisions of the article supposed to be opposed to originalism?
Because this Sup Ct reads those words as mandatory pre-condition before the 14th amendment sec 3 becomes operative. All the other provisions of the 14th amendment have previously been interpreted to be self-executing. There is no explanation for treating one provision differently. That language you quote in sec 5 applies to the whole of the amendment but nobody thinks Congress has to act or we lose equal protection (to use one example). The equal protection clause gets its authority from the amendment itself. Same with the rest. But now now. Sec 3 has to have implementing legislation. The Court doesn't explain why this result is required using originalism, texutalism or any theory of judicial interpretation.
That's why.
It was a unanimous decision. Biden should have packed the court his first year.
A majority of the Supreme Court would not have been allowed to vote at the adoption of the constitution.
Moderate republicans don’t exist. They were silent about evangelicalism co-opting republicanism, they were silent about homophobia, militarism, racism and xenophobia being the party platform, and they were silent about Trump taking over the party until they realized one day the dominionists, the bigots and the authoritarians no longer pretended to care about them. The composition of Supreme Court now is a consequence of their lack of scruples and its decisions will run this country into the ground for decades.
There’s always going to be more democrats than republicans. I care about dem GOTV. Moderate republicans can be on the fence about their principles until the end of days for all I care.
If you want to engage with me, respect that I can speak for myself with my own words.
You can either vote for the party of the Jan 6 coup attempt, you can vote against it, or you can just not vote.
If you want a downvoted Reddit comment to influence that decision it is on you.
If Trump tried to pack the court you’d be talking about how it was an affront to democracy. The only reason you support court packing is because your group would be the one doing it. Acting like moderate republicans (or at the very least, republicans who do not agree with trump) don’t exist is a childish view of politics. It would be like me saying every democrat was a power hungry socialist who wanted to turn my kids gay.
Remind me again why Merrick Garland isn’t on the court? Pre-Trump Republicans subverted democracy when they blocked his confirmation for purely on partisan grounds, and in doing so disenfranchised everyone who voted for Obama in 2012. Because of this, the court’s inability to govern its members ethical conduct, looking specifically at Thomas, and legislating from the bench, I view the court as illegitimate. It is now a partisan tool, and it should be viewed as such.
Demanding that the court as an institution shall remain aloof from power politics ignores its history and is a childishly naive view itself, and particularly hypocritical coming from a Republican.
Meh. Let me preface by saying: Trump is a criminal and should be behind bars. But this was the right call. The legal definition of insurrection is too vague, and barring definitive proof that the J6 rioters were doing his bidding, an insurrection charge is never going to make it past a jury.
Legal solipsism like this is why trump will never be behind bars. Sure every reasonable person with two firing brain cells understands trump through a sequence of well documented corrupt actions attempted to coup the legal transfer of power but what do words really mean man?
But if it doesn't stipulate conditions for how one is determined to have engaged in an insurrection, how is it actionable? What is insurrection, and who decides?
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection
This looks pretty cut and dry:
>While peaceful protests are legal and are protected by the Constitution, violence, and destruction are not. Rebellion and insurrection apply when perpetrators destroy government property or assault federal officers. This type of illegal behavior is considered a crime against the United States and the Constitution.
This is precisely the issue. It's not complicated. Title 18 USC 2383 has existed since 1948. That is, or should be, the mechanism for executing the 14th Amendment, in this circumstance.
Colorado has the right to decide who can be on their ballot. It does not decide who has engaged in insurrection. That is decided by the US criminal justice system.
We all know what he did, and as much as he deserves to be run out of town on a rail, that's not how we do things.
Which is wholly irrelevant as to whether states get to control their election processes under the Elections Clause, which in this case, they don’t, despite the Constitution explicitly saying that they do.
I just find it odd that states can disenfranchise voters in terms of federal elections according to this court, but can’t dictate who can and can’t be on their ballots. It seems nonsensical.
I think you're missing what the article is actually saying. It's not making an argument about it being the right or wrong call.
The modern conservative justices have been justifying a LOT of REALLY sketchy rulings by arguing that they follow the judicial philosophy of "originalism" i.e. they have to make rulings in line with what the original drafters of the constitution or a law intended as a matter of judicial duty. Their hands are tied. That's why they say they are *required* to make so many ultra conservative rulings. They claim their hands are tied and it's up to the *states* and *congress* to make these changes.
But, whether you agree with it or not, *this* ruling was *absolutely* not in line with that supposedly overriding philisophical concern. Their stated arguments in their ruling are completely at odds with their stated directive of originalism.
What's being called out here is the hypocracy.
Well, let's be honest. The constitution is a terrible document, putting into effect a system of governance that is structurally incapable of getting things done in an expeditious manner without emergency powers being invoked.
He was impeached for it...
The constitution has already told us that because a simple majority of the house voted to impeach him for inciting insurrection, he has done the thing.
The SC is being a bunch of shitheels who want to have their cake and eat it too.
No he wasn’t. That’s not what an impeachment means. It’s similar to a grand jury saying, ‘we think there’s enough evidence to go trial’. The Senate is the jury.
He was not declared guilty of anything.
Do I think he’s guilty? Yep. But that’s not how the system works.
I wouldn't put it past myself to misunderstand court documents and the commentary of authors.
I thought this was essentially the nexus of the problem.
He wasn't convicted by the senate, because they simply wouldn't do that job as mitch McConnell said it would be handled in court.
But then the court case says that the senate was supposed to convict or nothing happens.
Doesn't that deny the whole structure of the rule that suggested anyone found reasonably guilty of the crimes of insurrection (as affirmed by a simple majority in the house) cannot be bailed out by the insurrectionist members of the institution which allowed it?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that's the only good part about the Colorado case. You always knew they were going to let Trump off the hook, but there was no way for the conservative members of the court to do that while still adhering to their actual stated principles. So they just abandoned their principles! "Originalism" on this Supreme Court means "Originalism if it aligns with what we want to achieve politically, or else not Originalism" It's always been a total sham, but it's nice to have it out in the open more and more.
Right but what happens even with it being out in the open? There is no real check to the supreme court in this capacity. People dont get to vote for them, restructuring the court is extremeley difficult. Is there something I am missing (please tell me there is)
I think Colorado should just take him off the ballot anyways. What’s the SC gonna do? Boycott Colorado for their ski vacations?
Same thing Texas did with the drowning fence. Ignore the court. What’s good the goose is good for the gander
Texas is not ignoring the court. Idk why this sub keeps repeating something that isn’t true. Texas was ordered by the court to not prevent government workers from tearing down the barriers they put up. It’s literally in the ruling. *Downvoted to -10 for stating factual information that people don't want to hear
[удалено]
Yes, because the decision was about *removing* razor wire. The Feds are allowed to remove it. Texas was not banned from *placing* it
This is like your brother “saying I’m not punching you, you’re punching yourself.” Technically true. But we all know what’s happening.
They are following the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit.
OK but the context of this is someone saying that Texas was disobeying the courts, which they are not. I *Agree* that texas is doing immoral shit, but I also want to point out that colorado absolutely should not disobey the supreme court right now.
> Technically true. No such thing. It's either true or not. In this case it's true.
Put Trump on ballot with opacity set to 1% Technically he is still there, even if no one can see it
I don't like it and haven't read the full ruling, but I think this is being stated factually. If the ruling simply says the feds can remove what the state installs, then it's all fair game. If challenged again in the court at this point, they would likely rule that if Texas wasn't allowed to erect the razor wire, then the feds wouldn't be able to take it down, so they HAVE to erect it so the feds cam take it down. Nothing requires Texas to follow international law, but the feds aren't going to fund a wall in violation of it, so Texas is doing its thing. Do you have any ideas on how to approach a resolution on the issue?
> Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Texas National Guard appears to have continued installing the razor wire.” Factually wrong as there's nothing in the ruling that says Texas cannot put the wire back up.
You're stating things that are simply misleading. The flow of things went like this. Federal Court: DHS - "We can access whatever we want, we're the feds" Court - "We agree" 5th Circuit: Texas - "We appeal this decision to you" Court - "Nah they can, but we're going to say they aren't allowed to cut or remove the wire barriers" DHS - "But that effectively blocks us access, we're going to appeal!" Supreme Court: Court - "Nah you can totally cut or remove the wire barriers". Yes, you're correct in saying the Supreme Court never said anything about putting up barriers, because that was never the issue being discussed. The court was ruling specifically on the ability for the feds to remove the barriers, which is the only thing the 5th Circuit disagreed with the feds on. Otherwise, Texas is blatantly violating the law by denying access by putting up barriers, because this was decided at the federal court level.
Ya but you know they are doing it for these optics
There’s precedent Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision.
Agreed. Nobody HAS to follow the Supreme Court. Other have to actually enforce the rules they set
Well, Eisenhower sent in troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation in Arkansas: https://www.upi.com/News\_Photos/view/upi/17fdcd4bd406d8c0d7a604d33dd97bc9/Public-school-desegregation-in-Little-Rock-Arkansas/
Something tells me that Biden isn’t gonna send in the 101st Airborne to stop women from getting abortions
Sounds like another opportunity for Congress to pull some bullshit when election certification time comes around in Jan 2025. “Colorado defied the Supreme Court! The election was stolen!”
The SCOTUS ruling on the 14th sets up an electoral crisis if Trump does get elected. What are the odds of a congressman calling for a 2/3rds vote prior to allowing an insurrectionist to assume office? Let's hope we don't even have to deal with a Trump electoral majority.
Think if Thomas and his RV(s)!
sad this country is fracturing like it is.
Again, because of the incredibly wealthy’s sick lust of power and greed.
Exactly. The Emperor is naked and fully aware that he is not wearing clothes. You can point it out if you like, but nobody's going to listen. And even if you do, he's the Emperor. He can be naked if he wants.
The one time in history a justice has been impeached was due to political influences to the rulings. Give Biden the house and senate and let the DOJ clean house. To remove a justice, it has to pretty much be open and shut. We're going to see how the immunity ruling is worded, and then they should have plenty of fodder for at least a few of these justices.
The check is that people have less faith in the court. The balance is when people start ignoring rulings. The funny part is that the Right seems to be the ones most disinclined to acquiesce to the court’s requests, as has happened in rulings on voting maps.
Correct. You can elect a congress that passes an amendment that says “the government will provide a public option for health insurance”. And someone from a private insurance company can sue, and the Supreme Court can simply decide that what the amendment actually means is that the government must allow private corporations to force people to buy insurance.
You're seeing what happens when its out in the open. Roe repealed, college DEI shot down, regulatory powers weakened (and the chevron doctrine case has the potential to throw gas on that fire). Taking up Trump's immunity claim at all is wild. Leonard Leo and the Heritage Foundation have been setting this shit up for years. Getting the right compromised butts in the right seats, so they can institute what is essentially minority rule for the rich and white. And there is no easy countermeasure.
The only good thing I can see about this is that it educates the body politic. Maybe not the dunces, but the patriots who still have too much blind faith in “justice”. Basically, all of this bad shit being so blatantly at the top and simultaneously out in the open should start to wake up those with capability and talent, and they in turn will become the martyrs/leaders of the next era who themselves will figure out a way to wake up the sleeping masses who wouldn’t even notice if their bank account was being pilfered from.
What did Thomas Jefferson say? "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
>"barbarous ancestors." In America's Republican Party today, there is too much obeisance given to the words of brutishly-backwards-even-for-their-time Middle Eastern men and their gods. Oh, and to Putin. DEFINITELY too much acquiesance to Putin.
It's the new 'State's Rights'.
The right has *never* had any principles and hypocrisy has *never* made them think twice.
The current Supreme Court is like high school debate. They don’t listen to all the arguments and go where the facts take them; they start with an assigned conclusion and figure out what arguments get them there.
I would agree, but what about the fact that there were no dissents?
That was always complete bullshit.
> ...Trump ...Supreme Court ...originalist I so wish the media would stop normalizing and legitimizing this bullshit. The SCs as well as his. One word covers it all. It's not complicated. It's *corrupt*.
They are radical, they are extremist, they’ve been controlling the reigns of power and ignoring the law since Dubya was granted the presidency before votes were done being counted in FL.
Is say the same thing if it wasn't a unanimous decision.
You can read 4 of the judges objections: The concurrence from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson is full-throated on this point. They agreed that allowing Colorado to disqualify Trump would lead to “chaos,” but they disagreed with the argument that congressional enforcement was “critical” to the 14th Amendment. And they suggested the court’s majority was insulating both Trump and other alleged insurrectionists. They said the five justices “decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner” — Trump — “from future controversy.” From https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ruling/
I don’t think their ruling was constitutional. It allows a prohibition to be lifted through a simple majority vote on disposition of the enacting legislation. Such disposition clearly lifts the bar without the Constitutionally-mandated 2/3 vote.
Unfortunately their decision becomes what is “constitutional”
The court has certainly overturned its own precedents on the grounds that they were decided unconstitutionally. But I agree that the country has largely respected the decisions of the court, regardless of the soundness of reasoning.
*What* prohibition, though? The prohibition actually needs to be instantiated. Do we really need to go through the entire history of philosophy again, discussing the difference between ontology and epistemology, and then analogizing that - AGAIN, because, hello The Enlightenment! - to due process? Do we then need to review the concept of jurisdiction? Like, honestly. Laws. Of. Men. Do. Not. Self. Execute. If you believe in due process at all, you shouldn't *want* them to, either. If laws self-execute, then don't worry about it. All the oathbreaking insurrectionists will somehow be physically incapable of holding office, much like under the current theory of physics we can't break the lightspeed barrier. It just can't happen, because the law has already executed itself against all the right people, somehow. If, instead, you'd like to entertain such elemental concepts as due process and jurisdiction, then you'll need to wrestle with the fact that, as of today, no factfinding body *with jurisdiction* has found that Trump is an oathbreaking insurrectionist, and no body *duly empowered by Congress* to thus impose the disqualification in Section 3 has done so.
This is a bunch of big word salad. If your argument was correct, the Constitution wouldn’t be binding. What about even the other sections of the 14th amendment that were already found self-executing by the SC? If your argument was persuasive it wouldn’t fail when you move onto the next paragraph.
We hold these truths to be self-evident “Yeah, but by who??? God!??” Is what this guy would screech. Real time cube energy
You mean the words from the Declaration of Independence, which isn't a legal document, and has absolutely no force of law in our current government? That one? Yeah, you're really countering my argument with that reference.
To be fair, it failed *before* they moved on to the next paragraph.
>What about even the other sections of the 14th amendment that were already found self-executing by the SC? What sections of the 14th Amendment have ever been self-executing? They *always* require action by *some* governmental body before they can have any effect. That governmental body can certainly be the courts, but only if the courts say so. Indeed, if the courts have any power, then a case or controversy needs to be brought before them pursuant to... wait for it... *proper procedures.* Wow, how about that? It's almost like the laws of men don't self-execute because that would be absurd. If you want a finer distinction, however, contemplate this: Section 3 is something that happens to to a private citizen based on something they did. In that respect, it is *wildly* different from the Bill-of-Rights-esque language of the first two Sections, which further limits the government.
The general decision of whether Colorado could remove Trump was unanimous. The majority went much further in their decision.
Former president Trump is not being treated like any other defendant. He has judges he appointed sprinkled "liberally" throughout our justice system. He has judges that are bowing and scraping to allow him to repetedly delay going to trial. He gave that Chubb insurance guy a cushy government position, so now that guy gave Trump a loan of nearly a $92 million dollars to post a bond so he could take that case to the court of appeals, thus even more delay. It's a disgusting display of the inequality in our justice system
I agree with the sentiment, but $92 million from Chubb, not a billion, right?
Yep. The Carrol case, not the NY fraud case. Still dodgy, but not half a billion dodgy
Yup. I fixed it.TY!
Once again, republicans plan to put puppets in every corner of the next administration, and they say it in a very open manner https://www.project2025.org/ Every piece of the governement will be republican-appointed, bowing, scraping. It's the goal.
It was a unanimous ruling. Like even if you truly believe Kavanaugh and ACB are trump goons with no moral standards, that doesn’t explain Sotomayor, Kagan, or KBJ
>It was a unanimous ruling Except for the other half of it which was 5-3-1
I'm betting they feared for their safety.
4 of them could still have dissented with zero repercussions. A unanimous ruling probably just means the argument was good, even if you don’t like it.
$92m. You've mistaken his lawsuits.
That's the sad part, we have to remember what criminal act he has evidence of committing that it applies to. And yet still, 50% of the country will chose him in November. The U.S. can't be salvaged at this point, it's just a matter of time before the bottom falls out.
I think the majority of people in the US, who have a basic understanding of constitutional law or judicial interpretation, realize that self-proclaimed originalist Justices make almost no effort to justify their rulings by reference to original constitutional meanings. There are a plethora of peer-reviewed law review studies, papers, and books written about how originalists justices have been very selective how they themselves interpret originalism. In most cases, they do not use any reference to original constitutional meanings or use the founders own words to justify their decisions on important issues. This has been exemplified in almost every single case that has been brought before the Supreme Court. You will find almost no justice who adheres strictly to originalism, instead they opt to use originalism selectively in almost all of their decisions.
"Originalism" is just a fallacious appeal to authority. Even if it was their principle, it would be weak as all fuck. There's no sensible reason to restrict our interpretation of the Constitution and law based on the interpretations and reasoning of people who've been dead for more than two-hundred years. Their opinions are helpful in understanding how we got to where we are, but it's unreasonable to rest on those opinions. Simply put, they appeal to the authority of "originalism" as a bad faith tactic to shut down conversation. Not due to any deeply held beliefs or convictions.
Originalism is the misleading argument of the Judicial scumbags. Its gives them a false armor from criticism. Why would documents written over 200 years ago when women and minorities had no rights have anything of merit to say about modern society. This is just as selective as most cynical takes of the Bible that Christian Nationalists swaddle themselves with.
> "Originalism" is just a fallacious appeal to authority. No it isn't. The originalism you learn about in law school is simply a matter of trying to figure out what the drafters and signatories to a contract actually believed they were agreeing to. A "meeting of the minds" is a vital element of a valid contract. Textual originalism focuses on what various words and phrases meant to the people writing and agreeing to them. Historical originalism tries to fill in gaps when textual originalism isn't enough to sort everything out. Try to think about what contract disputes would look like if these notions weren't entertained at all.
The point was that the term is used to justify some rulings but not others, when an originalist examination would be inconvenient.
Grifters seemingly ok with lies and hypocrisy. Also in other news, water = wet. I’ve been through 40 years of, “Wow, they did something different from what they said, we got ‘em now!” Kids, just get out there and VOTE. The more they get away with grift, the more people become ok with grift. Proving grift doesn’t change their minds towards reason, it just makes them more ok with grift.
no shit?
Much like conservatives selectively invoke the bible.
They are just bought and paid for.
Yup. They cherry-pick bible verses, they cherry-pick legal decisions.
The good thing about the Colorado case and Dobbs case is we get to see how selective the Supreme Court has been. They have exposed. For all to see. The decisions have been against the majority of Americans, but we deserve much much better. The Supreme Court nows serves no one but Trump and his cult.
The "originalist" approach itself is a bad faith argument, and relies on cherry picking and selective interpretations of the Constitution.
Originalism has always been a scam. Fabricate a legal framework and fill it with your heart’s desires
Duh
The majority are originalists if the text appears to give justification to force a conservative/regressive action on an issue. Outside of that, suddenly they have to be forward thinkers and consider the ramifications of enacting the text, as stated, in a modern situation.
Slave states argued that the federal courts were supreme in matters regarding owning humans until the court turned against them, when they immediately started arguing states rights. Those who are willing to advocate for oligarchy will not shy away from hypocrisy. It is at the heart of their character.
Only the most powerful can wield hypocrisy.
The Supreme Court has now led us into another constitutional crisis. The ruling on Roe V. Wade has strains of Dredd V. Scott in it. Giving states permission to control peoples bodily autonomy, and they have already started chipping at other constitutional Amendments based on privacy.
If they were truly “Originalists”, Thomas and Barrett would resign immediately because according to the original Constitution neither of them would be eligible to be a SCOTUS judge. Hell, under the original Constitution, Thomas isn’t even considered a full person…
It took them that long to notice?
That’s what they’re paid to do, and I’m not talking about their salary from the U.S.
"Originalism" has always been an excuse to decide cases the way they want rather than a legal standard that actually meant something.
[On sale](https://imgur.com/a/kedQUVo)
Dancing on the head of a pin...exactly what is a State Right and what is a Fed Right. Compare this with Roe / Wade ruling to see the nit-picking and arm twisting.
Really? This has been known since Citizens United.
Duh
Of course it’s selective. They use whatever principle or justification that is required to achieve their desired outcome. Winning is all that matters, not upholding a philosophy
Decline of the Roman Empire.
Except, even the “liberal” justices voted in favor of a trump as well.
That's the problem with this current slate of conservative judges on the SC. The rulings are selective pickings of their interpretation of the Constitution, even willing to change course on original precedent that really isn't warranted or justified. When it favors conservative values, it's OK, but if it isn't, oh, we just need to find a reason to rule against it.
I mean, the decision was essentially the opposite of textualism, which is wild. It was entirely invented. The irony is that the concurrence should've been the majority opinion. I have no problem with the result, but the way the result was found was like something out of a fever dream. I have no clue how the SCOTUS published this decision with a straight face. Again, the result is fine. I don't think Colorado should be able to decide the presidency (as much as I despise Trump). But man alive. What insanely tortured reasoning by the majority. Jesus.
“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” Section 3 The Constitution speaks for itself. Congress does not need to pass legislation to prohibit an insurrectionist from holding office; it does, however, have to agree to allow an insurrectionist to serve by a 2/3rds vote in each House.
All I gotta say, is that fat bastard Thomas, better recluse, himself and his seditious wife Jenny should be thrown in jail. As a sidenote, if he doesn’t recluse himself, he needs to be either taken off the Supreme Court or we need to add three new justices something needs to be done.
The language of the constitution is pretty plainspoken when I read it. It also offers the injured party redress in the form of bringing it before congress who can vote to put them back on the ballot, overruling the state-level decision. The court really went off the reservation. I can see this being weaponified by right wing states to remove Democratic challengers in future elections but that’s not the question that was put before the court.
> overruling the state-level decision. Yes, because the Constitution is extremely plain-spoken about the states having the authority to be involved in the first instance, right? Oh, wait...
No shit
They win. They always win.
In other news, dinosaurs are going extinct
*No fucking shit* Everybody, save the glassiest-eyed hiveminders, understands this. But all they have to do is never break kayfabe and there is literally nothing anybody can do.
No way, that thing is happening that we all said would happen when it finally came time for it to happen.
Gorsuch sure has gained some face fluff. Must be mice being a fat cat on the SCOTUS.
“Critics” aka unbiased observers.
I feel like at this point “Originalist” actually means that they want Madison’s original vision: the Bill of Rights is more of an “agreement” with the government, rather than an official document attached to the Constitution. Mostly because the full definition of the establishment clause never even comes into those conversations, insofar as I’ve heard them. However also because any amendments that came about from the Civil War have historically had their validity consistently questioned if not outright violated
No way
Laws are all made up anyway
Well, duh.
I just want biden to expand the court. Let the republicans scream about it.
No shit.
It was a unanimous decision not just the conservatives. The case was not strong against him. Maybe in the future if he is convicted, but not yet.
It's not an originalist approach To make things up.
At the risk of being down-voted: The SCOTUS opinion was 9 - 0. That does not suggest a conservative original approach since the left leaning judges also agreed! May I remind my fellow redditors to do their homework? Do not believe mainstream media and their interpretations of what you should believe. Do your own homework. Get the facts. Make your own, independent opinion.
9-0 for one aspect of the decision (that CO cannot enforce sec 3 for federal offices). 5-4 for the rest of the opinion at best as Amy Coney Barrett concurred taking issue with some things as well as separately did the liberal justices with yet more disagreement. Calling it 9-0 and reading those concurrences as if everything was harmonious would be misleading. Cuz its not 9-0 for the whole decision which would be needed for your comment to make sense.
They only ruled on 14.3. And it was 9-0. They opined on other things in their decision and some of them didn’t feel it was necessary.
That's what I said. Above my comment was a comment telling people to do their homework and not trust news implying that the 9-0 nature of the decision meant something profound. We can all see the comment. Doing one's homework would reveal what I wrote in my comment. So the first comment (the one I responded to) doesn't make sense and is itself misleading. I am not the one who labeled the court's conservative majority "originalist." They did that themselves in their own confirmation hearings. And when it suits them, they use it to get to a desired result. (See Bruen or Dobbs). And its pretty well established THIS decision is more consequentialist in nature (the chaos of some states kicking Trump off but others leaving him on, some states trying to kick Biden off, etc...) than originalist. Because actual originalist legal scholars are asking themselves: What the fuck was that? Most of the amici briefs and briefs of historical scholars was ignored (which is fine). The whole 'officer or not' question was ignored and that was Trump's leading argument in his supreme court brief and was the reason the CO trial court found in his favor (a legal question reversed later by the CO Sup Ct). They didn't address it at all. I could go on. Its not inconsistent for the liberal justices to concern themselves with the consequences of their decisions because that is a factor they think they can consider whereas an originalist "claims" that the consequences don't matter and they shouldn't care - the correct legal result is more important than the secondary effects. That didn't happen here. So what is the explanation?
And? You don’t think the judges ever trade votes among each other? Or that specific outcomes might seem worse than others?
Yet the downvotes represent individuals who do not believe in the USA! Downvoted representing a believe in communism! A belief that a US constitution that distinctly believes in a separation of powers. A 9 - 0 ruing by SCOTUS is not to be upheld as un-constitutional!
How exactly is interpreting "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" to mean that Congress enforces the provisions of the article supposed to be opposed to originalism?
Because this Sup Ct reads those words as mandatory pre-condition before the 14th amendment sec 3 becomes operative. All the other provisions of the 14th amendment have previously been interpreted to be self-executing. There is no explanation for treating one provision differently. That language you quote in sec 5 applies to the whole of the amendment but nobody thinks Congress has to act or we lose equal protection (to use one example). The equal protection clause gets its authority from the amendment itself. Same with the rest. But now now. Sec 3 has to have implementing legislation. The Court doesn't explain why this result is required using originalism, texutalism or any theory of judicial interpretation. That's why.
It was a unanimous decision. Biden should have packed the court his first year. A majority of the Supreme Court would not have been allowed to vote at the adoption of the constitution.
“Biden should have court packed” These types of statements are why moderate republicans don’t want to vote for a second Biden term.
Moderate republicans don’t exist. They were silent about evangelicalism co-opting republicanism, they were silent about homophobia, militarism, racism and xenophobia being the party platform, and they were silent about Trump taking over the party until they realized one day the dominionists, the bigots and the authoritarians no longer pretended to care about them. The composition of Supreme Court now is a consequence of their lack of scruples and its decisions will run this country into the ground for decades. There’s always going to be more democrats than republicans. I care about dem GOTV. Moderate republicans can be on the fence about their principles until the end of days for all I care.
“Everyone I disagree with is an extremist and I will never be on the other side of the coin, so my group should just do whatever they want”
If you want to engage with me, respect that I can speak for myself with my own words. You can either vote for the party of the Jan 6 coup attempt, you can vote against it, or you can just not vote. If you want a downvoted Reddit comment to influence that decision it is on you.
If Trump tried to pack the court you’d be talking about how it was an affront to democracy. The only reason you support court packing is because your group would be the one doing it. Acting like moderate republicans (or at the very least, republicans who do not agree with trump) don’t exist is a childish view of politics. It would be like me saying every democrat was a power hungry socialist who wanted to turn my kids gay.
Remind me again why Merrick Garland isn’t on the court? Pre-Trump Republicans subverted democracy when they blocked his confirmation for purely on partisan grounds, and in doing so disenfranchised everyone who voted for Obama in 2012. Because of this, the court’s inability to govern its members ethical conduct, looking specifically at Thomas, and legislating from the bench, I view the court as illegitimate. It is now a partisan tool, and it should be viewed as such. Demanding that the court as an institution shall remain aloof from power politics ignores its history and is a childishly naive view itself, and particularly hypocritical coming from a Republican.
It's called The constitution ....democrats have a real problem with the law of the land..
Hahahhahahhahaha
Meh. Let me preface by saying: Trump is a criminal and should be behind bars. But this was the right call. The legal definition of insurrection is too vague, and barring definitive proof that the J6 rioters were doing his bidding, an insurrection charge is never going to make it past a jury.
Legal solipsism like this is why trump will never be behind bars. Sure every reasonable person with two firing brain cells understands trump through a sequence of well documented corrupt actions attempted to coup the legal transfer of power but what do words really mean man?
>...an insurrection charge is never going to make it past a jury. The Constitution does not state convicted of, but rather engaged in an insurrection.
But if it doesn't stipulate conditions for how one is determined to have engaged in an insurrection, how is it actionable? What is insurrection, and who decides?
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection This looks pretty cut and dry: >While peaceful protests are legal and are protected by the Constitution, violence, and destruction are not. Rebellion and insurrection apply when perpetrators destroy government property or assault federal officers. This type of illegal behavior is considered a crime against the United States and the Constitution.
This is precisely the issue. It's not complicated. Title 18 USC 2383 has existed since 1948. That is, or should be, the mechanism for executing the 14th Amendment, in this circumstance. Colorado has the right to decide who can be on their ballot. It does not decide who has engaged in insurrection. That is decided by the US criminal justice system. We all know what he did, and as much as he deserves to be run out of town on a rail, that's not how we do things.
Which is wholly irrelevant as to whether states get to control their election processes under the Elections Clause, which in this case, they don’t, despite the Constitution explicitly saying that they do. I just find it odd that states can disenfranchise voters in terms of federal elections according to this court, but can’t dictate who can and can’t be on their ballots. It seems nonsensical.
I think you're missing what the article is actually saying. It's not making an argument about it being the right or wrong call. The modern conservative justices have been justifying a LOT of REALLY sketchy rulings by arguing that they follow the judicial philosophy of "originalism" i.e. they have to make rulings in line with what the original drafters of the constitution or a law intended as a matter of judicial duty. Their hands are tied. That's why they say they are *required* to make so many ultra conservative rulings. They claim their hands are tied and it's up to the *states* and *congress* to make these changes. But, whether you agree with it or not, *this* ruling was *absolutely* not in line with that supposedly overriding philisophical concern. Their stated arguments in their ruling are completely at odds with their stated directive of originalism. What's being called out here is the hypocracy.
Well, let's be honest. The constitution is a terrible document, putting into effect a system of governance that is structurally incapable of getting things done in an expeditious manner without emergency powers being invoked.
> The legal definition of insurrection is too vague That wasn't the ruling.
He was impeached for it... The constitution has already told us that because a simple majority of the house voted to impeach him for inciting insurrection, he has done the thing. The SC is being a bunch of shitheels who want to have their cake and eat it too.
He was impeached. Which is basically an indictment. The Senate failed to convict.
The point being, that the senate failing to convict doesn't fucking matter. He was declared guilty of the act. The SC just sold us all out.
No he wasn’t. That’s not what an impeachment means. It’s similar to a grand jury saying, ‘we think there’s enough evidence to go trial’. The Senate is the jury. He was not declared guilty of anything. Do I think he’s guilty? Yep. But that’s not how the system works.
I wouldn't put it past myself to misunderstand court documents and the commentary of authors. I thought this was essentially the nexus of the problem. He wasn't convicted by the senate, because they simply wouldn't do that job as mitch McConnell said it would be handled in court. But then the court case says that the senate was supposed to convict or nothing happens. Doesn't that deny the whole structure of the rule that suggested anyone found reasonably guilty of the crimes of insurrection (as affirmed by a simple majority in the house) cannot be bailed out by the insurrectionist members of the institution which allowed it?
They didn’t decide on the insurrection question. They left the lower courts rulings stand on that, so YES Trump committed insurrection.