Although nothing is certain with SCOTUS, it is sensible for all of us to prepare for the Fourteenth Amendment case to be the ruling we get at 10 a.m. Monday.
I gotta say, though, if SCOTUS rules on the Colorado case the *day before the primary* -- jeez, all their protestations of being above politics go right in the trash. Either do the work on time, with plenty of margin, or ignore the real-world scheduling completely.
Don't issue an opinion the day before the event it pretends to affect.
I know some people are focusing on that, and I get it and don't like it, but I'm not focusing on it because it's one too many layers of speculation for me — with other reasonable explanations. For example, it's also possible that some justices were out of town because no in-person days were expected until March 15 and it felt more fair not to have some be "absent" because of that for the issuance of this opinion.
If I wanted to be annoyed with it, I definitely could, to be clear; I'm just trying assess why — and I can't be sure enough to say why.
Of course, the opinion(s) are what matter the most.
They were there on Friday for their conference and I'm unsure why they couldn't release it then. If they have some special reason, and don't want people to wonder why they are doing it this way (which isn't normal & is going to look to some people like they want to avoid showing up to release an unpleasant opinion) they could say. They don't want to probably but oh well. Thanks for explaining your mindset. That's mine.
ETA: If it is not the insurrection case, never mind. You never know with these people.
Thanks for what you do. I'm a new subscriber. I'm here for your good legal reporting which just has to include maintaining balance. Thanks. I appreciate it.
These unelected arrogant little Napoleons. Roberts has turned what was an already utterly corrupt 'court' ie Bush v Gore into a sick, pathetic joke. 'Rule of law' my ass.
The 14th Amendment can be laughed at, while the 2nd is Holy Writ. Well, given as a majority of them are religious fanatics, it follows.
I thought all that dignity went out with the bidet wash when scotus took the presidency aware from Al Gore and gave it to w - who got us into two major conflicts, led us into a financial meltdown and cut taxes for his donor/friends. Jeesh - short memories help scotus and their puppeteers from the gop.
I do not want to be cynical, but I think the kangaroos will vote to allow agent orange to remain on the ballot with the reasoning that … um …. Well, there is no cogent reasoning just Clarence wanting to keep his perks, along with agent samuel and feckless roberto, beer pub brett and hand maiden amy. As for Neil the imposter he can do whatever the hell he wants. It just smells like burning sulphur.
The opinion is bound to be a hot mess. Ever since the unfortunate political differences which agitated the people of Rhode Island in 1841 and 1842, the Court has taken the chances to stay out of fights that surely result in nothing but ingrates and enemies. Justice Roger B. Taney (yes, that guy) set out the foundation of non-justicable Constitutional provisions.
"Much of the argument on the part of the plaintiff turned upon political rights and political questions, upon which the *47 court has been urged to express an opinion. We decline doing so. The high power has been conferred on this court of passing judgment upon the acts of the State sovereignties, and of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, and of determining whether they are beyond the limits of power marked out for them respectively by the Constitution of the United States. This tribunal, therefore, should be the last to overstep the boundaries which limit its own jurisdiction. And while it should always be ready to meet any question confided to it by the Constitution, it is equally its duty not to pass beyond its appropriate sphere of action, and to take care not to involve itself in discussions which properly belong to other forums. No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition, that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But whether they have changed it or not by abolishing an old government, and establishing a new one in its place, is a question to be settled by the political power. And when that power has decided, the courts are bound to take notice of its decision, and to follow it."
The principal escape valve for avoiding the application of the doctrine has been the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which has been used as a restraint on the otherwise plenary authority of the states to set electoral procedures. The most prominent incursion on state power over elections was in Bush v. Gore on just that basis.
What the Court _should_ do is to say: "Congress: if you want there to be a uniform national law for the application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amedment, that's your job, not ours."
I'm not optimistic, as reflected in this parody report of tomorrow's expected opinion: One unsigned opinion relying on Griffin's Case as binding precedent and nine separate opinions agreeing in the disposition but each differing in the ratio decendio. https://the-oracle-of-technocrat.ghost.io/inh/
I have been speculating for the past few months that SCOTUS is well and truly done with tRump, that they would have declined cert in order to let the Jan6 trial resume, and as a *political* tradeoff, throw out the Colorado SC ruling barring tRump from the ballot per14th/§3
Well, got blind-sided, as the Court threw tRump a massive delay lifeline, AND will keep him on the ballot. Simply over-looked the corruption in that body as it concerns tRump's welfare and preserving his viability as a candidate for president.
The decision, which I have not yet fully absorbed, as expected holds against Colorado's ability to use the 14th Amendment. Basically, it says that the whole POINT of the 14th Amendment was to put the federal government in charge of enforcing and interpreting it. (I'm not sure how true that is overall--certainly states routinely strike down their own laws based on due process or other aspects of the 14th. But they do so under Federal (ie SCOTUS) interpretations). It is a unanimous opinion, but the three liberal justices concur while arguing that the main opinion goes to far in outlining HOW the federal government can do this.
If the majority opinion really does say that only Congress can decide by presumably writing an appropriate law, it does seem too broad. Why can't the DOJ bring an action? (There IS a law on the books about insurrection, which Smith didn't use in its charges, presumably to avoid the long drag of arguing the First Amendment). Why can't a state or group of states bring a FEDERAL suit to enforce Paragraph 3?
If my brief reading supports the concurring opinion's objections, under the current decision it would likely be the end run to pass a STATUTE directly addressing the means of enforcing Paragraph 3. Such a statute could, if correctly drafted, address the concurrences concerns. It could also set a statute of limitations that would allow the alternatives to still be justiciable under the statute based on 1/6, quite apart whether there would be a Jan 6 2.0 next year.
With this Congress, fat chance.
I await your own much more detailed analysis eagerly.
I gotta say, though, if SCOTUS rules on the Colorado case the *day before the primary* -- jeez, all their protestations of being above politics go right in the trash. Either do the work on time, with plenty of margin, or ignore the real-world scheduling completely.
Don't issue an opinion the day before the event it pretends to affect.
"The Court may announce opinions on the homepage beginning at 10 a.m. The Court will not take the Bench."
Won't even show up to announce.
I know some people are focusing on that, and I get it and don't like it, but I'm not focusing on it because it's one too many layers of speculation for me — with other reasonable explanations. For example, it's also possible that some justices were out of town because no in-person days were expected until March 15 and it felt more fair not to have some be "absent" because of that for the issuance of this opinion.
If I wanted to be annoyed with it, I definitely could, to be clear; I'm just trying assess why — and I can't be sure enough to say why.
Of course, the opinion(s) are what matter the most.
They were there on Friday for their conference and I'm unsure why they couldn't release it then. If they have some special reason, and don't want people to wonder why they are doing it this way (which isn't normal & is going to look to some people like they want to avoid showing up to release an unpleasant opinion) they could say. They don't want to probably but oh well. Thanks for explaining your mindset. That's mine.
ETA: If it is not the insurrection case, never mind. You never know with these people.
Thanks for what you do. I'm a new subscriber. I'm here for your good legal reporting which just has to include maintaining balance. Thanks. I appreciate it.
These unelected arrogant little Napoleons. Roberts has turned what was an already utterly corrupt 'court' ie Bush v Gore into a sick, pathetic joke. 'Rule of law' my ass.
The 14th Amendment can be laughed at, while the 2nd is Holy Writ. Well, given as a majority of them are religious fanatics, it follows.
I thought all that dignity went out with the bidet wash when scotus took the presidency aware from Al Gore and gave it to w - who got us into two major conflicts, led us into a financial meltdown and cut taxes for his donor/friends. Jeesh - short memories help scotus and their puppeteers from the gop.
They have so much blood on their gnarled hands...
I do not want to be cynical, but I think the kangaroos will vote to allow agent orange to remain on the ballot with the reasoning that … um …. Well, there is no cogent reasoning just Clarence wanting to keep his perks, along with agent samuel and feckless roberto, beer pub brett and hand maiden amy. As for Neil the imposter he can do whatever the hell he wants. It just smells like burning sulphur.
Unfortunately there is going to be chaos after this election no matter what happens.
Thanks for keeping on top of all of this and showing us what a sane perspective should look like.
I could even say that the courts delight on some decisions, because they have too much work, which is a great reason to expand the court to have more
Justices. Just in the last 50 years, the population of the United States has doubled. It is too much workload for nine justices.
Plus, there are now 13 circuits
The opinion is bound to be a hot mess. Ever since the unfortunate political differences which agitated the people of Rhode Island in 1841 and 1842, the Court has taken the chances to stay out of fights that surely result in nothing but ingrates and enemies. Justice Roger B. Taney (yes, that guy) set out the foundation of non-justicable Constitutional provisions.
"Much of the argument on the part of the plaintiff turned upon political rights and political questions, upon which the *47 court has been urged to express an opinion. We decline doing so. The high power has been conferred on this court of passing judgment upon the acts of the State sovereignties, and of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, and of determining whether they are beyond the limits of power marked out for them respectively by the Constitution of the United States. This tribunal, therefore, should be the last to overstep the boundaries which limit its own jurisdiction. And while it should always be ready to meet any question confided to it by the Constitution, it is equally its duty not to pass beyond its appropriate sphere of action, and to take care not to involve itself in discussions which properly belong to other forums. No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition, that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But whether they have changed it or not by abolishing an old government, and establishing a new one in its place, is a question to be settled by the political power. And when that power has decided, the courts are bound to take notice of its decision, and to follow it."
The principal escape valve for avoiding the application of the doctrine has been the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which has been used as a restraint on the otherwise plenary authority of the states to set electoral procedures. The most prominent incursion on state power over elections was in Bush v. Gore on just that basis.
What the Court _should_ do is to say: "Congress: if you want there to be a uniform national law for the application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amedment, that's your job, not ours."
I'm not optimistic, as reflected in this parody report of tomorrow's expected opinion: One unsigned opinion relying on Griffin's Case as binding precedent and nine separate opinions agreeing in the disposition but each differing in the ratio decendio. https://the-oracle-of-technocrat.ghost.io/inh/
I have been speculating for the past few months that SCOTUS is well and truly done with tRump, that they would have declined cert in order to let the Jan6 trial resume, and as a *political* tradeoff, throw out the Colorado SC ruling barring tRump from the ballot per14th/§3
Well, got blind-sided, as the Court threw tRump a massive delay lifeline, AND will keep him on the ballot. Simply over-looked the corruption in that body as it concerns tRump's welfare and preserving his viability as a candidate for president.
"Dictator for a day"...uh-huh.
Time to buckle up and start stockpiling?
The decision, which I have not yet fully absorbed, as expected holds against Colorado's ability to use the 14th Amendment. Basically, it says that the whole POINT of the 14th Amendment was to put the federal government in charge of enforcing and interpreting it. (I'm not sure how true that is overall--certainly states routinely strike down their own laws based on due process or other aspects of the 14th. But they do so under Federal (ie SCOTUS) interpretations). It is a unanimous opinion, but the three liberal justices concur while arguing that the main opinion goes to far in outlining HOW the federal government can do this.
If the majority opinion really does say that only Congress can decide by presumably writing an appropriate law, it does seem too broad. Why can't the DOJ bring an action? (There IS a law on the books about insurrection, which Smith didn't use in its charges, presumably to avoid the long drag of arguing the First Amendment). Why can't a state or group of states bring a FEDERAL suit to enforce Paragraph 3?
If my brief reading supports the concurring opinion's objections, under the current decision it would likely be the end run to pass a STATUTE directly addressing the means of enforcing Paragraph 3. Such a statute could, if correctly drafted, address the concurrences concerns. It could also set a statute of limitations that would allow the alternatives to still be justiciable under the statute based on 1/6, quite apart whether there would be a Jan 6 2.0 next year.
With this Congress, fat chance.
I await your own much more detailed analysis eagerly.
I await you
So annoying…the ruling just came out 😤