If the justices dodge full resolution of the Section 3 questions now, they've been warned the issue could “come back with a vengeance” on January 6, 2025.
This sucks on so many levels. Listening to them argue semantics was painful😖 The law is clear. Cut and dried. We are the only country that I'm aware of that hasn't punished an insurrectionist in chief. Bolosarno has already been forbidden to run again.
To put it bluntly I don't think any lawyer, historian, constitutional scholar, etc listened to this and was at all happy about the prospects, be they for or against Trump. You can basically just hear all of them muttering "Please just resolve the merits, please please please do your job." Their single most important job is resolving questions of and interpreting the constitution and basically they seemed to want to kick that can... like if they did not want this responsibility they should have stepped down or not taken the job.
That said I would LOVE for you to write about the Hawai'i Supreme Court opinion that just came out, because that seemed like a master class on how to do the job.
Like the Colorado Supreme Court below in this case, state courts can provide useful perspectives. It includes some fascinating history. I was not aware of the courts of the kingdom of Hawai'i, for instance.
"This is no ordinary case, however, and finding an “easy” out today could lead to an even more dangerous crisis that Roberts and the nation would be unable to avoid in less than a year. He has a responsibility to lead the court to fully resolve this case and these questions now. "
Roberts' own questions during Thursday's arguments suggests that he won't be that guy, as the lot of them - perhaps save J. Sotomayor - are running away from confronting "the merits" and contriving to put together a unanimous or 8-1 decision against *Anderson* on perhaps the "requiring a Congressional act", or the "one state can't set an electoral precedent for all 50 states", etc., etc.
ANY kick-the-can ruling seemingly is preferable to a definitive ruling regarding an oath-breaking insurrectionist barred from the ballot per §3.
Eh. If Trump actually wins --- and please no -- there is also a good chance that both houses of Congress are red. Democrats can cry foul all they want. The full Congress is not going to challenge Trump's legitimacy.
I predict that even if the Democrats won both houses (please do) that if Trump actually wins the electoral vote (please don't) that they won't block the "people's choice" (likely another minority vote victory ala 2016).
Maybe, I'm wrong. But, I did not find that appeal by Hasen et. al. overly convincing. If Trump actually wins, well, I think this would be the least of our problems. A ruling that leaves open post-election challenges in the courts could be messy though we all know this Court isn't going to block Trump there either. Again, if Trump actually wins, that would be down there problem-wise.
The merits of this case define banning insurrectionists from holding office. If this Supreme court refuses to do it's due diligence and answer the merits/insurrection/14thsec3/nexus then yes J62025 Electoral Vote Count will be chaotic and the usual Stop the Steel Voices/Insurrectionists will try harder only this time there is a president who believes in laws and the National Guard will be fully functional and ready and there will be Bradley Tanks and other tracked war vehicles surrounding the capitol. There will not be a repeat J62025 that over runs or breaches the Capitol. There will be blood in the streets for those foolish enough to try and obstruct the Electoral vote count a second time.
This sucks on so many levels. Listening to them argue semantics was painful😖 The law is clear. Cut and dried. We are the only country that I'm aware of that hasn't punished an insurrectionist in chief. Bolosarno has already been forbidden to run again.
It's like they're overdrawn on their credit card and they're trying to avoid talking about how they are broke. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yep🤷♀️
To put it bluntly I don't think any lawyer, historian, constitutional scholar, etc listened to this and was at all happy about the prospects, be they for or against Trump. You can basically just hear all of them muttering "Please just resolve the merits, please please please do your job." Their single most important job is resolving questions of and interpreting the constitution and basically they seemed to want to kick that can... like if they did not want this responsibility they should have stepped down or not taken the job.
That said I would LOVE for you to write about the Hawai'i Supreme Court opinion that just came out, because that seemed like a master class on how to do the job.
Here's a link:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24413828/hawaii-v-wilson.pdf
Like the Colorado Supreme Court below in this case, state courts can provide useful perspectives. It includes some fascinating history. I was not aware of the courts of the kingdom of Hawai'i, for instance.
I made the assumption that Chris both knew about it and had access to it. However I did not think of others.
But just it's such an opinion that's very directly aimed at SCOTUS and I would say shots fired, but that would be antithetical to this opinion 😄
They've been warned about accepting bribes, too but who gives a shit if you can't get fired 😀
"This is no ordinary case, however, and finding an “easy” out today could lead to an even more dangerous crisis that Roberts and the nation would be unable to avoid in less than a year. He has a responsibility to lead the court to fully resolve this case and these questions now. "
Roberts' own questions during Thursday's arguments suggests that he won't be that guy, as the lot of them - perhaps save J. Sotomayor - are running away from confronting "the merits" and contriving to put together a unanimous or 8-1 decision against *Anderson* on perhaps the "requiring a Congressional act", or the "one state can't set an electoral precedent for all 50 states", etc., etc.
ANY kick-the-can ruling seemingly is preferable to a definitive ruling regarding an oath-breaking insurrectionist barred from the ballot per §3.
They’ll do the easiest thing possible even if that leaves the Republic in greater danger than when they began. Worst SCOTUS ever.
Completely agree with Law Dork Chris.
All during this absurd oral argument stage, I kept asking myself:
1. “Did any of the Justices bother to read those briefs?”
2. “How deeply invested in ‘Our Vast Right-Conspiracy’ is this Supreme Court?”
https://johnadamsingram.substack.com/p/our-vast-right-wing-conspiracy/
Eh. If Trump actually wins --- and please no -- there is also a good chance that both houses of Congress are red. Democrats can cry foul all they want. The full Congress is not going to challenge Trump's legitimacy.
I predict that even if the Democrats won both houses (please do) that if Trump actually wins the electoral vote (please don't) that they won't block the "people's choice" (likely another minority vote victory ala 2016).
Maybe, I'm wrong. But, I did not find that appeal by Hasen et. al. overly convincing. If Trump actually wins, well, I think this would be the least of our problems. A ruling that leaves open post-election challenges in the courts could be messy though we all know this Court isn't going to block Trump there either. Again, if Trump actually wins, that would be down there problem-wise.
Chris,
The merits of this case define banning insurrectionists from holding office. If this Supreme court refuses to do it's due diligence and answer the merits/insurrection/14thsec3/nexus then yes J62025 Electoral Vote Count will be chaotic and the usual Stop the Steel Voices/Insurrectionists will try harder only this time there is a president who believes in laws and the National Guard will be fully functional and ready and there will be Bradley Tanks and other tracked war vehicles surrounding the capitol. There will not be a repeat J62025 that over runs or breaches the Capitol. There will be blood in the streets for those foolish enough to try and obstruct the Electoral vote count a second time.
SCOTUS will be sure to keep Trump on the ballot everywhere.
I know many will disagree with me on this but I felt there were good questions
from the SCOTUS bench on
this.
I've also read, the reason "President" was not included
in A14s3 at that time, no
one could conceive a southern insurrectionist
would be elected President.
And too, Trump's never been
convicted of insurrection.
Then you have the point, I think it was Sotomayor made,
that ruling for Colorado could
cause a major shift between
red and blue state ballots,
effecting the general elections in Nov. There are
more red states currently.
We need a fair election where
we beat Trump, take the House and either maintain the Senate or expand it.
If we can do that - and we must! - we can enact so many good laws and strengthen existing rules
and regulations.
Now I'll shut up.