The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

The other argument in the piece I agree with, is that upholding Colorado does not somehow create a risk that insurrectionist states will then illegally bar Dems, because this risk already exists. As usual the Court is simply caving to asymmetric threats/fears that state parties will cheat in elections if the plain meaning of the constitution is enforced. That's ridiculous!

If Trump is elected, he has already announced his plans to use a corrupted DOJ to oppress opponents. Of course their campaigns will be sabotaged.

Practical concerns about non-uniformity and abuse are understandable. But they are overblown. If state officials or state courts reach unsound or contradictory legal conclusions about the meaning of Section 3 (e.g.—by adopting overbroad definitions of what qualifies as an "insurrection"), their determinations could be reviewed in federal court, and the Supreme Court could impose a uniform definition of the terms in question. Indeed, it could do so in this very case! Non-uniform interpretations of provisions of the federal Constitution by state and lower federal courts can occur in many contexts. Settling such issues is one of the reasons why we have a Supreme Court that can be the final arbiter of federal constitutional questions. ​

 

Weissmann / McCord touched on some of these issues in their review - I recommend if you want something shorter. One of the interesting points is that if the Supreme Court says state courts can't rule on this question, it opens the door to whether Congress decides and what might happen when the electoral college is certified.

Could Harris simply refuse to certify Trump electors on the ground he is not eligible?

This really illustrates why it is quite important an insurrectionist is not on the ballot IMO!

 

Yeah, but how do you think ACB, Kagen, Jackson, and Sotomayor will rule?

 

An example of how badly the Supreme Court sucks at history....

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-dunning-school-historical-error-and.html

 

The Dunning School or the Dunning-Kruger school?

 

Ha - they have bigger sacs than the men in the room

I am hoping that they will actually comment Obiter on the elephant in the room and say it appears clear that Trump is not eligible under s3 at the end of the day, even if overturning Colorado for procedural/jurisdictional reasons.

 

I was actually getting at your male-gendered terminology. Gonads would have been a better term.

I'm really wondering if they will agree with Colorado that he did take part in an insurrection, but vote against Colorado for the reasons you state.

 

The point i keep coming back to is GOP voters need to know the answer to this in the current primaries!

I am really mystified by the idea that the highest Court in the land can't simply issue guidance on this fundamental question which has been determined in multiple courts and the evidence is all around.

Especially if they claim some nonsense about how s3 does not prevent Trump from running (as opposed to assuming the office), that will obviously directly raise the question of whether Congress cannot seat him.

 

Copied from the tweet thread for followup discussion

It's like they're daring us - "so what are you chuds going to do about it, huh?"