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

I don't think the 9-0 ruling on whether a state can remove a Presidential candidate from the ballot is surprising. Even the liberal justices seemed concerned about the ability of a single state to influence a Presidential election like that.

However, what is surprising is that SCOTUS just ruled that the 14th Amendment can't be enforced by anyone but Congress and that part was a 5-4 ruling with all of the ACB joining the Liberal justices in dissenting with the majority.

 

Regarding this part.

"Allowing Colorado to do so
would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork,
at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is
enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further.
Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that
this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case"

"Although only an individual State’s
action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal
actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so"

We know more States may do this, do the dissenters think that the SC should rule in each case individually?

Like Today they tell CO. no, Tomorrow they tell Illinois no, then some other state?

Doesn't it make more sense to just rule that no state has this right, and stop future litigation.

 

No. The Dissenters agreed with the majority that it shouldn't be state by state, hence the 9-0 ruling on that part. The dissenters disagreed with the majority that only Congress can disqualify a candidate. I find Judicial rulings as an excellent way to fall asleep, so I haven't read the partial dissent, but the analysis I've seen seem to be saying it felt that the federal Judiciary could actually be a mechanism to disqualify a candidate.

As an example, if Jack Smith were to amend his charges against Trump with an insurrection charge, the majority ruling would mean that even if Trump were convicted of insurrection, he would still be eligible to be President because it wasn't Congress making that decision.

 

Hmm... I may have misunderstood this part. Marcy Wheeler is saying that the majority opinion says Congress must remove anyone who has been convicted of Insurrection.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/03/...o-supersede-trump-with-inciting-insurrection/

 

Apparantly it almost was. Here’s a blog post about the meaning of some metadata that wasn’t scrubbed before the document was posted online.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/03/how-the-sausage-gets-made

 

"I am a White person with no dog in this fight. Tara will stand regardless of who wins. So inspire me." -2016 voters

 

Very banana republicky

 

That really does unscramble the eggs, doesn't it...

 

Checks and balances. The Supreme Court is supposed to check and balance both Congress and the Presidency. They have basically decided they will only check Congress.

 

Except that’s not really it. They were wildly incoherent in supporting the Muslim ban 7 years ago by saying Trump’s tweets aren’t his beliefs and thoughts.

And they stopped the student loan forgiveness with a completely atextual reading of the law in question. They did it because they don’t like Democratic policies.

It’s not “Congress” it’s “Democrats.”

And this isn’t a nitpick. If they were just in the tank for the executive branch, as a political issue then the response is simple. Elect Democratic presidents.

But we did that and it didn’t matter. The Supremes still implement Republican policy preferences.

 

This seems to be the best thread to comment on this article from Time, given it focuses on marriage equality which will inevitably be back before the Supreme Court.

One of the parts that struck me the most was where they note only two Justices who voted for marriage equality remain. Here's what I consider to be the "highlights":

 

How did Obergfell damage religious liberty? It didn’t require gay marriage it merely allowed it. When the government allows liquor sales despite many religions being against alcohol does that damage religious liberty? That’s the whole game there in what Alito and Thomas wrote. They see religious liberty as the freedom for one region to impose its beliefs through democratic means.

That’s not really what they had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.

 

Maybe for you and I. There are tours of Washington D.C, with Christian themes, that take the money from all these evangelical types and then take them a tour "proving" that the country was established as a Christian Nation. They don't say the white part out loud - well maybe they do now.

I guess all those evangelicals who want to Follow the Constitution! haven't read it yet. Jesus isn't in it.

https://www.inspirationtravel.com/destination/washington-dc

 

Because it "forces" those poor god-fearing county clerks to violate their religious beliefs by giving marriage licenses to those demonic gay people, because the Bible clearly says you should not render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. And given the Bible clearly says people will be married in Heaven, marriage belongs to God! [This is sarcasm. The Bible actually says the opposite of those things.]

 

Well they can get new jobs then.

I mean we are all on the same page here but I just wanted to highlight the perversion here, of religious liberty changing from freedom to practice your own religion in private to you being able to impose your religious beliefs on others outside of places of worship.