Quoting Gorsuch in their opinion from when he was a district judge regarding states rights to determine who is qualified as a candidate and who isn’t was a particularly nice touch.
When done right, it can be quite beautiful.
Quoting Gorsuch in their opinion from when he was a district judge regarding states rights to determine who is qualified as a candidate and who isn’t was a particularly nice touch.
They do not usually
They don’t usually overturn roe v wade. They don’t usually hand Bush a Presidency due to corruption. They don’t have to do it that often, and they know when they need to.
At best they’ll find some excuse for why this is some exceptional circumstance, which just helps them not apply the precedent when it’s not in their favor.
That’s not the point here. Appeals courts, including SCOTUS only look at the application of the law to the facts. They do not usually reexamine facts agreed upon by the lower courts. Here, SCOTUS could say that the office of the president wasn’t contemplated by section 3 of the 13th amendment. But, if they want to overrule the factual findings of the lower court, they will have to basically overrule all federal election law which is clear that states have nearly total control over how to conduct their elections. These precedents and the legal theories they support are at the heart of conservative justice’s recent successful attempts to erode the protections of the Voting Rights Act; that federal oversight of how the states conduct elections can be severely circumscribed.
You are, of course, right that SCOTUS has ignored long established precedents whenever convenient, but this puts them in the position of having to either back Trump and undermine the broader Republican effort to undermine democratic voting at the state level, or come down against Trump while leaving invaluable conservative legal structures in place.
Edit: speelling
Even though the ruling is on hold pending appeal, it’s a huge deal for these reasons:
It sets precedent for lawsuits to be filed in other states to remove Trump from the ballot citing this ruling.
No doubt this will got to the SCOTUS which not only will answer the question about section 3 of the 14th amendment which states “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”, but if they were to overturn this ruling have to explain why each state doesn’t control their own election as the current law states.
Thing is, I don’t think Trump’s goals actually do in fact align with the federalist society’s goals. I think there is a legit civil war going on inside the GOP right now over all of this, and you’re seeing it play out.
The federalist society backed the idea that trump was disqualified, and they are the ones who tend to support and pick the conservative justices.
People underestimate how deeply divided the party is ATM between these soft and hard fascist factions. In fact, that’s the weakness of authoritarianism, power playing and sabotaging cooperative efforts and community.
That’s not to say they won’t rally eventually, but this is unlike any prior party infighting, including 2016. Until we hit the 2024 GOP convention, it’s impossible to say for sure how all this goes. Trump is the most likely candidate by popular vote, but there is a substantial part of the party that does not want him, and the SC errs on that side and has actually done so fairly consistently.
Yes, they want a conservative power grab, but it seems the GOP donators do not believe Trump’s power grab is actually one that they want. At least not yet. We’ll see if that changes.
Remember, this isn’t about November 2024. It’s about the summer of 2024, and the GOP is about to get dirty as hell if a large portion of their power balancers do NOT want Trump. MAGA is Trump, and right now MAGA’s biggest obstacle to total power is the GOP primary itself and any never trumpers.
They do not usually
They don’t usually overturn roe v wade. They don’t usually hand Bush a Presidency due to corruption. They don’t have to do it that often, and they know when they need to.
At best they’ll find some excuse for why this is some exceptional circumstance, which just helps them not apply the precedent when it’s not in their favor.
Even though the ruling is on hold pending appeal, it’s a huge deal for these reasons:
It sets precedent for lawsuits to be filed in other states to remove Trump from the ballot citing this ruling.
No doubt this will got to the SCOTUS which not only will answer the question about section 3 of the 14th amendment which states “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”, but if they were to overturn this ruling have to explain why each state doesn’t control their own election as the current law states.
Thing is, I don’t think Trump’s goals actually do in fact align with the federalist society’s goals. I think there is a legit civil war going on inside the GOP right now over all of this, and you’re seeing it play out.
The federalist society backed the idea that trump was disqualified, and they are the ones who tend to support and pick the conservative justices.
People underestimate how deeply divided the party is ATM between these soft and hard fascist factions. In fact, that’s the weakness of authoritarianism, power playing and sabotaging cooperative efforts and community.
That’s not to say they won’t rally eventually, but this is unlike any prior party infighting, including 2016. Until we hit the 2024 GOP convention, it’s impossible to say for sure how all this goes. Trump is the most likely candidate by popular vote, but there is a substantial part of the party that does not want him, and the SC errs on that side and has actually done so fairly consistently.
Yes, they want a conservative power grab, but it seems the GOP donators do not believe Trump’s power grab is actually one that they want. At least not yet. We’ll see if that changes.
Remember, this isn’t about November 2024. It’s about the summer of 2024, and the GOP is about to get dirty as hell if a large portion of their power balancers do NOT want Trump. MAGA is Trump, and right now MAGA’s biggest obstacle to total power is the GOP primary itself and any never trumpers.
SO this is trying to make Scotus make a mistake?
I don’t think it’s a simple as that. I think the Colorado courts did everything right here, letting the state Supreme Court actually hand down the decision applying section 3 to the office of the president so that SCOTUS is forced to review a state Supreme Court decision and not side step it by focusing on whether a lower state court even has the authority to make such a ruling (i don’t know if this is even a viable argument but I’m sure they could come up with something if they wanted).
I don’t think they are trying to force SCOTUS into a mistake, they are simply realizing that this is a major constitutional question which needs immediate resolution. That is their focus. The fact that it puts SCOTUS in an impossible position between the l upholding their long coveted states rights agenda or fully embracing MAGA, is just a necessary consequence.
The ‘mistake’ here would be undermining state’s rights to support Trump. But even if they, God willing, uphold the Colorado ruling the conservative efforts to undermine voting rights and election laws will continue to succeed without real action.
SO this is trying to make Scotus make a mistake?
I also think it’s fairly savvy of the Colorado Supreme Court to use recent SCOTUS precedents regarding state control of elections to place the justices in a position of having to either back up their own rulings or support Trump.
I don’t think it’s a simple as that. I think the Colorado courts did everything right here, letting the state Supreme Court actually hand down the decision applying section 3 to the office of the president so that SCOTUS is forced to review a state Supreme Court decision and not side step it by focusing on whether a lower state court even has the authority to make such a ruling (i don’t know if this is even a viable argument but I’m sure they could come up with something if they wanted).
I don’t think they are trying to force SCOTUS into a mistake, they are simply realizing that this is a major constitutional question which needs immediate resolution. That is their focus. The fact that it puts SCOTUS in an impossible position between the l upholding their long coveted states rights agenda or fully embracing MAGA, is just a necessary consequence.
The ‘mistake’ here would be undermining state’s rights to support Trump. But even if they, God willing, uphold the Colorado ruling the conservative efforts to undermine voting rights and election laws will continue to succeed without real action.
The ease in which it can be used against the court is the issue with the Supreme Court making purely fanciful and ideological precedent. They are the highest law of the land and if they don’t agree with themselves on something they just said. It hugely undermines their legitimacy.
I also think it’s fairly savvy of the Colorado Supreme Court to use recent SCOTUS precedents regarding state control of elections to place the justices in a position of having to either back up their own rulings or support Trump.
I don’t think it’s a simple as that. I think the Colorado courts did everything right here, letting the state Supreme Court actually hand down the decision applying section 3 to the office of the president so that SCOTUS is forced to review a state Supreme Court decision and not side step it by focusing on whether a lower state court even has the authority to make such a ruling (i don’t know if this is even a viable argument but I’m sure they could come up with something if they wanted).
I don’t think they are trying to force SCOTUS into a mistake, they are simply realizing that this is a major constitutional question which needs immediate resolution. That is their focus. The fact that it puts SCOTUS in an impossible position between the l upholding their long coveted states rights agenda or fully embracing MAGA, is just a necessary consequence.
The ‘mistake’ here would be undermining state’s rights to support Trump. But even if they, God willing, uphold the Colorado ruling the conservative efforts to undermine voting rights and election laws will continue to succeed without real action.
What Trump did on January 6th is a finding of fact. Whether what he did was tantamount to insurrection was a finding of law that the Supreme Court could easily overrule for the purposes of this case. In other words, the Supreme Court may, but very likely wouldn’t, change the findings of facts of the case in the Anderson v. Griswold opinion the Judge used to conclude Trump committed insurrection. However, the Court could and almost definitely would review that conclusion.
That’s not the point here. Appeals courts, including SCOTUS only look at the application of the law to the facts. They do not usually reexamine facts agreed upon by the lower courts. Here, SCOTUS could say that the office of the president wasn’t contemplated by section 3 of the 13th amendment. But, if they want to overrule the factual findings of the lower court, they will have to basically overrule all federal election law which is clear that states have nearly total control over how to conduct their elections. These precedents and the legal theories they support are at the heart of conservative justice’s recent successful attempts to erode the protections of the Voting Rights Act; that federal oversight of how the states conduct elections can be severely circumscribed.
You are, of course, right that SCOTUS has ignored long established precedents whenever convenient, but this puts them in the position of having to either back Trump and undermine the broader Republican effort to undermine democratic voting at the state level, or come down against Trump while leaving invaluable conservative legal structures in place.
Edit: speelling