In some ways I agree, but this decision did not just fall out of a coconut tree.
10 Likes
These guys are going to fall for it every time Lucy gets out the football.
Have you had a chance to read the Jackson/Sotomayor/Kagan opinion? The devil seems to be in the detail.
Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to âascertain what particular individualsâ should be disqualifiedâŚThese musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.
Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more âcomplete explanation for the judgment,â the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures ââtailor[ed]ââ to Section 3, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.
1 Like
So itâs kinda like the Mueller report finding. If he didnât commit crimes, weâd say so.
This whole Trump phenomenon is absolutely maddening for sane people
So itâs lol law lol democrats? Always has been dot jpg
Itâs not lol law, itâs just law.
17 Likes
Clovis:
Itâs pretty simple: the feds canât tell states how to run their elections, except when they can. And vice versa.
4 Likes
Yes. Iâm actually not a huge fan of the argument for judicial restraint here.
I would rule that the decision of who is an insurrectionist has to come from the federal level of government, but I would not restrict it to a specific act of Congress. The decision to remove Trump from the ballot should be gone in a way that applies to all states at the same time.
I would definitely avoid any interpretation that would give Republican-controlled state governments free reign to declare that Biden is an insurrectionist because he is abetting an âinvasionâ on the southern border and, thus, ineligible to be on the ballot.
4 Likes
At this point I think we should take a split-the-baby approach. Trump gets to be president again, but any mention of his second term gets an asterisk next to it. Something for everyone imo.
1 Like
Right, but unless Iâm missing something youâre essentially agreeing with Kagan et al that there are two strands to this ruling.
- (1) States canât remove federal candidates (fine)
- (2) The sole mechanism by which federal candidates can be removed is through an act of congress (notsofine)
(2) ensures that the removal of a federal candidate is a political decision, not a matter of law. So you can be found guilty of insurrection in a court of law but remain on the ballot. This would seem to me to be a straightforward breach of Amendment 14.
I disagree with Team SKJ that we shouldnât try to say in advance what the mechanism is for removing a candidate, although I get claiming the need for judicial restraint because the liberals lose.
I suppose you could disqualify a candidate if they were convicted of a crime that was literally called âinsurrectionâ but maybe not if they were convicted of crimes that could be interpreted as being equivalent to insurrection, unless that interpretation was made on the federal level.
Trump talking right now about how he doesnât want to be prosecuted for defeating ISIS.
Itâs not really about liberals losing really; they would also lose through the federal courts. Itâs just that, sans constitutional justification, explicitly excluding the judicial system from being a proper arena in which to decide a matter of law (what constitutes insurrection) seems pretty arbitrary.
I agree. Anything short of ruling that he was disqualified from being on ANY state ballot because the court finds that he engaged in an insurrection wouldâve been a nightmare and opened the door to all kinds of political games by Republicans
Btw that wouldâve been an acceptable ruling as well because he absolutely did engage in an insurrection
Trump endlessly rambling right now about his legal woes.
Lawbros love to say like âwell yes the outcome sucks in this instance but we have to apply the rules,â when itâs really just one endless game of âif your rules brought you to this than what good were the rulesâ on loop with zero self reflection ever.
5 Likes
Will Trumpâs handlers be afraid to let him debate an old man? I think we should have a new debate format where the candidates get to question each other.
Itâs still wild to me that Trump lost the last election. Attempted a (soft) coup. Did not succeed. Was still able to finish his term. Is now clearly the favorite to be the next president even though he is reduced to a caricature of his already horrible stuff at this point.
I agree with clovis. Shithole country and always has been.
1 Like