The SCOTUS Justices were asking questions that sounded as if their understanding of the Constitution and Amendments are about as good as a 10th grader that read Cliff Notes for a complete history of the United States.
The whole idea that voters should decide so they aren’t disenfranchised, so SCOTUS can stay out of politics. That’s not wh…
The SCOTUS Justices were asking questions that sounded as if their understanding of the Constitution and Amendments are about as good as a 10th grader that read Cliff Notes for a complete history of the United States.
The whole idea that voters should decide so they aren’t disenfranchised, so SCOTUS can stay out of politics. That’s not what Section 3 states. The court sure didn’t have a problem disenfranchising the people in 2000 that voted for Gore. That was pure politics.
The idea that Congress needs to pass a law is not what Section 3 states. The word “shall”, used twice in Section 3 is self enacting, no further legislation is needed. “Shall” is the keyword. When used in any amendment, law, or regulation it’s self enforcing, no other legislation is required.
The suggestion that tRump supporters might turn violent if tRump is removed from ballots should have no bearing at all. They’re going to turn violent when he loses in November. They’re going to turn violent to rig the election. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on law, not worry about hurt feelings.
The suggestion that each state is going to go willy-nilly on disqualifying candidates or each state can decide on tRump being on the ballot. Wrong. SCOTUS gets final say. What applies to Colorado, if tRump loses on decision, applies to all states. There has to be actual cause to challenge and take someone off the ballot. They’re worried about this tying up the courts, it could happen now anyway.
And what’s going to happen when they issue the decision in tRump’s favor? tRump going to yell (all caps): “See, no insurrection!” “Complete vindication!” “Release the hostages”
These fools on the SC have no idea how much they are going to feed the monster.
My opinion of the SCOTUS sinks lower every day when I think it can’t get any lower. It’s lower than my opinion of Congress.
I'm hearing analysis that the liberal justices are worried about the weaponization of 14.3 were it to be enforced. The thinking goes: what will Texas do against Dems in future elections.
I'm not buying it. Each case should go to the supreme Court along with their findings of fact for a decision country wide based on merit.
Some worry that findings of "fact" from a MAGA kangaroo court in Texas would taint the factual record at the SC.
I say stand on principle with a straightforward enforcement of 14.3 due to an insurrection and let the chips fall where they may. If right wing radicals want to weaponize 14.3 (like they do with everything) then make sure a factual record is allowed to be built and in place at the SC to diminish suspect "facts" that were "found" at the state levels.
That’s the only logic I can see to Jackson’s and Kagan’s questions. I agree, use 14.3 now because it’s justified; any other uses have to also be justified in law and fact.
The SCOTUS Justices were asking questions that sounded as if their understanding of the Constitution and Amendments are about as good as a 10th grader that read Cliff Notes for a complete history of the United States.
The whole idea that voters should decide so they aren’t disenfranchised, so SCOTUS can stay out of politics. That’s not what Section 3 states. The court sure didn’t have a problem disenfranchising the people in 2000 that voted for Gore. That was pure politics.
The idea that Congress needs to pass a law is not what Section 3 states. The word “shall”, used twice in Section 3 is self enacting, no further legislation is needed. “Shall” is the keyword. When used in any amendment, law, or regulation it’s self enforcing, no other legislation is required.
The suggestion that tRump supporters might turn violent if tRump is removed from ballots should have no bearing at all. They’re going to turn violent when he loses in November. They’re going to turn violent to rig the election. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on law, not worry about hurt feelings.
The suggestion that each state is going to go willy-nilly on disqualifying candidates or each state can decide on tRump being on the ballot. Wrong. SCOTUS gets final say. What applies to Colorado, if tRump loses on decision, applies to all states. There has to be actual cause to challenge and take someone off the ballot. They’re worried about this tying up the courts, it could happen now anyway.
And what’s going to happen when they issue the decision in tRump’s favor? tRump going to yell (all caps): “See, no insurrection!” “Complete vindication!” “Release the hostages”
These fools on the SC have no idea how much they are going to feed the monster.
My opinion of the SCOTUS sinks lower every day when I think it can’t get any lower. It’s lower than my opinion of Congress.
Totally agree! Especially with this: “SCOTUS is supposed to rule on law, not worry about hurt feelings” or worse “what aboutism”.
I'm hearing analysis that the liberal justices are worried about the weaponization of 14.3 were it to be enforced. The thinking goes: what will Texas do against Dems in future elections.
I'm not buying it. Each case should go to the supreme Court along with their findings of fact for a decision country wide based on merit.
Some worry that findings of "fact" from a MAGA kangaroo court in Texas would taint the factual record at the SC.
I say stand on principle with a straightforward enforcement of 14.3 due to an insurrection and let the chips fall where they may. If right wing radicals want to weaponize 14.3 (like they do with everything) then make sure a factual record is allowed to be built and in place at the SC to diminish suspect "facts" that were "found" at the state levels.
That’s the only logic I can see to Jackson’s and Kagan’s questions. I agree, use 14.3 now because it’s justified; any other uses have to also be justified in law and fact.