What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in the Trump Section 3 Case
What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in the Trump Section 3 Case
The Court botched the legal reasoning and relied heavily on dubious policy arguments.
Trump deserved to lose on all these points, and the Colorado Supreme Court correctly rejected his arguments on them. But I think he did have a plausible argument on the issue of whether his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack was extensive enough to qualify as “engaging” in insurrection. At the very least, he had a better argument there than on self-execution. The Court’s resolution of the latter issue is based on badly flawed reasoning and relies heavily on dubious policy arguments invoking the overblown danger of a “patchwork” of conflicting state resolutions of Section 3 issues. The Court’s venture into policy was also indefensibly one-sided, failing to consider the practical dangers of effectively neutering Section 3 with respect to candidates for federal office and holders of such positions.
It was a terrible decision. Elena Kagan's fears about a "patchwork" were so stupid. Presidential elections were deliberately setup as a patchwork.
The parties are free to run candidates that unarguably haven't been involved in an insurrection.
The court didn't mind abortion rights being a patchwork.
Our elections are a patchwork by design. The requirements to get on the ballot are different for every state.
But who defines an insurrection? Republicans accuse Biden of insurrection because immigrants exist. They'd use that to justify removing him from the ballot. Without definitive language, Republicans will always act in a dishonest manner.
The Republicans could accuse Biden of being under 35. They'd have a hard time convincing anyone, but some corrupt judge in Alabama might toss him anyway.
The SC has already said states can decide that question.
Without definitive language,Republicans will always act in a dishonest manner.Traditionally, the winning side
They took the revolutionary position of words meaning completely different things.
This opinion isn't all that different than the ruling. It's up to congress to define how someone can be considered engaging in insurrection.
People don't seem to understand the SCOTUS cannot be wrong. They are the definitive verdict, what they say is the way that must be considered correct.
You might not like it, it might be unethical and immoral, but it is the law in the US now.
The only solution is working within the new framework. And ..... wondering how you ended up in a situation where a group of 9 unelected old farts can sit there .. for life.. and just invalidate any and every law that actually elected representatives come up with. Even if the Dems end up winning both houses and the presidency, SCOTUS will just NOPE everything the R's don't like.
I mean this statement is complete bullshit.
They overturned roe. That alone proves you're full of it. If roe "cannot be wrong" then this scotus which said it is is illegitimate.See, you're making a strictly legal argument and nobody cares. A Court that abused it's power isn't a court at all in our eyes
People are downvoting because they don't like this, but you are correct. That's why this capture of the Supreme Court is so dangerous. They don't have ethics rules, they can overturn laws, they know they can do whatever the fuck they want.
Lol lick those boots
I don't like it.. it is the way it is. I'm not American but I see the damage this is doing to the world. The whole world is watching as a corrupt authoritarian has a serious chance of becoming president of the US again, this time with nothing holding him back.