"This decision is an anonymous death threat aimed at the 14th Amendment. The Court's decision is wholly based on its contention that enforcing Section 3 of the 14th as regards federal offices —"especially the presidency," as the decision says — lies with Congress, and not the individual states. The question of whether or not the former president* actually acted as an insurrectionist in 2020 and 2021 is left unargued."
~ Charles Pierce
#Trump #SupremeCourt #insurrection
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a60077918/supreme-court-14th-amdendment-colorado/
@wdlindsy
Incomprehensible decision from #SCOTUS. I don't understand how it got 9 votes
1) Says sec 5 only empowers Congress to enforce #14A... But only for Fed roles, State roles are fine.
2) Worries about inconsistencies between states ...but fails to set judicial tests that would give consistency.
3) Ignores the actual insurrection that happened when 2020 wasn't recognised ...leaving America wide open to a repeat if (when!) 2024 is disputed.
@TCatInReality it's really not that hard to understand the ruling.
Number two really answers number one for you.
The Court could not have set judicial tests because it doesn't have that authority, particularly because of the complication of state versus federal government. It's the wrong branch of government to address the question.
It ignored the actual events of 2020 because that wasn't relevant to the question before it, where as an appeals court it was only asked to review the operation of the state court. It could not legally have gone into the events of 2020.
But as you say, consistent application *of law* and here the Court is saying that the law (statute) is missing, so they wouldn't have any law to ensure the consistent application *of.*
And practically, I don't know if I mentioned it above, but I don't think the record before the Court was sufficiently briefed on any sort of test that it might choose, which is another reason it wouldn't have basis for going there.
It would be a pretty important test to issue half-briefed and on an expedited timeline.
The lack of a circuit split in this case also makes it problematic to develop such a rule.
@volkris @wdlindsy
I listened to the hearing and no questions on proposed tests, but I don't know about the briefings.
But I blame the judges for not raising the question "If states had this right, how do we ensure consistency and fairness?"
I call BS on the textual basis - it's more explicit than the "natural born" requirement which has been implemented, tested and adjudicated. The words insurrection, aid, comfort are just as historically clear and disputable.
@TCatInReality Well the core of their ruling is that states don't have this right at all, cannot have a right to interfere in federal matters like that.
(I'm not myself completely convinced by that stance, but it is what they came down with, so it meant they couldn't issue guidelines for a practice that was not legal in the first place)
But yeah, the vast, vast majority of the work done by an appellate court like this one isn't done through oral argument but through huge stacks of papers representing not only briefings to the court but also the record from the lower court including all of the briefings there, so it's always kind of interesting to think about what the oral argument is actually supposed to be accomplishing.
I believe I remember that sometimes judges and justices will even refuse to consider points brought up in the oral argument that weren't in the briefings, telling the arguers that at that point it's too late to bring up something new. You can hear the justices often say, that point wasn't briefed.
@volkris @wdlindsy
Not convinced.
The #scotus has set judicial tests for 200 years to ensure consistent application of the law. It's a complete cop out to say the can't now.
Any test they set would have just as much textual basis as saying Congress must write explicit enabling legislation for Fed roles (but not State roles). In fact, if it was the framers intent, why didn't they finish the job 150 years ago?