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.

  • dudinax@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • dudinax@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Only SCOTUS can. Scotus is not bound by their own precedent.

        We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not true, common legislation can change the law and even abrogate the Court’s jurisdiction over matters.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            But would this not only work up to the point where the laws conflict with something SCOTUS can warp the Constitution around to get their way?

              • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Most definitely. I’d hope for Americans and especially American women, they find a way to assure full access to reproductive healthcare across the US. And a way to abolish corporate personhood, cause these things seem to really wreak havoc on the US and the world.

                • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Corporate “personhood” is actually really important to a modern society. It’s largely misunderstood.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

    • qevlarr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.