What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in the Trump Section 3 Case

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.

Maggoty,

They took the revolutionary position of words meaning completely different things.

dudinax,

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,
@FenrirIII@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Cqrd,

Traditionally, the winning side

dudinax,

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.

lolcatnip,

Without definitive language, Republicans will always act in a dishonest manner.

MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown,

Our elections are a patchwork by design. The requirements to get on the ballot are different for every state.

Ensign_Crab,

The court didn’t mind abortion rights being a patchwork.

ryathal,

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.

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

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,

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.

Badeendje, (edited )
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

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,

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

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

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?

Telodzrum,

Like everything in law, it depends.

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

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,

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

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

I think most people understand why it exists, but in practice it is used as a way to shield the people making the decisions from consequences.

And the way it allows companies to influence politics in the US is pretty darn detrimental.

The fact that we now learn that many people controlling some of the larges companies in the world knew they where actively destroying the planet, hurting peoples health, poisoning people and kept quiet… for decades… meaning there is no recourse for us (the collective us) while some individuals get rich.

The fact that shipping companies create individual llcs for ships so they can cut the loss in case of a disaster and leave us holding the bag for the consequences cannot be what we want for our planet and future.

If corporate personhood can/needs to stay that’s fine, as long as we adress these issues then.

Telodzrum,

Yeah, 100% what you said.

Akasazh,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

Why? There’s plenty modern countries without it, and they seem to do fine.

Telodzrum,

No, there aren’t. Any place that conducts business in a form recognizable from the 1600s onward has the legal and economic framework for an incorporated entity to hold property, seek legal redress for perceived harms, engage in contractual relationships, be held liable for malfeasance, and all the other privileges and responsibilities which accompany what has commonly come to be referred to as “legal personhood” in online discourse. You literally cannot form a business, local activist organization, or even just a partnership without these concepts established into law.

I see you are posting from a Dutch instance; the Netherlands, for example, has at least six different types of corporate structures which establish a legal personality.

Akasazh,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

Aha, just reading up there’s a myriad of rules. I was addressing the citizens united ruling of 2010 giving corporations the right to unlimited political spending because they are legally a ‘person’.

That’s que uniquely American imho, and not really worth spreading to legislature elsewhere.

Telodzrum,

Yeah that’s the problem, people don’t fully understand the issue and feel the need to weigh in on it.

Akasazh,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

Tbh I conflated that car with the concept of corporate personhood as that was the first time I heard of the concept.

Maggoty,

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,
@qevlarr@lemmy.world avatar

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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • fightinggames
  • All magazines
    •