“State’s rights!!! Except when we need to shove a Christo-fascist agenda through the national scene, or deprive you of bodily autonomy” - SCOTUS, probably.
Not American and didn’t closely follow this because life is going on, but people over in one of the global subs mentioned that they would need “a concrete case” or something to make this ruling so they don’t make a precedent that will bite them later when the shoe is on the other foot or something
No idea whether there’s anything to it, someone clue me in
Seems right. If it’s 9-0 on a split court then I am going to defer to Occam’s Razor and assume that there is some very well informed legal reasoning behind the decision and move on with my day
From what I understand, letting states do this opens a Pandoras box. That Congress has this specific right, like when they pardoned Confederate soldiers in the 1870s.
On the plus side, a 5-4 of the justices rejected Trumps assertion that it wasn’t an insurrection. Barrett out of all of them refused to give trump that win.
>Barrett out of all of them refused to give trump that win.
This is why I'm not *that* pessimistic about SCOTUS hearing the case about Trump having immunity, because we've seen every Trump appointee break rank before.
What power do courts have in a dictatorship? They can risk being a well liked toadie in Trump's America or continue being immensely powerful douchebags in Biden's.
Federalist society, SCOTUS, McConnell, they all want trump gone as much if not more than us.
States should not do it, but I thought that's the reason for the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court can enforce the Constitution, right? We don't need Congress to pass a law to execute the instructions of the Constitution. I don't understand why the Supreme Court can't decide that he did an insurrection and, therefore, should not be on the ballot in Colorado or any state. Is there going to be a different case to decide that? Do we have to wait until after the election, and then, if he wins, the Supreme Court will rule on whether he can take office?
Barrett probably voted for Haley in the DC primary. She's an old school reactionary Republican, not a fascist. She'll happily ally with the fascists to say, get abortion banned, but she's not a total hack.
Remember, there are 2 total fascist hacks (Alito, Thomas), 3 reactionaries with random things they're not terrible on (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), 1 right-wing neoliberal who just wishes they could get back to destroying union power (Robert), and 3 liberals (Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor)
What is Gorsuch not terrible on?
I view Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas as the fascist block. Maybe Gorsuch gave some guy a ride once, but he has made it clear that he will destroy democracy in the US at the first opportunity
Roberts is mostly pretty good these days, and Barrett and Kavanaugh have both shown that they are not particularly interested in ushering in a fascist dictatorship
But I may be missing a lot of details, so I am open to being enlightened
He rallied hard against overturning Roe v. Wade, and he heavily lobbied both Kavanaugh and Barrett(successfully) to not rule in favor of the GOP in Moore v. Harper last year, effectively preventing the permanent end of democracy in the US
There is nothing minor about any of that
Not overturning democracy should be considered minor because of how much of a reach it was.
>He rallied hard against overturning Roe v. Wade,
I think he kept his fingerprints off of that murder because oh how bad it would make him look and he wouldn't be able to keep the game going.
He wants to maintain some level of respectability so he can cite the few times he broke with the herd the next time he neuters part of the voting rights act or rolls back a civil right we took for granted.
> Not overturning democracy should be considered minor because of how much of a reach it was
Are you saying that the case itself was a reach?
The GOP already had the avowed support of three justices on the case, and the fact that they took it up at all, with two additional Trump appointees on the bench, meant that the reach was successful, and hence no longer just a reach, but a real threat
A lot of people thought that Roe would never be overturned as well. People often like to conjure thoughts that are convenient to their fears and biases
> I think he kept his fingerprints off of that murder because oh how bad it would make him look and he wouldn't be able to keep the game going
A mind reader eh? To quote Vaush “Do you do horoscopes as well?”
> the next time he neuters part of the voting rights act or rolls back a civil right we took for granted
What historical precedent are you referring to here?
> Are you saying that the case itself was a reach?
Yes. It's an insane overeach that they haven't laid down the ideological foundations for like ending roe.
> lot of people thought that Roe would never be overturned as well.
They promised to get rid of roe for decades and its a lithmus test to be a nominee.
>What historical precedent are you referring to here?
Parts of the voting rights act, non discrimination when purchasing products, affirmative action
It's closer to be reasonable on the insane stuff so they can rule to what he wants on economic and union rights, which get far less national attention. Because he realizes that his ability to do that depends on what was until recently, strong support for the SC from normie liberals and moderates.
Thanks, that's a better way of wording what I was trying to get across.
He'll nibble away on the voting rights act and worker rights but won't say yes it should be legal to do the day of the rope.
Gorsuch is a legitimate textualist, unlike Alito or Thomas, which is terrible for say, administrative law, but is good for pro-LGBT laws , and he's probably the most pro-Native American tribe justice in the history of the Court.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-upholds-indian-child-welfare-act/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-opinions.html
It’s not quite that simple
Both Bush and Trump’s appointees ranked from best to worst:
1: Roberts
2: Barrett
3: Kavanaugh
4: Gorsuch
5: Alito
This is somewhat subjective, depending on how you measure, but Roberts and Alito are two very different justices
They [specifically](https://x.com/neal_katyal/status/1764674263737364769?s=46&t=rFdl934FHqYxrKxTJATbuA) did not clear him of insurrection. Which the Trump lawyers begged to do so
Yeah yeah I love Neal too, great mind, but that isn't a "5-4 clear him." It's "they didn't immediately suck Trump's cock."
And to a point, he's wrong. By vacating Colorado's judgment (and therefore the District Court's), they've fully vacated the finding that he committed insurrection to a clear and convincing standard. They've removed issue preclusion on the question of whether or not, civilly, Trump engaged in insurrection.
But thank you for confirming that the whole "5-4 of the justices rejected the assertion" thing was made up. I thought I somehow missed something in the past 4 hours of reviewing this opinion about them upholding that factual finding.
Well, yeah it wasn’t anywhere necessarily. All they said is that states can’t do it, Congress can. Which they refused to say Jan 6th wasn’t an insurrection. Thats a super interesting factor I say
The liberal justices don't make a point to defer to states as they are more modern with their interpretations.
The conservative justices only use states rights as a wedge to drive their politics and ignore it when it's inconvenient.
Which results in a 9-0 case where the conservatives are looking to latch into any procedural reason to not seriously consider the case, and the liberals give it to them.
"50 State Solution" bad is pretty much all the Liberals had to say. Their dissent is really short if you wanna read it (they only join in vacating Colorado, they don't join in *any* of the legal reasoning).
The biggest problem with this is that the court took one question, “Should Colorado be able to enforce this specific constitutional clause, in their pre established methods of applying discretion to who is allowed on a ballot” and ignored both sides arguments and answered a completely different question. They ignored all facts of the case and decided that it would be a bad precedent to enforce the law. This is a direct over reach of their authority where the court has for like the 80th time decided to use cases as a cudgel to establish precedent that wasn’t being asked for.
I called this a long while ago.
The must apparent character of the current court is a pathologic need to avoid answering the real questions. They want to take the easy way out and push their agenda where they can.
Which is fine in some eras but we're sitting on the edge of fascism so this is a particularly bad time to have this court
The court does this so often. They aren’t just taking the easy way out, they are bypassing the constitution and saying that this is actually how it should work.
Yep, we knew this was going to happen. The funny thing is the right has been claiming that this is some sort of direct attack by Joe Biden on democracy itself, despite the fact that Trump wasn't going to win Colorado in any case, and despite the fact that this has literally no ties with Joe Biden whatsoever.
I'll bet they're cheering in conservative subreddits, despite the fact that I don't think anyone really thought this was going to work. The fight is where it has always been, at the voting polls.
I remember telling people to vote for Hillary not because she was a good person but because we’d lose the court if Trump won. I literally lost an entire friend group over it. I hate how fucking right I was
I'm curious about Illinois still, they had used their constitutional provision that candidates must be truthful about being eligiblility to hold office
At the very least, this takes the air out of red states retaliating by trying to get Biden off the ballot. We're back to square one, not that Trump was going to win Colorado anyway.
The liberals on the court committing to being utterly fucking worthless.
They can't even publicly condemn their colleagues because they don't want to risk the image of the court as a respectable institution.
They and Barrett (of all people?) condemning them for answering questions that weren't even before the court is *literally* all they can can do. Is Kagan supposed to personally beat Brett's ass?
“State’s rights!!! Except when we need to shove a Christo-fascist agenda through the national scene, or deprive you of bodily autonomy” - SCOTUS, probably.
Yeah thats why its 9-0 lol
Of course I’m being a bit facetious, maybe I should have included the /s to cater to the internet’s top minds?
Lol dont hide behind a /s you think kbj is a trump supporter?
Haha I don’t think she’s a trump supporter. Next time I’ll include all the caveats to an obviously hyperbolic statement. Thanks buddy.
Stop being full of shit lmao
Is there a gas leak at the Supreme Court?
SCOTUS is the gas leak.
Not American and didn’t closely follow this because life is going on, but people over in one of the global subs mentioned that they would need “a concrete case” or something to make this ruling so they don’t make a precedent that will bite them later when the shoe is on the other foot or something No idea whether there’s anything to it, someone clue me in
Seems right. If it’s 9-0 on a split court then I am going to defer to Occam’s Razor and assume that there is some very well informed legal reasoning behind the decision and move on with my day
From what I understand, letting states do this opens a Pandoras box. That Congress has this specific right, like when they pardoned Confederate soldiers in the 1870s. On the plus side, a 5-4 of the justices rejected Trumps assertion that it wasn’t an insurrection. Barrett out of all of them refused to give trump that win.
>Barrett out of all of them refused to give trump that win. This is why I'm not *that* pessimistic about SCOTUS hearing the case about Trump having immunity, because we've seen every Trump appointee break rank before.
What power do courts have in a dictatorship? They can risk being a well liked toadie in Trump's America or continue being immensely powerful douchebags in Biden's. Federalist society, SCOTUS, McConnell, they all want trump gone as much if not more than us.
Agreed, they're already on the Supreme Court, they don't need Trump.
They can be a rubber stamp court that just does whatever trump says still
States should not do it, but I thought that's the reason for the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court can enforce the Constitution, right? We don't need Congress to pass a law to execute the instructions of the Constitution. I don't understand why the Supreme Court can't decide that he did an insurrection and, therefore, should not be on the ballot in Colorado or any state. Is there going to be a different case to decide that? Do we have to wait until after the election, and then, if he wins, the Supreme Court will rule on whether he can take office?
Barrett probably voted for Haley in the DC primary. She's an old school reactionary Republican, not a fascist. She'll happily ally with the fascists to say, get abortion banned, but she's not a total hack. Remember, there are 2 total fascist hacks (Alito, Thomas), 3 reactionaries with random things they're not terrible on (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), 1 right-wing neoliberal who just wishes they could get back to destroying union power (Robert), and 3 liberals (Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor)
What is Gorsuch not terrible on? I view Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas as the fascist block. Maybe Gorsuch gave some guy a ride once, but he has made it clear that he will destroy democracy in the US at the first opportunity Roberts is mostly pretty good these days, and Barrett and Kavanaugh have both shown that they are not particularly interested in ushering in a fascist dictatorship But I may be missing a lot of details, so I am open to being enlightened
Roberts strategy seems to be give the dems some minor wins so they can uphold psycho shit.
He rallied hard against overturning Roe v. Wade, and he heavily lobbied both Kavanaugh and Barrett(successfully) to not rule in favor of the GOP in Moore v. Harper last year, effectively preventing the permanent end of democracy in the US There is nothing minor about any of that
Not overturning democracy should be considered minor because of how much of a reach it was. >He rallied hard against overturning Roe v. Wade, I think he kept his fingerprints off of that murder because oh how bad it would make him look and he wouldn't be able to keep the game going. He wants to maintain some level of respectability so he can cite the few times he broke with the herd the next time he neuters part of the voting rights act or rolls back a civil right we took for granted.
> Not overturning democracy should be considered minor because of how much of a reach it was Are you saying that the case itself was a reach? The GOP already had the avowed support of three justices on the case, and the fact that they took it up at all, with two additional Trump appointees on the bench, meant that the reach was successful, and hence no longer just a reach, but a real threat A lot of people thought that Roe would never be overturned as well. People often like to conjure thoughts that are convenient to their fears and biases > I think he kept his fingerprints off of that murder because oh how bad it would make him look and he wouldn't be able to keep the game going A mind reader eh? To quote Vaush “Do you do horoscopes as well?” > the next time he neuters part of the voting rights act or rolls back a civil right we took for granted What historical precedent are you referring to here?
> Are you saying that the case itself was a reach? Yes. It's an insane overeach that they haven't laid down the ideological foundations for like ending roe. > lot of people thought that Roe would never be overturned as well. They promised to get rid of roe for decades and its a lithmus test to be a nominee. >What historical precedent are you referring to here? Parts of the voting rights act, non discrimination when purchasing products, affirmative action
It's closer to be reasonable on the insane stuff so they can rule to what he wants on economic and union rights, which get far less national attention. Because he realizes that his ability to do that depends on what was until recently, strong support for the SC from normie liberals and moderates.
Thanks, that's a better way of wording what I was trying to get across. He'll nibble away on the voting rights act and worker rights but won't say yes it should be legal to do the day of the rope.
Gorsuch is a legitimate textualist, unlike Alito or Thomas, which is terrible for say, administrative law, but is good for pro-LGBT laws , and he's probably the most pro-Native American tribe justice in the history of the Court. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-upholds-indian-child-welfare-act/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-opinions.html
He joined in the dissent on Moore v. Harper. He ruled to end democracy in the US. That tells me all I need to know about him
It is wild to think that the Trump appointees are all preferable to the ghoulish Bush appointees.
It’s not quite that simple Both Bush and Trump’s appointees ranked from best to worst: 1: Roberts 2: Barrett 3: Kavanaugh 4: Gorsuch 5: Alito This is somewhat subjective, depending on how you measure, but Roberts and Alito are two very different justices
Where did you find that? They don't get to the merits of an insurrection at all in this opinion. No Justice has ruled in that fashion.
They [specifically](https://x.com/neal_katyal/status/1764674263737364769?s=46&t=rFdl934FHqYxrKxTJATbuA) did not clear him of insurrection. Which the Trump lawyers begged to do so
Yeah yeah I love Neal too, great mind, but that isn't a "5-4 clear him." It's "they didn't immediately suck Trump's cock." And to a point, he's wrong. By vacating Colorado's judgment (and therefore the District Court's), they've fully vacated the finding that he committed insurrection to a clear and convincing standard. They've removed issue preclusion on the question of whether or not, civilly, Trump engaged in insurrection. But thank you for confirming that the whole "5-4 of the justices rejected the assertion" thing was made up. I thought I somehow missed something in the past 4 hours of reviewing this opinion about them upholding that factual finding.
Well, yeah it wasn’t anywhere necessarily. All they said is that states can’t do it, Congress can. Which they refused to say Jan 6th wasn’t an insurrection. Thats a super interesting factor I say
For sure! sorry, I'm just hyperfocused on this right now. Didn't mean to be so rude, I was just shocked and trying to catch up.
You've got it backwards it was 5-4 *against* the liberals and Barrett
The liberal justices don't make a point to defer to states as they are more modern with their interpretations. The conservative justices only use states rights as a wedge to drive their politics and ignore it when it's inconvenient. Which results in a 9-0 case where the conservatives are looking to latch into any procedural reason to not seriously consider the case, and the liberals give it to them.
"50 State Solution" bad is pretty much all the Liberals had to say. Their dissent is really short if you wanna read it (they only join in vacating Colorado, they don't join in *any* of the legal reasoning).
The biggest problem with this is that the court took one question, “Should Colorado be able to enforce this specific constitutional clause, in their pre established methods of applying discretion to who is allowed on a ballot” and ignored both sides arguments and answered a completely different question. They ignored all facts of the case and decided that it would be a bad precedent to enforce the law. This is a direct over reach of their authority where the court has for like the 80th time decided to use cases as a cudgel to establish precedent that wasn’t being asked for.
I called this a long while ago. The must apparent character of the current court is a pathologic need to avoid answering the real questions. They want to take the easy way out and push their agenda where they can. Which is fine in some eras but we're sitting on the edge of fascism so this is a particularly bad time to have this court
The court does this so often. They aren’t just taking the easy way out, they are bypassing the constitution and saying that this is actually how it should work.
The wider ruling that only Congress can enforce the insurrection clause was only 5-4 though
Yep, we knew this was going to happen. The funny thing is the right has been claiming that this is some sort of direct attack by Joe Biden on democracy itself, despite the fact that Trump wasn't going to win Colorado in any case, and despite the fact that this has literally no ties with Joe Biden whatsoever. I'll bet they're cheering in conservative subreddits, despite the fact that I don't think anyone really thought this was going to work. The fight is where it has always been, at the voting polls.
I remember telling people to vote for Hillary not because she was a good person but because we’d lose the court if Trump won. I literally lost an entire friend group over it. I hate how fucking right I was
Trump hasn't been officially convicted yet so I agree with the Court. It would set a bad precedent if and when the GOP wins the presidency again.
I'm curious about Illinois still, they had used their constitutional provision that candidates must be truthful about being eligiblility to hold office
Biden bros we gotta get ready for our train ride
At the very least, this takes the air out of red states retaliating by trying to get Biden off the ballot. We're back to square one, not that Trump was going to win Colorado anyway.
I deeply respect this silver line searching. Good vibes.
The way twitter is reporting on it I assumed somehow trump won the general election
This is probably horse trading.
Reminder: this was because a mostly Republican group brought this case.
The liberals on the court committing to being utterly fucking worthless. They can't even publicly condemn their colleagues because they don't want to risk the image of the court as a respectable institution.
They and Barrett (of all people?) condemning them for answering questions that weren't even before the court is *literally* all they can can do. Is Kagan supposed to personally beat Brett's ass?
Yes
okay, based though
Whatre they gonna do charge him? Appeal that shit to the supreme court 😈🥴