That doesn’t make sense though. They then finished their finding by saying Colorado was “in error”. That is exactly “applying the framework that we’re in the moment establishing”. They answered the one question - and then acted on the answer.
If they’d wanted to, they could have said something like “in the matter of who can enforce (the o…
That doesn’t make sense though. They then finished their finding by saying Colorado was “in error”. That is exactly “applying the framework that we’re in the moment establishing”. They answered the one question - and then acted on the answer.
If they’d wanted to, they could have said something like “in the matter of who can enforce (the one matter before them) we find only congress can. Since congress has already acted via the 2021 votes, we find that Colorado’s action is valid and stands, not because they had the right to decide as a state, but because congress has decided already”. But they didn’t do that. They settled the issue at hand *and* applied it to Colorado (as you might say, incorrectly but hey, what’s a little contradiction among us supremes, amiright?)
The USSC appears not to have considered all relevant facts; to wit, they failed to grok their decision to lower threshold for disability to hold office to majority vote in Congress opened the door for the previously recorded majority votes on Trump's second impeachment proceeding in Congress for inciting an insurrection. It seems that simple.
I’d love y’all to be right about this, believe me. It just seems highly unlikely that none of the 9 justices contemplated this during the period of review. Perhaps one or two of the liberal justices did and kept their mouths shut but it amounts to the same thing - the majority will just say “nah, didn’t mean that, move on” if someone tries to call them on it. They meant to say he gets to stay on the ballot, and they said it. It would be nice to think we could hold them accountable for all of the implications of their words but we can’t. Cf the ethics mess with Thomas.
In Bush v Gore they basically did what they wanted to (pick a president by stopping the Florida vote count on very dubious legal grounds), which was in some ways against precedent and then said “this doesn’t set any precedent outside of this one case” because they knew the reasoning was problematic. The court is perfectly capable of carving out one off “irrational” decisions and ignoring language in pursuit of a specific objective if they want to.
That doesn’t make sense though. They then finished their finding by saying Colorado was “in error”. That is exactly “applying the framework that we’re in the moment establishing”. They answered the one question - and then acted on the answer.
If they’d wanted to, they could have said something like “in the matter of who can enforce (the one matter before them) we find only congress can. Since congress has already acted via the 2021 votes, we find that Colorado’s action is valid and stands, not because they had the right to decide as a state, but because congress has decided already”. But they didn’t do that. They settled the issue at hand *and* applied it to Colorado (as you might say, incorrectly but hey, what’s a little contradiction among us supremes, amiright?)
The USSC appears not to have considered all relevant facts; to wit, they failed to grok their decision to lower threshold for disability to hold office to majority vote in Congress opened the door for the previously recorded majority votes on Trump's second impeachment proceeding in Congress for inciting an insurrection. It seems that simple.
I’d love y’all to be right about this, believe me. It just seems highly unlikely that none of the 9 justices contemplated this during the period of review. Perhaps one or two of the liberal justices did and kept their mouths shut but it amounts to the same thing - the majority will just say “nah, didn’t mean that, move on” if someone tries to call them on it. They meant to say he gets to stay on the ballot, and they said it. It would be nice to think we could hold them accountable for all of the implications of their words but we can’t. Cf the ethics mess with Thomas.
In Bush v Gore they basically did what they wanted to (pick a president by stopping the Florida vote count on very dubious legal grounds), which was in some ways against precedent and then said “this doesn’t set any precedent outside of this one case” because they knew the reasoning was problematic. The court is perfectly capable of carving out one off “irrational” decisions and ignoring language in pursuit of a specific objective if they want to.