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 tri…
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.
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.