The Supreme Court's historic opportunity

[NWRatCon]

I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball. He's also a candidate for President, and bullying his way to the Republican nomination. I also have no respect for the Republican party and, particularly, the leaders who have allowed this to happen. It has become a party of lawless extremists. That is unlikely to change in the near term. Unless...

Pending before the Supreme Court are two - about to be three - cases that can reestablish the rule of law, the constitutional order, and, potentially, save the union. Supreme Court takes center stage in the Trump legal battles (NBC). The first is the appeal of Jack Smith seeking certiorari in United States v. Trump, the Election interference case, wherein Trump is asserting a claim of absolute immunity. The second, already pending, is Fischer et al. v US. Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge (The Hill), where Defendants are asserting that the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge is inappropriately applied to the Jan 6 insurrection.

The third case, of course, is Anderson v. Griswold, Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot (CBS), which has not yet been appealed.

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Are they up to the challenge? Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? Do they want to save the union?

 

[Ishm]

You can almost guarantee which way 2 or 3 of the justices will vote on these issues regardless of what the constitution actually says. The question will be whether there is enough honesty among the balance of the justices to reach a conclusion that is correct to the constitution regardless of how they feel personally. Agree, this is a huge test of SCOTUS and it's ability to function truthfully and transparently.

 

[NWRatCon]

I should have added, "Do they want to rehabilitate their dismal reputation?"

 

[Slavister]

I should have added, "Do they want to rehabilitate their dismal reputation?"

Reputation with whom? Whichever way they go, half the country will think their reputation is rehabilitated / ruined.

If you mean though reputation with most educated people... then yes, I agree with your point.

Another issue though is that if SC makes it so Trump does not run... who will run for GOP? A more likable MAGAt that's even more likely to beat Biden... So will SC actually "save" us then?

 

[multivita-man]

I should have added, "Do they want to rehabilitate their dismal reputation?"

I think if they cared about their reputation, they wouldn't have taken bribes and wouldn't have deliberately released the opinion in the Dobbs case in advance of the actual decision being made available to the public. There is a total absence of shame or reputational value. Ideological warriors are not going to let shame or reputation get in the way of what they want, which is power and influence.

 

[mrjurrs]

I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball. He's also a candidate for President, and bullying his way to the Republican nomination. I also have no respect for the Republican party and, particularly, the leaders who have allowed this to happen. It has become a party of lawless extremists. That is unlikely to change in the near term. Unless...

Pending before the Supreme Court are two - about to be three - cases that can reestablish the rule of law, the constitutional order, and, potentially, save the union. Supreme Court takes center stage in the Trump legal battles (NBC). The first is the appeal of Jack Smith seeking certiorari in United States v. Trump, the Election interference case, wherein Trump is asserting a claim of absolute immunity. The second, already pending, is Fischer et al. v US. Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge (The Hill), where Defendants are asserting that the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge is inappropriately applied to the Jan 6 insurrection.

The third case, of course, is Anderson v. Griswold, Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot (CBS), which has not yet been appealed.

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Are they up to the challenge? Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? Do they want to save the union?

I echo your first sentence. I don't trust this court at all, but I hold out hope. I am most interested in the CO case because it will put the originalists in the spotlight. IMO, you cannot at the same time send the Dobbes decision back to the states (States Rights, States Rights) and say that CO has overstepped their bounds in following the clearly expressed view of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball. He's also a candidate for President, and bullying his way to the Republican nomination. I also have no respect for the Republican party and, particularly, the leaders who have allowed this to happen. It has become a party of lawless extremists. That is unlikely to change in the near term. Unless...

Pending before the Supreme Court are two - about to be three - cases that can reestablish the rule of law, the constitutional order, and, potentially, save the union. Supreme Court takes center stage in the Trump legal battles (NBC). The first is the appeal of Jack Smith seeking certiorari in United States v. Trump, the Election interference case, wherein Trump is asserting a claim of absolute immunity. The second, already pending, is Fischer et al. v US. Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge (The Hill), where Defendants are asserting that the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge is inappropriately applied to the Jan 6 insurrection.

The third case, of course, is Anderson v. Griswold, Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot (CBS), which has not yet been appealed.

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Are they up to the challenge? Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? Do they want to save the union?

LOL! Trump is not charged with those crimes you claim, and he certainly hasn't been convicted. I guess you just want to bypass the judicial system because you hate Trump.

 

[Visbek]

Are they up to the challenge?

Probably not. But I expect them to deny the "total immunity" and "obstructing an official proceeding is not obstructing an official proceeding" claims.

I expect the majority will want Trump to be eligible to run for office. The issue is what legal excuse they can find to justify that conclusion. That's what clerks are for, right?

Sometimes, jurisprudence really is about putting the rule of law above everything else. But we've also seen, over and over throughout history, that the legal process is about enforcing a policy or result, no matter how tortured the legal reasoning.

Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution?

Definitely not.

Do they want to save the union?

I don't know if the majority of the SCOTUS sees Trump as an existential threat to the American system of government.

I don't really see it that way, either. He's certainly unfit for office, but he also seems too incompetent and too constrained to do much serious damage. Most of the courts, including the SCOTUS, don't usually have his back; the military isn't going to massively violate the Posse Comitatus Act on his behalf; the infighting that he always instigates inside the White House will hobble his will.

The idea that he will somehow be "unleashed" during his second term doesn't make a lot of sense, as he never bothered with much (if any) restraint during his first term. He will presumably have more lackeys, but it's pretty clear that means he'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel. And it takes a long time to get anything done, and he won't have much time before he becomes a lame duck.

From a political perspective, I'm not sure whether kicking Trump off the ballot is the safest thing anyway. At a minimum, it's going to make a significant number of people, many of whom aren't on an even keel in the first place, very pissed off about the electoral process. I think they'd be even more upset about his disqualification than if he loses in the election.

 

[NWRatCon]

Reputation with whom? Whichever way they go, half the country will think their reputation is rehabilitated / ruined.

I take your point.

If you mean though reputation with most educated people... then yes, I agree with your point.

That was my point. And historians.

Another issue though is that if SC makes it so Trump does not run... who will run for GOP? A more likable MAGAt that's even more likely to beat Biden... So will SC actually "save" us then?

I recognize the risk. In fact, I deleted a paragraph making that point to keep the focus on my OP.

The immediate problem is Trump; the bigger problem is MAGA, which is just the latest amalgamation of racists/Christian nationalists/libertarians/other deplorables within the GOP (preceded by the TEA party, free-to-be-dumb caucus, Jerry Falwell and other miscreants and malcontents).

But, if Republicans want to be the party of law makers, not law breakers, they need to jettison that junk, and this might be the opportunity to do so. MAGAites will protest (and worse), of course, but this could isolate them.

 

[Jessie C]

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Lord Acton, British historian)

Do I think the SCOTUS will do the right thing?

 

[MAGAnificent]

I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball. He's also a candidate for President, and bullying his way to the Republican nomination. I also have no respect for the Republican party and, particularly, the leaders who have allowed this to happen. It has become a party of lawless extremists. That is unlikely to change in the near term. Unless...

Pending before the Supreme Court are two - about to be three - cases that can reestablish the rule of law, the constitutional order, and, potentially, save the union. Supreme Court takes center stage in the Trump legal battles (NBC). The first is the appeal of Jack Smith seeking certiorari in United States v. Trump, the Election interference case, wherein Trump is asserting a claim of absolute immunity. The second, already pending, is Fischer et al. v US. Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge (The Hill), where Defendants are asserting that the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge is inappropriately applied to the Jan 6 insurrection.

The third case, of course, is Anderson v. Griswold, Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot (CBS), which has not yet been appealed.

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Are they up to the challenge? Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? Do they want to save the union?

They will quite quickly overturn the Colorado ruling as it's not based on a conviction, only a narrative.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball. He's also a candidate for President, and bullying his way to the Republican nomination. I also have no respect for the Republican party and, particularly, the leaders who have allowed this to happen. It has become a party of lawless extremists. That is unlikely to change in the near term. Unless...

Pending before the Supreme Court are two - about to be three - cases that can reestablish the rule of law, the constitutional order, and, potentially, save the union. Supreme Court takes center stage in the Trump legal battles (NBC). The first is the appeal of Jack Smith seeking certiorari in United States v. Trump, the Election interference case, wherein Trump is asserting a claim of absolute immunity. The second, already pending, is Fischer et al. v US. Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge (The Hill), where Defendants are asserting that the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge is inappropriately applied to the Jan 6 insurrection.

The third case, of course, is Anderson v. Griswold, Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot (CBS), which has not yet been appealed.

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Are they up to the challenge? Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? Do they want to save the union?

We are, as usual, much on the same page here.

However I do not share the same high standard of hope as you.

Having spent nearly a lifetime around and among the seats of power in both countries, I have found that each in its own way carves a path of least resistance in its bureaucracies to the point each becomes a silo. Over time it becomes desensitized to opinion and optics....and....the old adage that 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

It has been my experience it is the legal community, other justices and attorneys that keep the court in check. They dare not upset a great majority of them, as it would be impossible to rule without support of the lower courts. However, so long as there is not too, too much variance of the un-spoken norm, things will flow as usual, downhill.

For the wise ones, history will and should be the determining factor, both going forward and how history will receive the ruling and the past, how a failure to rule clearly and properly would mean more chaos like the current status on abortion. The court is there to end these issues, not prolong them.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The immediate problem is Trump; the bigger problem is MAGA, which is just the latest amalgamation of racists/Christian nationalists/libertarians/other deplorables within the GOP (preceded by the TEA party, free-to-be-dumb caucus, Jerry Falwell and other miscreants and malcontents).

But, if Republicans want to be the party of law makers, not law breakers, they need to jettison that junk, and this might be the opportunity to do so. MAGAites will protest (and worse), of course, but this could isolate them.

The problem they have always faced is they have never had enough voters to beat Democrats with only honest constitutionally minded fiscal conservatives with a genuine honest belief in family values, Christian virtues, and liberal enlightenment values.

Maybe anywhere from 15-30% of the country would fall into the category of "miscreants and malcontents" that oppose liberal enlightenment values, oppose fiscal conservative ideas (globalism, oppose the free market if it lets companies spread "wokeism"), possible openly oppose certain ideas in the constitution (separation of church and state, freedom of press), and care more about using Christianity as a bludgeon to justify discrimination and bigotry than actually living a religious life and the bible's teachings.

I don't see them being able to jettison those people just yet. There are too many. What I think will happen is they will slowly fade into political irrelevance (assuming they don't take power first) until it doesn't make any sense for anybody to pay lip service to them. Eventually the GOP will probably have to completely reform into something unrecognizable to today's GOP.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The problem they have always faced is they have never had enough voters to beat Democrats with only honest constitutionally minded fiscal conservatives with a genuine honest belief in family values, Christian virtues, and liberal enlightenment values.

Maybe anywhere from 15-30% of the country would fall into the category of "miscreants and malcontents" that oppose liberal enlightenment values, oppose fiscal conservative ideas (globalism, oppose the free market if it lets companies spread "wokeism"), possible openly oppose certain ideas in the constitution (separation of church and state, freedom of press), and care more about using Christianity as a bludgeon to justify discrimination and bigotry than actually living a religious life and the bible's teachings.

I don't see them being able to jettison those people just yet. There are too many. What I think will happen is they will slowly fade into political irrelevance (assuming they don't take power first) until it doesn't make any sense for anybody to pay lip service to them. Eventually the GOP will probably have to completely reform into something unrecognizable to today's GOP.

I have always maintained the problem is in the polarization of the country. It's continuance is deliberate. A nation divided is easier to rule, keep them afraid of each other and they will have to trust you!

And Americans sign on with abandon. If there is something to be judged yes or no, bang its done and its in two and it lines up red state, blue state. even car sales!

On the one hand, you drive an old bus getting older and losing replacement parts. On the other, you desire leading edge, but much like Canada, take so ****ing long getting there the "there" has moved.

Anything new is labelled, and judged. Write a song about modern times and it will be divided in two, good or bad, based on the label one side or both have managed to sick to it.

The internet has made a society driven by the lowest common denominator determine what's 'good' or 'bad' and as Piglet says "they're the same thing."

In closing "woke" is no more than the past tense of "wake". That's what they did in 1984, gave negative names to anything 'they' didn't want you to know.

 

[Juks]

I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball. He's also a candidate for President, and bullying his way to the Republican nomination. I also have no respect for the Republican party and, particularly, the leaders who have allowed this to happen. It has become a party of lawless extremists. That is unlikely to change in the near term. Unless...

Pending before the Supreme Court are two - about to be three - cases that can reestablish the rule of law, the constitutional order, and, potentially, save the union. Supreme Court takes center stage in the Trump legal battles (NBC). The first is the appeal of Jack Smith seeking certiorari in United States v. Trump, the Election interference case, wherein Trump is asserting a claim of absolute immunity. The second, already pending, is Fischer et al. v US. Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge (The Hill), where Defendants are asserting that the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge is inappropriately applied to the Jan 6 insurrection.

The third case, of course, is Anderson v. Griswold, Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot (CBS), which has not yet been appealed.

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Are they up to the challenge? Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? Do they want to save the union?

I am sorry to say , I believe the supreme court will chose to so to say return the charges to the voters and let them decide whether Trump can be president again or not. This is off course a problem in a country that for decades has build up a voter suppression system and the Democratic party is as much to blame for that as the Republican.

Then again, sometimes it needs to get worse before it gets better and sometimes it takes time before it changes for the better again (for the Russians it took 60 years before they got their second chance to change things for the better, but they got it, didn't take it though, but maybe you will...

Well, you might vote for Biden in the same numbers you did last time and maybe some Republicans this time will actually not vote for Trump but biden and by doing this make up for the new voter suppression workarounds that the Reoublican party installed in their states, so maybe you will avoid the bullet, but your country needs to change! It needs to start dealing with those 2 parties constant workarounds on the expense of your democracy and you need to install a juridical system that is free from politics in order to really get out of the mess you are in. But you probably won't....

 

[Ambig]

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Yeah, they could shut this madness completely down.

 

[Ambig]

Another issue though is that if SC makes it so Trump does not run... who will run for GOP? A more likable MAGAt that's even more likely to beat Biden... So will SC actually "save" us then?

There is no MAGA like D. Trump, except for that little Indian guy, but he's brown, so no chance with the MAGAs.

 

[Ambig]

They will quite quickly overturn the Colorado ruling as it's not based on a conviction, only a narrative.

So you're going with, "My eyes lied to me on J6?"

 

[HIP56948]

Would be nice. A lot of countries have choices like Cake or ice cream. Ours is between Cake and Hydrochloric Acid.

 

[MAGAnificent]

So you're going with, "My eyes lied to me on J6?"

For heavens sake, get a grip. What I saw at the Capitol on 1/6 was primarily Q-Anon and Proud Boy activists and at least one BLM activist rioting at the Capitol. None of them were typical rank and file Trump supporters and last time I checked, Trump was not there. Perhaps your very partisan eyes are lying to you.

 

[tshade]

I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball.

AND THOSE ARE HIS GOOD QUALITIES, AND ANY MORON COULD SEE IT WAY BEFORE 2016. NOW THEN, WHAT DOES SAY ABOUT THOSE WHO ELECTED HIM????

 

[j brown's body]

The Co Court quoted Gorsuch in their decision.

 

[j brown's body]

There is no MAGA like D. Trump, except for that little Indian guy, but he's brown, so no chance with the MAGAs.

He's also not funny. Trump is funny.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Well Clarence Thomas and his wife wanted the insurrection. So that's one vote automatically lost.

 

[Helix]

They have a historic (not an historic) opportunity to read a clearly written section of an amendment and decide that it says what it says.