From the start of the justices’ private discussions of the case, #TrumpvAnderson, it was clear that the court was going to say no…. Allowing states to excise candidates from ballots in a national #election was out of the question, the justices agreed. With sparse & cryptic text in the amendment, & little case #law, to guide them, they raised various ideas for the court’s ruling & rationale.

#law #SCOTUS #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #ElectionInterference #illiberalism #extremism #corruption

For my American friends who are cheering up #SOCUS on abandoning your #Constitution in #TrumpvAnderson this is what you are cheering up to https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-strongman-fantasy.

“[…] to the end it may be a government of laws and not
of men.” Those were the days …

The Strongman Fantasy (updated)

And Dictatorship in Real Life

Thinking about...

@davew

When your Supreme Court gave up on your Constitution, there is not much more to discuss. It was a nice experiment to have a republic while it lasted.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/trump-v-anderson

#HangTogether #RuleOfLaw #Constitution #TrumpvAnderson

Trump v. Anderson

Writings on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Thinking about...
@DemocracyMattersALot
it’s funny how they no longer hurl the accusation of “Judicial Activism” around as an insult the way they used to…
#GOPHypocrites #overreach
#TrumpVAnderson

On first blush, #trumpVanderson decision by #SCOTUS is rather more obviously #partisan and #corrupt than the #DredScottDecision.

It exactly displays the logical and moral #bankruptcy of the #RobertsCourt. Three members of the majority were appointed by the appellant, and a fourth has more #COI than Niigata. #Recusal? Perish the thought!

The "unanimous"—but unsigned—decision was originally based on a dissension. Every jurist has compromised their record.

#ExpandTheCourt or #impeachthemall

#TrumpVAnderson

So, do i have this straight? The #SupremeCourt doesn't dispute that trump is an antidemocratic insurrectionist, but they dispute the exact mechanism to disqualify him from the presidency, in the interests of democracy.

Ballot Disqualification: Another SCOTUS Credibility Hit

All nine agreed states can't enforce a federal constitutional provision governing ballot access, but three accused the majority of insulating past and future insurrectionists from disqualification

oh well, at least we did get a thoroughly shady cite to Bush v. Gore in the Sotomayor concurrence. That part I liked…
#SCOTUS #TrumpVAnderson #OathbreakingInsurrectionist

All in all, the majority opinion in #trumpVAnderson is a disgrace.

It has been clear for years that the most promising possible nonviolent way to prevent Trump from becoming president again is by turning out as many voters for his general election rival as possible, particularly in swing states. (I know, I certainly know, that even a clear win of electoral votes by a rival is no guarantee Trump won’t try to seize office.) 7/7

The justices in the five person majority in #TrumpVAnderson show, once again, their utter disdain for the most elementary features of U.S. rule of law. They disregard text and precedent and trample separation of powers. Unsurprisingly then, their decision is primarily a piece of partisanship only masquerading as judicial work. 5/ #RuleOfLaw