Former President Donald Trump’s appeal of a Colorado ruling barring him from the ballot may force the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in directly on his 2024 election prospects, a case that legal experts said will likely pull its nine justices into a political firestorm.
That state was the first, followed by Maine, to rule that Trump was disqualified from seeking the Republican presidential nomination due to his actions ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an unprecedented legal decision that the nation’s top court could find too pressing to avoid.
“I doubt that any of the justices are pleased that they’re being forced into the fray over Donald Trump’s future. But it seems to me that the court will have no choice but to face these momentous issues,” said attorney Deepak Gupta, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.
The justices, Gupta said, will have to act with “unusual speed and, hopefully, in a way that does not further divide our deeply divided land. That is a daunting and unenviable task.”
its not like they are saying ‘ok, from now on all laws are left to the states’.
were talking about the interpretation of a single clause here, which very specifically involves states rights … and its like youre ignoring the part where it would take their ruling to allows the states to do it.
i dont understand how you think thats removing them from the process.
Because if SCOTUS gives up power in one area of Constitutional law, it opens the door for them losing ruling power over the whole Constitution.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”.
The US Constitution already says it’s the State’s authority. They don’t cede anything because they are just following what the Constitution says on this one specific issue.
Article 3, Section 1 and 2 state that SCOTUS is the supreme court of justice for everything to do with the Constitution. There is nothing there that says SCOTUS can abdicate its job by bumping anything to do with the Constitution to a lower court.
Right, they interpret the Constitution. If their interpretation of Article 1 Section 4 says it’s up to the states then they have done their job and interpreted the constitution.
Article 1, Section 4 does NOT give the states control over Presidential elections … only for senators and reps.
You’re kind of right. Article 1, Section 4 does not address presidential elections but Article 2 does, by handing it directly back to the states to pick their own electors for the Electoral College. Electors elect the president, hence the name.
(This is exactly why Mike Pence refused to get in the car on January 6: the voters had voted, the electors had represented them (or not) but constitutionally the president isn’t elected until Clause 3 of Article 2 is fulfilled and the Electoral College votes are certified by the President of the Senate, who at the time was Mike Pence, and that was the point of getting Pence out.)
Take a moment and go back and look at Article 2, the article that addresses the executive. Note that it only addresses the Electoral College and says nothing about popular votes, SCOTUS, or even how electors should be chosen.
You’re looking at the US Constitution’s entire provision for presidential elections. That’s it. Article 2. **
Now understand that along with that, through time and tradition over some 200+ years (depending on what event you want to count from), including various SCOTUS rulings, EVERYTHING involving federal elections that is not otherwise specifically addressed does indeed devolve to the states under Article 1, Section 4.
EDITED TO ADD current relevancy regarding Trump’s attempt to remove Mike Pence
**I am specifically referring to the original Constitution and not to the later rulings on the First and Fourteenth Amendments in case anyone wants to get picky, lol
I mean, they are the ones who are deciding if the precedent applies by the time it gets back up to them.
Also, you assume that basically anyone in the scotus gives a shit about long term consequences. They know they can get their 10-20 years before all the hell impacts them.
Like with a lot of these things: You are assuming good faith action. This is not a nickelodean sitcom where logic and puns trap the villains. The villains in this case will just say “We rule in our favor”
This is bizarre. Your statement presupposes that SCOTUS already has “ruling power over the whole constitution” (whatever that means???) AND ignores the entire concept of judicial review. Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, SCOTUS has had the job of interpreting constitutional law for both the federal government and individual states.
Also, SCOTUS is not, as we have recently seen, bound by stare decisis at all. Who or what power is going to bind SCOTUS to previous rulings? SCOTUS has overruled its own prior decisions time and time again, and lost absolutely nothing.
Furthermore, in the United States, the only power constitutionally able to check the judicial is the legislative, and Congress can’t just overturn SCOTUS rulings or demand that SCOTUS not hear cases brought before it.
SCOTUS derives its powers directly from the US Constitution and has already proven over the last 200+ years that it does not gain or lose any powers whatsoever by interpreting (and reinterpreting) that law as requested.
EDITED TO ADD link to Marbury, above, which Wikipedia describes as “the single most important decision in American constitutional law.”
making a ruling isnt giving up something. their job is interpretation and nothing more.
i think if youre expecting a ‘he is’ or ‘he isnt’ ruling from the supreme court, youre going to be disappointed. thats just not how they function.
You’re saying they have the option to bump it down to the states. Then why did a lawyer say this?
because hes not wrong and reinforces everything ive said here