• Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    So which will SCOTUS rule:

    A. January 6 wasn’t really an insurrection;

    B. Trump didn’t participate;

    C. The 14th Amendment doesn’t really mean what the plain words of it say it means

    ?

    My bet is C

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      2 years ago

      SCOTUS refused to entertain Trump’s election lie. Don’t be so certain they will be friendly to him this time. I hate the current SCOTUS, but they can surprise you sometimes.

      • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s also not like he can retaliate in any way (other than trying to provoke his supporters into acting). They are set up for life, and can continue to influence the country for years to come with or without him. They may choose to let him drown.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Exactly. They are in no way beholden to him. And even their pet issue of abortion has been taken care of, so they’ve paid their dues. Now they can do whatever they feel like.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Sure he can, why don’t you think he can?

          He’s been shown to indirectly threaten judges, juror, investigators, and witnesses. By turning the hate and violence of his supporters their way. He doesn’t have to personally do anything, there will always be a sympathizer willing to lay down their own life and well-being for his political cause, that’s how fascism works.

          He very much can retaliate. And has a rich history of it at this point.

          Another way that retaliations can be had is with a corrupt Supreme Court who are influenced by external parties by way of wealth or influence. In which case sources of wealth can be pulled or affected.

          Good thing we don’t have any Supreme Court members on dubious grounds related to ill-gotten gains…

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        Thomas almost feels like he has an obligation to something other than his wallet, so he’s slowed down on the radically unpopular rulings.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        We can definitely hope. But it’s really going to come down to how well the individuals are owned.

        If this were just a panel of supreme Court justices voting along their biases, It’s anybody’s guess what they could do. But they’re not exactly impartial and lots of people have lots of dirt against them then gobs and gobs of political power.

      • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        The only certainty is that Roberts and the liberal judges would definitely not be onboard with ignoring the 14th. Kavanagh probably, Thomas all but certainly.

    • Crow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      Unlike other republicans who are at the whim of trump, the Supreme Court can’t really be touched and don’t have to bow down to him while still being shitty republicans.

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          Nah that’s the thing. Trump can kick rocks and there’ll still be plenty of “donors” who just so happen to have cases coming up.

    • krakenx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      They will probably pass it back to the states. It’s not like the blue states were going to vote for Trump anyways, and the “unfairness” of it will probably boost him in purple and red states.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        They will probably pass it back to the states

        If you want chaos, this would be the best bet.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      The Supreme Court doesn’t really have any say in how states run their elections. That’s the only wrinkle I see on this. If they tried to dictate state elections, states could just ignore it.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        The question is if Trump qualifies to be president per the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The states don’t decide that, SCOTUS does.

    • Dippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      Going with C. Without explicit language to the president, they will need to interpret this to mean the president included, which may be up to anyone’s interpretation.

      I feel it should, however it could be argued it doesn’t.

      who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Trump wss just committed to the continuity of government at all costs. Including the republic itself.

        (That is the likely argument)

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      The 14th amendment also guarantees the right to seek medical treatment. Yet women are denied this right.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The 14th amendment does not guarantee any sort of right to any specific healthcare.

        If it did, one assumes abortion proponents would have used that language in lieu of privacy as in Roe v Wade

        • Omega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          It’s not the right to healthcare. It’s the right to seek healthcare. Ie, they can’t deprive you of life or liberty without charging you. Restricting you from seeking healthcare deprives you of both.

          They used whichever they thought was more likely to get through SCOTUS.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Restricting you from seeking healthcare deprives you of both.

            This does not stand up to constitutional muster, is my point. The argument is that the government has a right to prevent certain things that could be healthcare, and that does hold water constitutionally.

            Like, I love your energy here but this is not the way to guarantee abortion/reproductive care access