I don’t want him to be president again and I don’t think he will be, but this just isn’t the case, and you’re not going to get a favorable SCOTUS decision on it. It’s an interesting idea to write a law school paper about, not a real legal theory.
At the end of the day, most Supreme Courts would be extremely reluctant to disqualify someone and would prefer to leave it to the voters. I think even an extremely liberal court would rule the same unless they were just being nakedly political the way the conservative Justices seem to.
Trump needs to be defeated soundly at the voting booth. There won’t be any easy resolutions where he and his fanatics just quietly disappear.
This is just an acknowledgement that voting is maybe our most sacred right and even a very liberal court is going to be extremely reluctant to rule that the majority of the country can’t vote for who they want. My (layman’s) understanding is that there is enough room to argue that any court would just leave it to the voters.
Frankly, I don’t care because the whole republican party is an existential threat to the nation so it’s not like I’ll breathe a sigh of relief if it’s DeSantis instead.
That article won’t load for me, but I assume they’ve been convinced. While I believe it’s obvious he’s guilty, this would set a very dangerous precedent. We can’t start treating people like they’re guilty before a verdict. Although the wealthy seem to get the benefit of the doubt fat more effectively after charges are filed, but that’s a whole nother debate.
It isnt a theory. Steve Calabresi, one of the founders of the Federalist Society, whom we’d think should be against this interpretation, wrote an article for Reason in support of the original paper.
The core of the argument is that current context is an extremely good match for the context that created the law in the first place. They seem to believe it enough to think it should be regarded as true. For some reason…
So let’s consider incentives. Why would they want to avoid a court case? Is it possible they’d lose and somehow make a radical event take place in US law?
Maybe they believe it is self-preservation in some way, to avoid a historically significant court decision going against them. Or another way, maybe theyre low key trying to somehow move on.
This may be the closest thing the Republican Party ever does to waving the white flag. They never admit defeat.
Probably a “side effect” of the tactic of luring in people with the first paragraph then asking for you to subscribe. Im sure that the HTML (of the full article) is probably still there, but they’re hidden or covered by the “subscribe to read” elements.
Add comment