[ad_1]
But then five justices decided to make broad decisions actually difficult. They did it in a way that the left wing of the court seemed to see more than a raised eyebrow.
If the court wanted to present a united front now that it is deciding some important and controversial Trump-related issues, it has failed. And now the situation is practically screaming: what is happening behind closed doors in the courtroom?
One section in particular stands out in Monday’s ruling. trump vs anderson.
“nevertheless ‘[a]”All nine members of the court agree that this independent and sufficient basis resolves this case,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a concurring statement. The five judges will proceed.”
And the key part is: “They decide new constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioners from future disputes.”
Let me emphasize that the “petitioner” is Mr. Trump. The liberal justices said their colleagues continued to rule on “novel” issues to “isolate” Trump.
You can analyze it all day long. But it does sound, at least in part, as if the court was saying it had a purpose to insulate Mr. Trump beyond the fundamental issue.
To summarize the ruling, the five justices in the majority held that not only could states (in this case Colorado) not disqualify President Trump, but unless Congress provided a legal basis for doing so, the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause The court ruled that the law could not be forced on federal candidates. process. The bar has been significantly raised for President Trump and other disqualified candidates, especially given the gridlock in Congress.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that there was no need for the court to decide such a big issue that had not been heard before the court.
But while Ms. Barrett sought to downplay her differences and emphasize the overall unanimous decision, Ms. Sotomayor, Ms. Kagan and Ms. Jackson went in a different direction. Their agreement was at one time called a partial dissent, which makes sense when you look at its content.
It’s one thing to say you have an opinion effect of Insulating Trump. It’s another thing to say it’s done.”to Please insulate him.
Of all people, judges choose their words carefully. And some experts believe the choice is striking, with the three liberal justices suggesting it may be politically motivated.
“This is an unusually blunt statement that the majority is politically motivated and trying to protect one individual,” said Tonja Jacobi, a Supreme Court scholar at Emory University School of Law. She added, “Usually they say things like that in more coded terms.”
Lawrence Bohm, an Ohio State University scholar who has written books about how judges function, said the three justices simply criticized the court for isolating itself and called President Trump out. He pointed out that there is a possibility that he did not withdraw the money.
“It’s natural to think that the majority of justices did not want to have to deal with potential disqualification in subsequent litigation, especially one approaching (or after) the November election,” Bohm said. Stated. “Their input will serve that purpose very well.
“But the opponents could have left it that way, so their ‘and petitioners’ are important. There is certainly an aspect to that, and partisan motives may be implied. ”
The three justices also shined a harsh spotlight on the majority in other ways.
For example, they began with a quote from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. when he argued in the 2022 case. dobbs vs jackson For a more restrained approach without flipping out Roe vs. Wade. “If no further decisions need to be made to dispose of the case; do not have More decisions need to be made,” Roberts wrote. The clear implication was that Mr Roberts was not following his own advice.
They also characterized the new standards’ justifications as dire, calling them “baseless” and “speculation.” One such justification was a lower court decision by then-Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, in which liberal justices noted that precedent was not binding. Another justification cited by the majority was controversial comments by Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment, regarding whether enactment of the law was necessary to enforce the Insurrection Clause. It happened.
Indeed, the five justices in the concurring majority agreed that the five-justice majority would raise the standard for disqualifying insurrectionists and what it would mean for how other amendments would be enforced. He may have been concerned about the future consequences of what he had done. The decision could cause chaos if there is a serious congressional effort to disqualify President Trump at some point.
But it’s hard to separate this controversy from the court’s other Trump-related decisions, especially given the “insulation” clause. Just a week ago, the court took up Trump’s immunity claim, even though an appeals court had ruled strongly against him. The move further postpones President Trump’s election-subversion trial date, originally scheduled for Monday, and makes it less likely that a verdict will be handed down before the 2024 election.
The court’s decision to take up the case was itself a clear victory for Trump. And now, just a week after another incident, we have three judges suggesting the court just bent over backwards to insulate him.
[ad_2]
Source link
