• jballs@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    For those that didn’t read the article, just wanted to point out that the author still states that it’s very unlikely that the stacked Supreme Court will rule against Trump.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I was going to say- it doesn’t matter if the argument is weak. The current idealistic SCOTUS has made rulings on weak arguments before.

    • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 months ago

      The funny part is that Gorsuch ruled clearly against Trump’s position in a lower court decision, and it is going to be funny to watch him just make himself known as hypocrite as he overrules his own ruling it is effort to be a Trump sycophant.

      • Goku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Oh man… So the supreme court is going to say anyone can be on the ballot without regard for eligibility?

        Or just that states are not authorized to assess the eligibility of a candidate?

        In that case, at which point during the process do we stop an intelligible candidate from taking office? After half the country voted for him? Seems silly.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Dictating how states handle elections seems like a massive departure from how things have been dealt with in the past.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          If they want to rule in his favor they’ll need to add a disclaimer about how the decision can’t be used as precedent. Like they did with Bush v Gore.