This is for the people who are angry about which way the justices were leaning (at least 7 of them, apparently.)
I can't say who because I don't have permission (it was a private conversation) but a several weeks ago a smart lawyer said this to me:
"I am so angry at XX. They helped to egg on a lot of these disqualification attempts and are lying to their audiences about their validity and likelihood of success."
The pundits with big audiences are not necessarily the smartest lawyers.
In other words, they may not be lying. They might have genuinely thought the issue was a slam dunk. They may not have seen the complexity and potential issues.
I got an email from a reader who was upset about something she read in a newsletter. It had to do with the Cannon case. She was beside herself.
The problem is we are in a media disruption and people are trying to find sources to trust.
Prosecutors, law profs, and judges have the same degree: JD.
@Teri_Kanefield , well put. The psychologist in me is highly skeptical of pundits who forecast the future as if they know exactly what will happen or describe a problem as simple, even if the person has a lot of credentials. That weeds out a lot of people and I work with who is left and also has good credentials. It's still a lot of work. For Covid, I still look at primary source research and review articles in major journals.
"To what extent do those of us who rely on pundits to inform our opinions indulge an Authoritarian aspect of personality in doing so?"
Alternate:
"To what extent do our newer, less-experienced SCOTUS judges lack experience adequate to overruling their own knee-jerk reactions to legal theories they prefer?"
In the long run, don't we each Choose to get led out onto a Ledge?😐
@Teri_Kanefield TK, if you could, as this news reportage continues on this subject, could you direct us to a trusted source that actually lays out what is, and is not, happening/important with this topic of keeping or not keeping DJT on the ballot? Thanks. Because I have seen a lot of stuff, and I don't know who is explaining accurately.
"An argument this bad depends upon fear. Even in print, it has a wink-wink-nudge-nudge quality -- we know this is a horrible legal argument, and you Justices know that this is a horrible legal argument, but we both know that you are just looking for a way out. So here’s your alibi for ignoring the Constitution." https://snyder.substack.com/p/law-or-fear
Snyder is not a legal scholar, neither am I. He's a scholar of history, particularly history of authoritarian regimes that came to power through failure of democracy. I came to the US from such a regime and my lived experience and Snyder's expertise provide a perspective that is very relevant here and that you are missing behind the trees of legal arguments.
SC's legislature appointed their electors. There was no popular vote.
In 9 other states, he received zero popular votes. There was no printed ballot back then, so it's not really apples-to-apples with today. Also, it was before the 14th Amendment, so those provisions didn't apply.
@Teri_Kanefield And this is fed by the ridiculous adoration of Harvard, with too many people believing that anyone who teaches there must be brilliant and know all the answers. Despite its opinion of itself, Harvard is not the repository of all wisdom and being a Harvard prof isn't proof that one is wise.
@Teri_Kanefield It seems to me that the easiest way for SCOTUS to scoot on this is to take the "POTUS is not an officer" offramp, weak as that reasoning seems. This makes the question of insurrection moot and precludes a return engagement to keep Trump from being sworn in should he win, even if he's convicted in the J6 trial. Section 3 just doesn't apply to POTUS and that's all she wrote. The first CO judge based her initial ruling in Trump's favor on the same logic.
@Teri_Kanefield
A thing I'm puzzled about -- if the states are not empowered to do anything about candidates who don't meet this qualification -- then who is? What is the legal mechanism for enforcing this Constitutional requirement? Is it likely the SC will address that?
In this case [XX] is a lawyer with a big online following?
That said, did anyone really believe that this SCOTUS disqualifying Trump from the ballot was a likely outcome? They are more likely to just declare the election over already and him the winner.
@Teri_Kanefield From a political standpoint, it was a homerun then. SCOTUS won't save democracy. Voting may be the only way and is the only way to change the current SCOTUS composition given the poor decision of RBG.
It also gave ammo to Circuit courts to consider "real world consequences" of constitutional issues compared to the hyper-Scalia-ized textual analysis should the SCOTUS opinion go that way.
It has always been the case that the courts won't save democracy.
Even if SCOTUS ends up affirming the SOCO ruling, unlikely but not impossible, will the MAGA movement just go poof?
It has always been true that only we the people can maintain our democracy.
There are 2 things everyone who follows Teri ought to be doing; join a local grassroots group and use/spread race-class narrative based messaging disseminated by https://www.wemakethefuture.us/ (see my pinned toots).
Add comment