Trump deserved to lose on all these points, and the Colorado Supreme Court correctly rejected his arguments on them. But I think he did have a plausible argument on the issue of whether his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack was extensive enough to qualify as “engaging” in insurrection. At the very least, he had a better argument there than on self-execution. The Court’s resolution of the latter issue is based on badly flawed reasoning and relies heavily on dubious policy arguments invoking the overblown danger of a “patchwork” of conflicting state resolutions of Section 3 issues. The Court’s venture into policy was also indefensibly one-sided, failing to consider the practical dangers of effectively neutering Section 3 with respect to candidates for federal office and holders of such positions.

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Only SCOTUS can. Scotus is not bound by their own precedent.

    We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

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

      Not true, common legislation can change the law and even abrogate the Court’s jurisdiction over matters.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        But would this not only work up to the point where the laws conflict with something SCOTUS can warp the Constitution around to get their way?

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Most definitely. I’d hope for Americans and especially American women, they find a way to assure full access to reproductive healthcare across the US. And a way to abolish corporate personhood, cause these things seem to really wreak havoc on the US and the world.

            • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Corporate “personhood” is actually really important to a modern society. It’s largely misunderstood.

              • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I think most people understand why it exists, but in practice it is used as a way to shield the people making the decisions from consequences.

                And the way it allows companies to influence politics in the US is pretty darn detrimental.

                The fact that we now learn that many people controlling some of the larges companies in the world knew they where actively destroying the planet, hurting peoples health, poisoning people and kept quiet… for decades… meaning there is no recourse for us (the collective us) while some individuals get rich.

                The fact that shipping companies create individual llcs for ships so they can cut the loss in case of a disaster and leave us holding the bag for the consequences cannot be what we want for our planet and future.

                If corporate personhood can/needs to stay that’s fine, as long as we adress these issues then.