Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Warner Crocker (warnercrocker@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2024 01:29:41 JST Warner Crocker

   in reply to

   • Michael Markman
   • Marc Elias

   @mickeleh @marcelias I did. Not for this case, but the next one coming up.

   • Embed this notice
     Michael Markman (mickeleh@mas.to)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2024 01:29:42 JST Michael Markman

     in reply to

     • Marc Elias

     @marcelias Hearing oral arguments, most people expected SCOTUS would find some “off-ramp” to keep Trump on the ballot. I didn’t see anyone predicting they would find an offramp into a swamp that completely vitiates Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, protects all oathbreaking insurrectionists in House and Senate, and threatens the viability of other “self-executing” provisions of the Constitution.

   • Embed this notice
     Marc Elias (marcelias@mas.to)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2024 01:29:43 JST Marc Elias

     Put simply, the Court allowed Trump to stay on the ballot in order to avoid an outcome that would raise the “national temperature.” My objection is that Judges should not bend to the will of an insurrectionist simply to placate his supporters.
     https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/in-9-0-ruling-supreme-court-justices-bend-toward-trump/