Kevin M. Kruse: Once again, the conservative majority on the Court shows that it strongly supports the rights of states to do what they want, as long as what they want advances the political agenda of the conservative majority on the Court.

Once again, the conservative majority on the Court shows that it strongly supports the rights of states to do what they want, as long as what they want advances the political agenda of the conservative majority on the Court.

I’m also really baffled by the liberal judges joining unanimously.

Even as they point out that Congress is not in fact the only body able to enforce the 14A. It’s baffling

Has anybody checked the first letter in every line to verify they aren't locked in the basement and being forced to write a concurrence that is secretly a cry for help?

If you told me they signed on as part of a back room deal to deny cert in the Trump immunity case only to have the rug pulled out from under them in the most absolutely predictable way that makes them look like enormous, buffoonish rubes, I would 1,000% believe you.

i think there's some genuine fear of maga killing them

at this point who cares. they're corrupt.

Hasn't Congress already determined Trump's standing regarding 14A? A majority in both chambers found him guilty of "incitement of insurrection" during the 2nd impeachment.

Colorado should, on remand, note that Congress passed by majority in both chambers that Trump is disqualified by 14AS3 and keep him off the ballot and make them appeal it again

The overriding viewpoint of every justice is that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of everything to the exclusion of every other branch/department/state. And that is what's behind the three justice liberal concurrence: Nobody else gets to have a say.

The doctrine of judicial supremacy is a mainstream view in American law. @jbouie.bsky.social wrote a good op-ed attacking it a few years ago www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/o...

Opinion | Down With Judicial Supremacy! (Published 2020)www.nytimes.com The Supreme Court was never meant to be the only arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.

Not really baffling. They have all been bought by dark money. Pretty clear.

Meh, for me it's all good The optics of winning one state that wasn't going to go red anyway on what'd look like a legal technicality, in the general election in November? Not great, and maybe that influenced those sane, non extremist SCOTUS folks (Not that they'd admit it nor should they)

It feels like part of a deal Roberts offered them for his support on some other issue. I have no evidence for this besides vibes.

Everyone BIPOC or poor. Welcome to the New Feudalism.

and the liberals meekly go along in hopes harlan crow invites them on trips too

Surely he isn't the only one financing them!

of course not but I don't intend all my social media posts to be full explainers?

No I wouldn't expect that at all! I just had to comment I'm sorry if it came off snarky or whatever. Best to name the names when we have em. I want more names🤬

I'm just old enough to remember when the voting rights act renewal case struck down southern states having to get changes to federal election procedures approved because states have rights in running federal elections...

OK, but it's hard to argue that advancing the interests of wealthy, white men isn't "original intent."

I realize society needs some sort of framework to keep us from being feral, but I’ve always thought it weird that we set up a system that ultimately lets nine flawed humans interpret how life should be for 325 million. It feels especially antiquated in the year 2024 and going forward.

The SC ignores the literal text of the fourteenth yet interprets the second for political gain. How depressing.

“States’ rights” — not!

So fucking 🔴💀🔴 TexASS continues to ignore and threaten violence re: the recent #SCOTUS ruling on border razor wire but all other states apparently will kowtow to having the 🔴💀🔴 #Mango #Rapist #Insurrectionist forced upon their ballots? 🍌🍌🍌🍌🇺🇸🍌🍌🍌🍌

Now's probably not the time for a silver lining, but if this worked, you can bet Texas (and all its satellites) would find some sham reason to kick all the Democrats off the ballot, except they'd likely do it just before the election. They don't work on laws or ethics. They only consider power.

As I understand it they’re missing an enforcement mechanism. Congress needs to make one then they can ban Drumpf.

It’d be really nice to be able to have a vote of no confidence for the high court.

It will all be balanced again once the Court rules that individual states can change election results to whatever if they don't like them.

It's interesting to see that, contrary to what we've told ourselves all these years, America is just another place and can fuck up and fold in on itself just like any other nation in the world and in history.

Clause 6 Succession In Case of the …Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President.., So if Trump cannot be vested his veep would become POTUS

My takeaway is that SCOTUS has decided circumstances under which States can disobey the Federal Constitution.

History Q for you: the 14th Amendment kept several former Confederates off the ballot in the 19th century, right? Does today’s ruling mean those exclusions were unjust? Did Johnny Reb always have the right to run for Congress?

Balls and strikes, but only if the American people start down 0-2.

So now the Supreme Court has the power to declare a provision in a constitutional amendment null and void.

Their actions suddenly become less hypocritical if you assume the goal is to establish an authoritarian Christian theocracy and not whatever obvious lie they're using to justify themselves this week.

CO did a State Wrongs

My hope is that this ruling is eventually used to eliminate the Electoral College.

Pure retconning Calvin-ball.

Post