This is a terrible understanding of the supreme court. Their job isn’t “establish precedent”. Their job is to interpret the constitution for modern problems, to analyze and interpret past precedent, and to establish precedent where there is none. It is multi-fold, not a simple one item.
There is already precedent for this, and it shows that conviction is not a requirement for taking a candidate off the ballot like this. The supreme court does not have the authority to make a mockery of past precedent and just make up shit as they go like you suggest. The point of precedent is to have a stable and consistent rule of law, meanwhile you guys just want to throw out the things that would hurt your god emperor.
This is a terrible understanding of the supreme court. Their job isn’t “establish precedent”. Their job is to interpret the constitution for modern problems, to analyze and interpret past precedent, and to establish precedent where there is none. It is multi-fold, not a simple one item.
There is already precedent for this, and it shows that conviction is not a requirement for taking a candidate off the ballot like this. The supreme court does not have the authority to make a mockery of past precedent and just make up shit as they go like you suggest. The point of precedent is to have a stable and consistent rule of law, meanwhile you guys just want to throw out the things that would hurt your god emperor.
Well yes, they have more than one job. But one of them is establishing precedent. And this was a 9-0 decision, so its not like its just trumps judges.
9-0 sends a clear message.
It is also consistent with many other recent rulings. Congress do your job.
Roe vs wade was overturned because Congress needs to make a law.
Most the recent decisions have been a pushback to Congress
People who don’t get the roles, get upset because their “side” lost but it’s part of the check and balances.
I support abortion but roe was made up fantasy land.
Same thing with states trying to disqualify Trump. It’s not a power they hold.