Today's court decision

[dmm]

Unanimous judgement (stating that this is a federal issue which cannot be decided by states), but 4 justices had different opinions objecting to the decision overreach (starting from page 14).

A 20 page PDF: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Comments

[juan_gandhi]

Well, we have tumultuous times waiting ahead.

[dmm]

We do.

(If they wanted to overreach, they might as well have considered the substance of the matter, but they chose not to.)

[tijd]

Timothy Snyder:

"I'm afraid that we're looking for ways not to take responsibility. The people who wrote Section 3 were taking responsibility. They correctly were persuaded that something terrible could happen also in the future, and therefore they gave us this precisely acting bit of constitutional self-defense. So that we would have a relatively easy way out of a historically unusual situation in which an oath-breaking insurrectionist seeks power again. That has not happened very often, nor will it happen very often, but it is happening right now.
And I think the question is whether we can summon an ounce of the seriousness now in 2024 that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment demonstrated in 1866."
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/02/05/colorado-trump-ballot-constitutionally-barred-presidency

[dmm]

> an oath-breaking insurrectionist seeks power again

Indeed.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, unlike the last time", or something like that...

[tijd]

I sometimes wonder: When elected officials give an oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," who do they imagine as "domestic enemies" of the Constitution?