Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post (which she does a lot), commenting on the what the Supreme Court will rule in the case of whether or not Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for the office of President of the United States, based on the fact that he participated in an insurrection on January 6th, 2021.
Though I have a three-point set of excerpts, read the whole discussion.
You can bet on the Supreme Court's abject partisanship
Part A. "The U.S. Supreme Court will have a hard time reversing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision applying Section 3, but that doesn’t mean it won’t."
Part B. "The Colorado court’s evidentiary hearing also confirmed that Trump had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [the Constitution], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” (She adds more detail subsequently.)
Part C. "Bottom line: The partisan majority on the court could duck the question, deeming it premature or a matter for the states, thereby enraging their right-wing patrons, though that is highly unlikely. Alternatively, it could fashion a definition of insurrection to suit its purposes or blatantly defy Section 3’s clear language (e.g., invent a requirement for a criminal conviction). Right-wing justices’ contortions will confirm the utter lack of credibility that now defines the court."
Yup. I've been thinking that exact same thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment