Former President Donald Trump’s appeal of a Colorado ruling barring him from the ballot may force the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in directly on his 2024 election prospects, a case that legal experts said will likely pull its nine justices into a political firestorm.

That state was the first, followed by Maine, to rule that Trump was disqualified from seeking the Republican presidential nomination due to his actions ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an unprecedented legal decision that the nation’s top court could find too pressing to avoid.

“I doubt that any of the justices are pleased that they’re being forced into the fray over Donald Trump’s future. But it seems to me that the court will have no choice but to face these momentous issues,” said attorney Deepak Gupta, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

The justices, Gupta said, will have to act with “unusual speed and, hopefully, in a way that does not further divide our deeply divided land. That is a daunting and unenviable task.”

  • girlfreddyOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    Because if SCOTUS gives up power in one area of Constitutional law, it opens the door for them losing ruling power over the whole Constitution.

    • skydivekingair@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”.

      The US Constitution already says it’s the State’s authority. They don’t cede anything because they are just following what the Constitution says on this one specific issue.

      • girlfreddyOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Article 3, Section 1 and 2 state that SCOTUS is the supreme court of justice for everything to do with the Constitution. There is nothing there that says SCOTUS can abdicate its job by bumping anything to do with the Constitution to a lower court.

        • skydivekingair@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Right, they interpret the Constitution. If their interpretation of Article 1 Section 4 says it’s up to the states then they have done their job and interpreted the constitution.

          • girlfreddyOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Article 1, Section 4 does NOT give the states control over Presidential elections … only for senators and reps.

            The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I mean, they are the ones who are deciding if the precedent applies by the time it gets back up to them.

      Also, you assume that basically anyone in the scotus gives a shit about long term consequences. They know they can get their 10-20 years before all the hell impacts them.

      Like with a lot of these things: You are assuming good faith action. This is not a nickelodean sitcom where logic and puns trap the villains. The villains in this case will just say “We rule in our favor”

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      making a ruling isnt giving up something. their job is interpretation and nothing more.

      i think if youre expecting a ‘he is’ or ‘he isnt’ ruling from the supreme court, youre going to be disappointed. thats just not how they function.

      • girlfreddyOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You’re saying they have the option to bump it down to the states. Then why did a lawyer say this?

        "I doubt that any of the justices are pleased that they’re being forced into the fray over Donald Trump’s future. But it seems to me that the court will have no choice but to face these momentous issues," said attorney Deepak Gupta, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

    • SheeEttin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s the funny thing, they don’t officially have that authority anyway! Judicial review was something the court itself made up in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison!

      Of course, that authority was implied in the creation of the court anyway, because what other purpose would the court have?