'Appalling!': Historians torch Supreme Court's handling of Trump ballot case

Appalling! Two of the three right and proper judges that align ideologically with the left were mind-controlled by the Ultra-MAGA activist justices that are hell-bent on destroying the country. Those Ultra-MAGA even got to the moderates justices, but since they are conservative, they aren't really moderates .. they just aren't activist Ultra-MAGA all the time.

... or that's the way the far-left progressives always want to portray it. Notice the outrage that happens when something doesn't go their way, but crickets when something does. I'm glad the far-left sheepel can find a Harvard law professor that knows better than the Justices at the Supreme Court (even the ones from the left .. ask any of the far-left progressives and they will loudly tell you why everyone who isn't a bat-s*** crazy progressive is an activist justice).

As various reports have pointed out, even Justice Jackson and Justice Kagan were expressing doubts about Colorado's claim and the common view (even coming from CNN and NBC) are that the ruling with either be 9-0 or 8-1 that Colorado can't strip a candidate for federal office from the ballot.

One thing that I think will likely happen is that the court will punt on the whole "was January 6th and insurrection?" question and focus on the technical applicability of section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

I wonder how many will actually listen to the oral arguements. I know the far-left progressives will just lap up whatever they are told to believe as they seem to lack the ability to do any critical thinking, but for the rest you can hear the different questions asked by the Justices at https://www.c-span.org/video/?532724-1/supreme-ct-hears-case-fmr-pres-trumps-colorado-ballot-eligibility

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made many comments that her understanding is that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was introduced to stop former Confederates from taking positions in state government and then using that to reestablish the Confederacy, and didn't seem to refer to the presidency.
- "I didn't see any evidence that the presidency was top of mind for the framers when they were drafting Section 3, because they were actually dealing with a different issue. The pressing concern, as least as I see the historical record, was actually what was going on at lower levels of the government: the possible infiltration and embedding of insurrectionists into the state government apparatus and the real risk that former Confederates might return to power in the South"
- "Why didn't they put the word president in the very enumerated list in section three? The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there, and so I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren't focusing on the president.”
- “My question is why the framers would have designed a system that would — could — result in interim disuniformity in this way?"

Justice Elena Kagan was focused on if Colorado even had the legal authority to do what they did:
- "I think the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be the President of the United States." She expressed that take a candidate for President off the ballot sounds very National to her and would require a national (federal) remedy. "Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?”

But to the far-left progressives, they are activist Justices as well. They must really hate it with a passion rivaling their love of Hamas when 9-0 decisions on anything come out of the Supreme Court.

SFC John D. I was flabbergasted reading about Kagan and Brown's line of questioning. They actually appeared to be impartial and asked very pertinent questions. I guess it's true what they say about broken clocks being right twice a day.

LTC Trent Klug - I actually think they are more right than that. The "Conservative" and "Liberal" Justices of the Supreme Court are often attacked by 'the other side' whenever they say something they don't agree with.

I've pointed out previously* that the most common decision that comes out of the Court is a 9-0 vote.

According to the Supreme Court Database*, in 2023 there were 74 case decisions from the full Supreme Court (this isn't counting the MANY other types of 'partial court' decisions, individual Justices decisions, etc.) - Of those 74 votes, 32 of them were unanimous decisions (if you include those with only a single dissenter it goes up to 37) and only 9 were from a divided court (5-4) and 15 from a partially divided (6-3) court.

In 2022, 30/77 were unanimous or 1 dissenter
In 2021, 45/82 were unanimous or 1 dissenter
In 2020, 41/85 were unanimous or 1 dissenter
... and this list is like that for every year.

Yes, there are decisions where it appears that ideology wins out over legal interpretation, but those decisions are the really gray ones.

Overwhelmingly all the Justices, regardless of political ideology, usually put the law above ideology.
------------------------
* https://www.rallypoint.com/status-updates/8257138
* Supreme Court Database - http://scdb.wustl.edu/index.php