It makes sense, since tomorrow is the primary in Colorado, and in Maine -- if memory serves. Here it is (in a per curiam unsigned opinion):
. . .Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse. . . .
Ah. Well. In any event, as I've long said here -- I think it wiser to defeat Tangerine at the ballot box in Colorado and Maine (and now Illinois), to avoid his claiming to be some form of political martyr in those states. That is just a philosophical, not legal view.
There is and was a strong and sound legal argument that the move by Colorado -- after a full trial on the merits, and appeals -- was within the remit of its "states' rights".
Barrett wrote "In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home. . . ."
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment