It's the SCOTUS's job to view a complaint through the lens of the US Constitution, and legal precedents. Not the lens of public opinion. This was a reason Jefferson stated for the life term; so that they may interpret the law against the Constitution, and not against public opinion, which may change over time.
Unfortunately the DemoLibs have been allowed to protest right outside the judges homes up until the slight of hand law change that was made with Pelosi’s approval, right before Conservatives took over the House. They got to publicly and directly attempt to influence nearly everything SCOTUS and every other US Court did for the last 2 years. Little turds!
Sounds like the Executive branch should do its job of enforcing the law to protect the Justices.
On that note, where was our military during the Rebellion of 2020, when our Elections were interfered with and manipulated? Could have all been prevented, but wasn't. Was allowed to happen. Either greatest sting in history, or greatest grift. 2 years later, still nothing to confirm either theory.
I think they SHOULD factor public interest in when taking cases and they oftentimes have in our history.
It's the actual verdicts and outcomes in the reading of the case that we want to stay Constitutionalist... so I guess I'm agreeing with you! Hah 🤣
I read somewhere yesterday that the reason given to not hear the case was that they couldn't enforce the removal. Not sure if it was true that there was actually a reason given, but I know its true that they couldn't actually enforce it.
I feel like if the case was a little more focused, and asked for something more in line with what SCOTUS could do like say rule if their oath of office immunity is Constitutional or not, it could have a better shot of being taken up to be heard. Maybe we'll get something like that down the line, from where this one started off.
I think the biggest deal with it so far is that it was not kicked for not having standing.... so we have some kind of baseline for who is the aggrieved party (or plaintiff or whatever legal jargon is appropriate) in the 2020 election. I don't know though I'm just playing Perry Mason Jr. like a lot of us. 😁
They should hear a case on its merits. The problem with this case is the remedy, which to remove politicians from office. SCOTUS does not have the power, the constitution grants impeachment power to Congress, and it's the only way to remove them. SCOTUS will not take the case because they are powerless to remedy it. Time to put away childish things.
I wouldn't want a SCOTUS that is swayed by public opinion, I hope they are not.
It's the SCOTUS's job to view a complaint through the lens of the US Constitution, and legal precedents. Not the lens of public opinion. This was a reason Jefferson stated for the life term; so that they may interpret the law against the Constitution, and not against public opinion, which may change over time.
Unfortunately the DemoLibs have been allowed to protest right outside the judges homes up until the slight of hand law change that was made with Pelosi’s approval, right before Conservatives took over the House. They got to publicly and directly attempt to influence nearly everything SCOTUS and every other US Court did for the last 2 years. Little turds!
Sounds like the Executive branch should do its job of enforcing the law to protect the Justices.
On that note, where was our military during the Rebellion of 2020, when our Elections were interfered with and manipulated? Could have all been prevented, but wasn't. Was allowed to happen. Either greatest sting in history, or greatest grift. 2 years later, still nothing to confirm either theory.
I think they SHOULD factor public interest in when taking cases and they oftentimes have in our history.
It's the actual verdicts and outcomes in the reading of the case that we want to stay Constitutionalist... so I guess I'm agreeing with you! Hah 🤣
I read somewhere yesterday that the reason given to not hear the case was that they couldn't enforce the removal. Not sure if it was true that there was actually a reason given, but I know its true that they couldn't actually enforce it.
I feel like if the case was a little more focused, and asked for something more in line with what SCOTUS could do like say rule if their oath of office immunity is Constitutional or not, it could have a better shot of being taken up to be heard. Maybe we'll get something like that down the line, from where this one started off.
I think the biggest deal with it so far is that it was not kicked for not having standing.... so we have some kind of baseline for who is the aggrieved party (or plaintiff or whatever legal jargon is appropriate) in the 2020 election. I don't know though I'm just playing Perry Mason Jr. like a lot of us. 😁
They should hear a case on its merits. The problem with this case is the remedy, which to remove politicians from office. SCOTUS does not have the power, the constitution grants impeachment power to Congress, and it's the only way to remove them. SCOTUS will not take the case because they are powerless to remedy it. Time to put away childish things.
It doesn't matter what they say, they don't have the authority to grant the remedy. It can't happen. The case is dead. Period.