• agent_flounder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hm. So I’m guessing they are going to say that disqualification can only happen at the federal level by a law defined by Congress. They don’t seem too concerned about an insurrectionist becoming president, not surprisingly.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Mostly because it’s not SCOTUS’s job to make laws … they’re simply there to interpret what Congress has passed. Which is pretty much how high courts operate everywhere, including Canada, the UK, etc

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Right, but as it is their job to interpret laws and the constitutionality of lawsuits and this lawsuit alleges that dumps is constitutionality prohibited from office, this is exactly their job.

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

      It should be a more fundamental question than that. The first issue with regard to any statutory authority regarding Section 3 must address whether the section itself is self executing.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Trump’s lawyer made sure to argue that. But the text is clearly self executing. Congress can act like a pardon board to restore eligibility. It does not get powers to determine it in the first place. The intention was clearly that would be candidates with a bar would go hat in hand to Congress before campaigning.

        In fact this just reminded me that any SCOTUS decision on this is another massive electoral over reach. They are again usurping Congress’ power. Trump should be having friendly politicians advance a bill there to get the bar removed.