For those who are confused by the Supreme Court’s decision, you should be. The majority decision ignores the plain language of the 14th Amendment Section 3. Please watch the full video. I go over the opinion of not just the majority but also by Justice Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson (Democratic appointees) who agree with me and probably y…
For those who are confused by the Supreme Court’s decision, you should be. The majority decision ignores the plain language of the 14th Amendment Section 3. Please watch the full video. I go over the opinion of not just the majority but also by Justice Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson (Democratic appointees) who agree with me and probably you that the Supreme Court majority got it very wrong by saying Congress needs to pass legislation to declare a disqualification. They said they were writing “in protest” of the majority opinion by the right-wing justices. You have every right to feel betrayed by the Supreme Court ruling, but I am simply trying to let you know what the majority said and why it was met by a scathing response by the remaining justices. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and until this bad ruling is overturned, this is the precedent. Unfortunately, if you answered differently, you would get the answer wrong on my law school exam.
But, I believe Americans would like to know if there is anything else could be done here. Americans should be heard, they're the ones who are going to spend the next 4 years in hell!
I understand Ben’s explanation that private attorneys couldn’t properly file suit given the Supreme Court holding legislation is required by Congress. But I fully agree we should be discussing what could be done. His explanation doesn’t fully address the explicit language of the Constitution that the already adjudicated insurrection infirmity can only be removed by a vote of 2/3 of each house of Congress.
Since the Court held only Congress can act, why can’t the current Congress introduce a bill to remove the infirmity? Since it will likely fail to pass by the required supermajority, Trump would not be sworn in. That’s consistent with Supreme Court precedent and previous Congressional actions refusing to seat elected insurrectionists. See United Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (distinguishing between Congress’s power to expel a member, which requires a two-thirds majority, and the power to exclude a member who is constitutionally disqualified). All relevant state constitutions have a similar provision empowering state legislatures to judge the qualifications of their members.
The U.S. House of Representatives has previously used this authority to refuse to seat Member-elect Victor L. Berger in the 66th Congress. See Cannon’s Precedents, Ch. 157, § 56. After the Civil War, the House also debated whether to seat John Rice and Alfred Waddell, who faced allegations that they violated the Disqualification Clause. Hinds’ Precedents, Ch. 14. The U.S. Senate also invoked Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment when it refused to seat Zebulon Vance, who had previously served as governor of North Carolina during the Civil War. (Courtesy CREW).
The portion of the opinion that Ben highlights, isn't even dicta, nor is it in the scope of the case before them, so it is simply can not be binding on the lower federal courts.
Also, the reliance on Griffin's case requires a criminal charge, and therefor a federal law to override state law. However it also illustrates why it would not be relevant where a case for declaration and injunction consistent with what sec 3 mandates in federal civil court. It is the Supreme Court which is bound by sec 3, even in Anderson the Majority don't dispute what sec 3 instructs the court with it's plain meaning, they avoid sec 3 completely in the context of the case.
The majority did not vote for him, they invented stop the steal for a reason, so when he didn't win rightfully his sheep would fight fight fight for him.
Supreme Court Justices are not infallible. Precident should be followed but there are times when acting outside of norms to uphold the law is necessary.
Ben, there ARE linguistic ambiguities in their opinion, particularly in THAT portion of their opinion. I think those ambiguities are intentional, because if they mean what you think they mean, then they have gone outside their Article III powers. However if alternatively, the lower court (and their colleagues) are interpreting them overly broad, then they have plausible deniability, they did made the same claim that people interpret Bruen wrong, quite recently. If you don't confront them. as a lawyer about the ambiguities, and contradictions, then you let the broadest interpretation prevail. As officers of the court, you have a responsibility to represent your clients and use EVERY TOOL IN THE BOX.
The entire legal profession makes an enormous mistake, by not confronting them wherever they are simply wrong, or ambiguous. and by treating the ruling that way on a test, as a teacher you are complicit.
It's your responsibility as a lawyer, and your student's responsibility as future lawyers, to MAKE THEM SAY THE QUIET PART OUTLOUD, and not just mumble nonsense to support their arguments
I say that with the deepest affection and esteem, but law schools have to teach lawyers to check the supreme court or nobody will do it. It's more important than being right about how they'll rule on a given case, it's (particularly now) the most important part of their job, particularly when they do pro-bono work.
For those who are confused by the Supreme Court’s decision, you should be. The majority decision ignores the plain language of the 14th Amendment Section 3. Please watch the full video. I go over the opinion of not just the majority but also by Justice Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson (Democratic appointees) who agree with me and probably you that the Supreme Court majority got it very wrong by saying Congress needs to pass legislation to declare a disqualification. They said they were writing “in protest” of the majority opinion by the right-wing justices. You have every right to feel betrayed by the Supreme Court ruling, but I am simply trying to let you know what the majority said and why it was met by a scathing response by the remaining justices. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and until this bad ruling is overturned, this is the precedent. Unfortunately, if you answered differently, you would get the answer wrong on my law school exam.
But, I believe Americans would like to know if there is anything else could be done here. Americans should be heard, they're the ones who are going to spend the next 4 years in hell!
I understand Ben’s explanation that private attorneys couldn’t properly file suit given the Supreme Court holding legislation is required by Congress. But I fully agree we should be discussing what could be done. His explanation doesn’t fully address the explicit language of the Constitution that the already adjudicated insurrection infirmity can only be removed by a vote of 2/3 of each house of Congress.
Since the Court held only Congress can act, why can’t the current Congress introduce a bill to remove the infirmity? Since it will likely fail to pass by the required supermajority, Trump would not be sworn in. That’s consistent with Supreme Court precedent and previous Congressional actions refusing to seat elected insurrectionists. See United Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (distinguishing between Congress’s power to expel a member, which requires a two-thirds majority, and the power to exclude a member who is constitutionally disqualified). All relevant state constitutions have a similar provision empowering state legislatures to judge the qualifications of their members.
The U.S. House of Representatives has previously used this authority to refuse to seat Member-elect Victor L. Berger in the 66th Congress. See Cannon’s Precedents, Ch. 157, § 56. After the Civil War, the House also debated whether to seat John Rice and Alfred Waddell, who faced allegations that they violated the Disqualification Clause. Hinds’ Precedents, Ch. 14. The U.S. Senate also invoked Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment when it refused to seat Zebulon Vance, who had previously served as governor of North Carolina during the Civil War. (Courtesy CREW).
The portion of the opinion that Ben highlights, isn't even dicta, nor is it in the scope of the case before them, so it is simply can not be binding on the lower federal courts.
Also, the reliance on Griffin's case requires a criminal charge, and therefor a federal law to override state law. However it also illustrates why it would not be relevant where a case for declaration and injunction consistent with what sec 3 mandates in federal civil court. It is the Supreme Court which is bound by sec 3, even in Anderson the Majority don't dispute what sec 3 instructs the court with it's plain meaning, they avoid sec 3 completely in the context of the case.
JOIN US FOR A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION.
https://nowmarch.org/
The majority did not vote for him, they invented stop the steal for a reason, so when he didn't win rightfully his sheep would fight fight fight for him.
Supreme Court Justices are not infallible. Precident should be followed but there are times when acting outside of norms to uphold the law is necessary.
I'm not a lawyer, and you are. But to me, acting on a corrupt precident for the sake of it is obeying in advance.
See the "separate but equal" doctrine.
So obey in advance?
Ben, there ARE linguistic ambiguities in their opinion, particularly in THAT portion of their opinion. I think those ambiguities are intentional, because if they mean what you think they mean, then they have gone outside their Article III powers. However if alternatively, the lower court (and their colleagues) are interpreting them overly broad, then they have plausible deniability, they did made the same claim that people interpret Bruen wrong, quite recently. If you don't confront them. as a lawyer about the ambiguities, and contradictions, then you let the broadest interpretation prevail. As officers of the court, you have a responsibility to represent your clients and use EVERY TOOL IN THE BOX.
The entire legal profession makes an enormous mistake, by not confronting them wherever they are simply wrong, or ambiguous. and by treating the ruling that way on a test, as a teacher you are complicit.
It's your responsibility as a lawyer, and your student's responsibility as future lawyers, to MAKE THEM SAY THE QUIET PART OUTLOUD, and not just mumble nonsense to support their arguments
so, as your student, I would deduct points from my esteem for making such a question "wrong"
you have to make them actually say "because we can do anything we want", if you presume that to be the case, you give them that power by default
I say that with the deepest affection and esteem, but law schools have to teach lawyers to check the supreme court or nobody will do it. It's more important than being right about how they'll rule on a given case, it's (particularly now) the most important part of their job, particularly when they do pro-bono work.