The dispute comes from Colorado — but it could have national implications for Trump and his political fate.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Fair point, but if the vote goes 6-3 and the Rs ignore originalism entirely in their opinion, I don’t think anyone would expect their adherence to the doctrine to change in the next case or any cases afterward. It’ll go down in the history books as a politically-motivated outlier case, not dissimilar to Bush v. Gore.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Sure, they would still adhere to originalism. But they would knowingly create a precedent where it doesn’t apply. Future Justices are supposed to respect precedent, so this means handing future liberal courts a useful new tool to dismantle their contribution to legal theory.

      Is saving Trump from himself worth ending their own legacy?

      • Nobody@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’d really like to think that these justices still care about things like legacy and consistency, but I’m not sure that’s the case. I suppose we’ll find out soon enough.

        That, or they’ll punt the ruling on some bullshit like waiting for Congress to act. That seems most likely at this point.