'Conundrum': SCOTUS conservatives face 'brutal dilemma' in choosing Trump or this favored doctrine

[Tom of Temecula]

Following last week's groundbreaking ruling from the Colorado supreme court that disqualified former President Donald Trump from the state's Republican primary ballot, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) now has a difficult choice to make, according to a Democratic strategist.

In a recent column for the Guardian, Sidney Blumenthal — who was a senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton — wrote that the Anderson v. Griswold case in Colorado will be a turning point for SCOTUS. Currently, conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority on the nation's highest court, with three of those conservative judges having been appointed directly by Trump. As Blumenthal wrote, several of those justices have openly endorsed the judicial philosophies of "originalism" and "textualism" (which both endorse a more literal interpretation of the Constitution with less regard for context or application in modern society).

Because Trump was disqualified from the Colorado ballot on the grounds that he violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment — the so-called "insurrection clause" — due to his role in the deadly US Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, Blumenthal argued that SCOTUS conservatives' guiding philosophies would naturally mean an "open and shut" decision upholding Anderson. However, should they choose to side with Trump, that would mean discarding the doctrine SCOTUS' majority has already used to decide so many other pivotal cases.

"The Colorado supreme court found, without disagreement, and by clear and convincing evidence, that Trump indeed engaged in insurrection on January 6," Blumenthal wrote. "On the facts and the law, the court majority faces a brutal dilemma: either uphold Trump’s disqualification or shred the doctrine on which their conservative jurisprudence stands."

https://www.alternet.org/scotus-brutal-dilemma-trump/

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. ROFL!!!!

[dalton99a]

2. "Go home to Satan, son of a bitch"

[Ocelot II]

3. I think that's a false conundrum. SCOTUS doesn't have to choose TFG;

they never have. They've ruled against him or declined review in all of his and his allies' election cases so far. The majority is conservative - in some cases almost ridiculously so (Thomas and Alito are almost off the charts), but they aren't really Trumpers. Their conservatism leans toward protection of business interests and religion, mixed with a bit of libertarianism, and with a disregard of individual liberties to the extent those conflict with business interests and religion - but conservatism and Trumpism are not the same. I could see Thomas and Alito trying to give TFG a break because they're nuts and would rather see a berserker like him in the White House because money, but the others might recognize that in the long run he's bad for business. The corporate interests hate chaos and uncertainly, which TFG produces in abundance, and they also would hate having a president do to them what DeSantis tried to do to Disney, which is bigfoot them if they don't do what he wants.

The justices don't owe him anything because they are appointed for life, and in a normal world they wouldn't have to consider political retribution for an adverse decision. But they might consider the possibility that in a second term TFG would go full-on dictator and try in some way to control or even eliminate them. Maybe they wouldn't want to risk that possibility, and would conclude that by upholding the Colorado case and allowing his fat orange ass to be kicked off ballots in any states that decide to do it, they might be saving their own hides. And they could do it by hiding behind their own philosophy of originalism.

[NYC Liberal]

7. Nail on the head.

Yes, their decisions may align with his politics because, well, they are conservative, but I haven't seen any indication that they are loyal to or inclined to help him personally. They did nothing to help him overturn the election in 2020.

TFG would go full-on dictator and try in some way to control or even eliminate them

This is precisely why I think they will rule against him.

I think the worst case scenario is, depending on when they rule, they may punt it and say a conviction is required. But that brings up a whole new potential crisis, which is that he is convicted between election day and inauguration. Or he's sworn in while the jury is still deliberating and is convicted after taking office (an unlikely but possible scenario where he couldn't withdraw the case when he's president again). Not necessarily a constitutional crisis because the 20th Amendment covers a president-elect being disqualified, but still would not be good for the country.

[paleotn]

8. Exactly. They owe Donnie the Orange nothing really.

He nominated whoever was suggested he nominate and didn't know any of those people from Adam's off ox. In fact, it can be argued that the opposite is true with David Souter and others. Judicial independence is strong with a lifetime appointment.

[ShazzieB]

12. Hard agree.

I'm sure Trump expected that the 3 he appointed would always be on his side, because everything is transactional to him. But they have repeatedly shown that they have a different view of things, and I'd be very surprised to see that change at this stage of the game.

[barbtries]

16. I agree this is a false conundrum.

the problem they need to grapple with is is this a nation of laws or of men.

Do they even care about the law. Not when it comes to women; how about when it comes to trump. I can't even think of all the ways to describe trump.

Will their ass backward ideologies send the US off a cliff or not? Thomas should be recused but that won't happen; even if his wife was a fucking defendant he wouldn't as he has proven he is not an ethical person.

personally i'm scared shitless about this and it's a bad, bad feeling.

[Hekate]

17. That's a well thought out point of view -- and under the circs, hopeful

[MOMFUDSKI]

4. Fun to watch

them squirm. I don’t think they will go against CO.

[tanyev]

5. Do they choose law they've claimed to support or the Don they've been appointed to serve?

A consigliere conundrum, indeed.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. We Had The Same Discussion Here...

...late last week. (Or Saturday) They have to vote to uphold or expose their own duplicity.
Now, I don't think it's certain they care about looking duplicitous, but the article is accurate.

[Buns_of_Fire]

9. ...while Alito is busily poring over the Code of Hammurabi

to find some precedent he can use to screw up everything...

[gratuitous]

11. That's my take on it

They'll just figure out what their desired outcome is, then reverse-engineer some "legal" "reasoning" to support that outcome.

[TheRickles]

13. Great use of the term "reverse-engineer". Describes the process perfectly.

[Hekate]

15. Right. He went pretty far back for Dobbs: one British jurist from before the USA & one medieval cleric

Why not Hammurabi?

[2naSalit]

10. K&R

[peppertree]

14. Blumenthal forgets that Republicans' favorite philosopher, is Groucho Marx:

[GreenWave]

18. 3 of those "Just Us es " helped W defeat Gore. They made a very specific rule.

As I understand the 14th, NO court conviction was required when it was enacted. It was designed to keep Confederates out of office. If we cared at all about the USA, we saw Trump squeal with delight for 3 hours while his minions attacked the Capital. Back in the 1860's they did not have the luxury of television. And they were still disqualified.