It may be the highest court in the land, but how far can it go?
Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to take his bid to stay on the ballot in Colorado. In a narrow sense, it’s very straightforward: Trump is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Colorado state Supreme Court’s decision that disqualified him.
They’re never going to reach the merits. They have a really easy and obvious glidepath towards holding that it’s non-justiciable because Congress hasn’t passed enabling legislation to allow courts to adjudicate it.
> “It’s a dangerous one. And at that point, he’s gotta hope that the court agrees,” Schultz said. “Because at that point, the court may very well be bound by the decision by uthe district court in Colorado. That was, in terms of the fact finding at that point, a very risky move for him.”
Hmmmm, with this SCOTUS, it’s not that much of a risk… and besides, he’s got to try, literally, anything and everything to get himself elected and/or out of jail.
Edited to withdraw, in light of @txlawyer’s expertise
Awaiting a decision and rationale from a known to be corrupt and politicized Court, 1/3 of which was appointed by The Defendant, and who could legitimately be recused from the case, but who won’t. Thus setting a precedent for all time. Why do I feel the Constitutional order crumbling beneath my feet?
Such deference is to be commended! 
SCOTUS justices have never recused from a case just because they were appointed by a particular president.
LOL, but bowing at the same time 
I don’t think so. This is not like a right that needs to have enabling legislation to be activated or a remedy for its violation provided. This is a qualification for office. There is no need for enabling legislation to require a candidate to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen, that’s just the rules. That said, it’s a disingenuous way for this illegitimate court to take an offramp
The Supreme Court will be bound by the evidentiary record established in the trial court proceeding. It’s not a fact-finding body; it interprets Constitutional law.
I dunno. This version of the Supreme Court doesn’t seem bound by any existing evidentiary record or even their own precedent.
That didn’t seem necessary after 1865. And New Mexico has already DQ’d a county commissioner on that basis. … Of course, “Coupie” Cowboy didn’t take his case to the Scotus.
They are absolutely going to interject themselves in this case. Remember, the Supremes showed no ‘deference’ to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision holding that Florida law allowed a statewide recount of the ballots to ascertain “the intent of the voter” in examining chads, etc. Instead, the Supremes conconcted a bogus ‘equal protection’ theory - for use in this single case alone! - in order to stop the vote counting and give George W. Bush the presidency.
Au contraire:
See also Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 345 (1879):
Couy Griffin didn’t have a lawyer and wasn’t near smart enough to raise the justiciability issue on his own.
This is going to be another example of our government ultimately functioning on the honor system, isn’t it
Nope
If that is eventually the case, then that’s one more box that SCOTUS shouldn’t open.
Just 1865?
Is it too cynical of me to assume it’s not “dangerous” because enough of the parties involved have conferred and know how this comes out?
The issue of access to the tapes went to the United States Supreme Court. On July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon , the Court ruled unanimously (8–0) that claims of executive privilege over the tapes were void. (Then-Justice William Rehnquist—who had recently been appointed to the Court by Nixon and most recently served in the Nixon Justice Department as Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel—recused himself from the case.) The Court ordered the President to release the tapes to the special prosecutor. On July 30, 1974, Nixon complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes to the public.