In arguments Thursday, the justices will, for the first time, wrestle with a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from reclaiming power.

The case is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively delivered the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. It comes to a court that has been buffeted by criticism over ethics, which led the justices to adopt their first code of conduct in November, and at a time when public approval of the court is diminished, at near-record lows in surveys.

The dispute stems from the push by Republican and independent voters in Colorado to kick Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

  • MxM111@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Here is one: the constitution says nothing about being on the ballot. Only about serving.

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Having someone on the ballot who is ineligible to serve has already been tried (before Gorsuch before he was on the SCOTUS) and it turns out if you can’t serve you can’t be on may be excluded from the ballot. This from following legal blogs so apologies if I don’t have that quite right.