I’m trying to think of other possible justifications that the Supreme Court could use. Could they possibly nullify or neuter the 22nd Amendment? What justification could they use based on historical precedent, which the Heritage Foundation members cling to so tightly?
Could they just delay, delay, delay until making a decision after the election, then citing said election as precedent?
I am not familiar with the majority opinion in Trump v Anderson which must have laid out the legal reasoning why the Supreme Court was able to keep Trump on the ballot. It looks like it uses a clause in the fourteenth amendment to simply devolve the decision making power which seems to be an effective dodge and deflection to political winds.
Bang. That’s the way it could feasibly play out.
I’m trying to think of other possible justifications that the Supreme Court could use. Could they possibly nullify or neuter the 22nd Amendment? What justification could they use based on historical precedent, which the Heritage Foundation members cling to so tightly?
Could they just delay, delay, delay until making a decision after the election, then citing said election as precedent?
I am not familiar with the majority opinion in Trump v Anderson which must have laid out the legal reasoning why the Supreme Court was able to keep Trump on the ballot. It looks like it uses a clause in the fourteenth amendment to simply devolve the decision making power which seems to be an effective dodge and deflection to political winds.