How can SCOTUS even have jurisdiction when the Constitution specifically gives the power to oversee elections to the States? This seems more like it should require Congress to change the Constitution if the federal government wants the power to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado.
States are allowed to make their own rules but they aren’t allowed to contradict the US Constitution. Since the US Constitution is subject to the political leanings of the current court, who tf knows what’s ever going to happen.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but they are following the Constitution in making this decision. The Constitution does not require a conviction.
I mean, three of the SCOTUS were appointed by the guy who tried to coup the U.S. government and a fourth is married to someone who also tried to coup the U.S. government. I don’t think it’s so much about whether the arguments why they “can’t” overturn it are good arguments or not at this point. It’s like telling a pidgeon to stop shitting on the chess board because shitting on the board is not a legal move in chess.
How can SCOTUS even have jurisdiction when the Constitution specifically gives the power to oversee elections to the States? This seems more like it should require Congress to change the Constitution if the federal government wants the power to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado.
States are allowed to make their own rules but they aren’t allowed to contradict the US Constitution. Since the US Constitution is subject to the political leanings of the current court, who tf knows what’s ever going to happen.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but they are following the Constitution in making this decision. The Constitution does not require a conviction.
I mean, three of the SCOTUS were appointed by the guy who tried to coup the U.S. government and a fourth is married to someone who also tried to coup the U.S. government. I don’t think it’s so much about whether the arguments why they “can’t” overturn it are good arguments or not at this point. It’s like telling a pidgeon to stop shitting on the chess board because shitting on the board is not a legal move in chess.
It has no constitutional implication aside from the state constitution. The supreme court can’t touch that issue.