3 ms·

The case you’re referring to, Trump v. Anderson, was decided unanimously.

• adriand 2y ago
  But that’s the point! The liberal justices could rule by taking into account any number of contingent factors established by decades of precedent. But the strict constitutionalists - the conservatives - should have ruled according to the text of the constitution, which is what they constantly claim they are doing. Except it seems to be just when that happens to coincide with their ideological priors.
  • caseysoftware 2y ago
    "should have ruled according to the text of the constitution" The actual ruling was NOT an "textualist" interpretation at all. Here's a summary with the linked ruling in case you're interested: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-remove-trump-from-ballot-for-insurrection/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-state...
    • adriand 2y ago
      > The actual ruling was NOT an "textualist" interpretation at all. That’s precisely my point. They are textualists when it’s convenient. When the textualist outcome would be unsatisfactory from an ideological perspective, then they aren’t textualists any more.
      • caseysoftware 2y ago
        That's one possibility. Another is that they're "originalists" in their interpretation. How do their decisions hold up if you apply that perspective?