The Infant Footprint

So, I've changed my mind. You can do that, you know. You are not your opinions, and there's nothing wrong with drawing new and different conclusions, even if still looking at the same data.  In fact, it's a far better way to think and to act than rigorously sticking by your opinions even in the face of changing conditions.

Anyway, the other day I grudgingly conceded that the U.S. Supreme Court had a point in Trump v. Anderson, the Colorado ballot case, that perhaps state election boards shouldn't be the ones to enforce the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. I still agree that "perhaps" they shouldn't (or shouldn't have to), but I now also hold the view that in the absence of anyone else enforcing the Amendment, there's no reason that state election boards couldn't. If a known insurrectionist is running for a Federal office, including the Presidency, state election board shouldn't be forced into the unconstitutional position of putting an unqualified candidate on the ballot, even if no one else first objects.

Also, the Justices, sadly including several of the so-called "liberal" judges, expressed skepticism of Colorado's decision on the basis of the political outcome.  Justice Kagan asked if one state should really be allowed to decide the outcome of an election for the rest of the country. Doesn't that effectively disenfranchise the rest of the country?, she asked.

That question doesn't hold up to scrutiny very well. If we're really going to look at the politics of this, Trump was never going to get Colorado's electoral votes anyway in the current, winner-takes-all system. And the concern that another state, say, Texas, could counter by taking Biden off the ballot ignores the checks and balances of lawsuits to protect the people from crass, arbitrary-and-capricious, purely political moves and overlooks the fact that Trump did indeed try to overturn the election by interfering with the electoral due process. But Biden was never going to get Texas' electoral votes in any regard, so there's really no net change.

Also, since when does the Supreme Court make decisions based on the potential consequences? They uphold their interpretation of Second Amendment rights to bear arms despite soaring handgun crimes, a staggering murder rate, and an escalating policing crisis. Taken from an originalist position, either the  Constitution bars an insurrectionist from holding Federal office or it doesn't, regardless of the fact that a current candidate engaged in a failed insurrection. 

I've changed my mind.  The Supreme Court did not get it right. They were wrong, and now the nation has to live and carry on with the weight of their wrong decision.