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.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      They did. They unconstitutionally directed FL to use the existing counts instead of recounting districts in a uniform manner. Roger Stone and the rioters got what they wanted.

      Adults in 2000 should have done a massive protest, a general strike, something. Now here we are.