SCOTUS Declaring Trump an Insurrectionist could be a huge win for the GOP

by Ugh

As you've no doubt read or heard the Colorado Supreme Court ordered Trump removed from the GOP Presidential Primary ballot in that state because he is an insurrectionist within the ambit of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and therefore ineligible to hold the Office of the Presidency.

I haven't read that opinion so have no view on whether it's correct.

That said, is seems to me there is significant upside to the GOP if the 6 SCOTUS conservatives affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, declared Trump ineligible for the Office of the Presidency, and invalidated any vote for him, including write-ins.  

It solves the establishment GOP's "Trump problem."  He's out - therefore Haley or DeSantis wins the GOP nomination without the "screw this Democracy sh1t" baggage (I would hope!).  Further, Haley and (maybe but maybe not) DeSantis are more likely to defeat Biden than Trump.  Thus the GOP would be more assured of enacting their - admittedly horrible - policy agenda at the federal level depending on the makeup of Congress.  Finally, if it's the 6 conservatives removing Trump from the ballot, the "it's all partisan politics" viewpoint rings hallow, even if the 3 progressives join them.

Essentially - this is the moment for the GOP as represented by SCOTUS to at least at the margins live up to being "the party of Lincoln" (however much that makes me lol) while getting what they want at the end of the day anyway.

That said, the Trump MAGA "they're all members of the Deep State" viewpoint may act up and try a more violent repeat of January 6th, whether or not the GOP candidate wins.  But they would do that anyway.

So, what say you John Roberts?

Comments

[wj]

Just to pick a small nit, the Colorado Supreme Court did not say that Trump is an insurrectionist. The trial court found that to be the case. And Trump's appeal did not contest the ruling; they appealed the verdict on a couple of other grounds, but not that one.

Further, Haley and (maybe but maybe not) DeSantis are more likely to defeat Biden than Trump.

I rather doubt it. Some fraction, perhaps even a large fraction, of the MAGAts would refuse to turn out if their god-king isn't on the ballot. I suspect rather more than the number of never-Trumpers who might vote for a different Republican candidate. And that's before you consider the number of racists/misogynists who would refuse to vote for Haley.

[wj]

is[t] seems to me there is significant upside to the GOP if the 6 SCOTUS conservatives affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, declared Trump ineligible for the Office of the Presidency, and invalidated any vote for him, including write-ins.

In regards to this case, I think it matters the the Court doesn't so much have 6 conservatives as 2 ideologues, 3 party hacks, plus whatever the Chief Justice is. The hacks could go for disqualifying TIFG, for the good of the GOP. The ideologues might go for a "states rights" rationalization. Then again, they might find some 12th century case to justify reversing the Colorado SC.

In short, guessing how the case will go on appeal is chancy at best.

[CharlesWT]

The Supreme Court might reverse based on due process since Trump hasn't yet been tried and convicted of insurrection.

[ral]

[Probably this is more suited to BJ, but...]

So, what say you John Roberts?

"They don't pay me enough for this."

Just ask Clarence Thomas.

[Cheez Whiz]

So far, the GOP has dodged every opportunity to deal with their Trump problem, I don't see them grasping the nettle over a shaky State court ruling. The Party seems to be hoping Trump drops dead.

[Ugh]

The Supreme Court might reverse based on due process since Trump hasn't yet been tried and convicted of insurrection.

The 14th Amendment doesn't require a conviction.

So far, the GOP has dodged every opportunity to deal with their Trump problem

Well sure. And SCOTUS will likely find some procedural grounds to dismiss the suit without having to decide the underlying issues.

But I guess we'll see.

[Mike S]

If the Supreme Court were to boot Trump I think he'd either go scorched earth against the Republican party and tell all his voters to not vote, or he'd say I'm still running and tell his voters to write his name in. Either way there's no clean break from Trump for the R party. At this point they're in a covenant marriage whether they like or not.

[CaseyL]

Mike S - "covenant marriage" is sooo perfect a description.

Y'know, if SCOTUS doesn't reverse, just because TFG isn't on the ballot doesn't mean he can't still win the primary. MAGAts can just write in his name. Someone might want to mention that to them.

[wj]

just because TFG isn't on the ballot doesn't mean he can't still win the primary. MAGAts can just write in his name. Someone might want to mention that to them.

Don't have time to dig up the cite just now. But I believe the court ruling included his not being allowed to be a write-in candidate either. And, at least in California, you have to be registered as a write-in candidate or votes for you are simply ignored/never counted at all.

[Ugh]

The Colo court ruled that if someone writes in Trump's name on the ballot it is not to be counted.

[CharlesWT]

Blue states banning Trump from their ballots prevents him from getting electoral votes he wouldn't have gotten anyway. This makes for an even greater gap between the electoral and popular vote.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

If the Supremely Deplorable Six writes the 14th Amendment, section 3, out of the Constitution, then Biden should start an insurrection that invades and slaughters those Six.

They SAID it was OKAY!

[Hartmut]

I would prefer it to be an uncomfortable internal exile (killing justices is soo furrin and outmoded).
With a documentary: (Judicial) Report from the Aleutians (2023)
We will guarantee that there will be no protesters within several miles of their (shared) log cabin.
I hope they like fish since that will be their main diet (Thomas is so fond of paid fishing trips, so he should feel right at home).
Minefields around the island and constant patrols by armed drones

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Minefields around the island and constant patrols by armed drones"

Orcas. HUNGRY orcas.

[CaseyL]

Ugh and wj - I missed that when I read the 200 page decision - mostly skimmed it, tbh.

If SCOTUS agrees with Trump - that if he was acquitted by the Senate of insurrection, then he can't also face a criminal charge of insurrection (yes, it's absurd on its face, but absurdity* hasn't stopped SCOTUS before when they want to rule a certain way) - then that renders the Colorado Supreme Court decision moot.

Certain Justices might get a kick out of the elegance of ruling that way.

But they somehow have to make sure the ruling wouldn't also apply to Biden.

* Not to mention outright dishonesty

[skeptonomist]

If Trump is out for whatever reason Haley would probably not take his place. MAGA voters would want the closest thing to Trump, not whatever Haley is. Her supporters are different from Trump's. DeSantis might be the next best for MAGAs but he now has negatives. Or some new candidate might emerge, if possible.

But Scotus declaring Trump out is highly improbable. They might let the Colorado decision stand. Trump wouldn't get Colorado's vote in the general anyway.

[wonkie]

The Republican plan to end representative government and establish one party rule will roll along quite happily with Haley or any other Republican as President. They all support voter suppression, gerrymandering, court-packing, limitations on initiative and referendum, and the use of media to promote smears, slanders, and lies instead of actual discussion of issues. The objection to Trump is tactical: They want representative government to end quietly at the polls, not openly on TV.
.
That said, if Trump is off the ballot, other Republicans will have to triple down on the overtly crazy rhetoric to get the MAGA votes, and they will be desperate. If they don't transform themselves into proxies for TRump, I think it is likely that a significant proportion of the MAGAs will not vote for president or will write Trump in. However, since spite, resentment, and entitlement are core MAGA values, Trump being off the ballot might inspire turnout plus violence, which could happen at the same time as not voting for president or writing Trump in whether write-in counts or not.
MAGA is a toxic mix of rage and entitlement from people radicalized by Republican propaganda. Trump tapped into that and used it but the rage and entitlement, constantly reinforced by Republican media, will continue without him.
Meanwhile, the Republican authoritarians will keep undercutting and undermining and dismantling representative government thorough the Heritage Society and ALEC and groups like that while keeping quiet and keeping their agenda disguised behind platitudes.
The existential threat to America continues to be the Republican party.

[bobbyp]

The idea that the SC would uphold the Colorado court on this matter is, to put it mildly, absurd (LOL AKA "we'll see").

John Roberts is not a "moderate". Unlike Kevin McCarthy, he is a skilled partisan political operative herding his more ideologically benighted court brethren to make the conservative project manifest (the slow motion defenistration of the Voting Rights Act is the prime example).

Unfortunately for the House GOP leadership, the reverse holds, and the backbenchers rule. Their ineffectiveness cannot lull us into a false sense of security.

We are at an existential moment where, like in the 1930's the question of "which side are you on?" is the one big political question.

[hairshirthedonist]

In contrast, Biden, while far from perfect, does some things that are meaningful and good.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-issue-pardons-certain-marijuana-offenses-rcna130876

"Criminal records for marijuana use and possession have imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities," Biden said in the statement. "Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It’s time that we right these wrongs."

He also called on governors to take similar actions with state marijuana-related offenses, arguing that no one should be in jail or prison "solely due to the use or possession of marijuana."

[bobbyp]

a good take on this matter:

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/12/no-way-out-2

[Girl from the North Country]

MAGA is a toxic mix of rage and entitlement from people radicalized by Republican propaganda. Trump tapped into that and used it but the rage and entitlement, constantly reinforced by Republican media, will continue without him.

This is true. And add the Federalist Society to both wonkie's and bobbyp's list of enablers.

[email protected] and [email protected]: Agreed.

[Michael Cain]

At this point, we're all just guessing about what questions Trump will ask the SCOTUS to rule on, and which questions the SCOTUS will choose -- the appeal has not been filed and the Court hasn't granted cert. How the case proceeds would probably be quite different if they settled on "Can states decide someone is an insurrectionist even if unconvicted?" or if they look at "Can states remove candidates names from party primary ballots at all?" The Roberts court has become somewhat notorious about the questions they choose to address.

Myself, today I'm guessing they choose "Can states remove candidates' names from party presidential primary ballots at all?" and hold that they can't. Vote 8-1, Gorsuch the dissenter based on arguments he made while he was on the 10th Circuit. Tomorrow I may feel completely different.

[wj]

And add the Federalist Society to both wonkie's and bobbyp's list of enablers.

I definitely disagree. To call a major driver of a project a mere "enabler" is a misuse of the term.

[Girl from the North Country]

wj: an absolutely fair point. I stand corrected.

[wj]

GftNC: your tolerance of nit picking is appreciated.

[Sebastian]

It isn't clear to me how this will legally turn out, it seems like a very political question type thing. But your analysis of how upholding it would turn out politically seems true.

[Hartmut]

So, do we have to interprete the newest SCOTUS action as them keeping the option open to simply invalidate any conviction of His Orangeness at a point of their choice by declaring him 100% immune?
Maybe right before the election to guarantee him winning or right after in case of him winning (that way they would not risk that a Dem could make use of it as a precedent)?
Personally, I see it as mainly a case of supreme cowardice. They don't want to stick their neck out.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

If the USSC declares that preznits are legally immune for what they do in office, then Biden could put a hit on the Deplorable Six, legally.

Perhaps that will clarify their galaxy-brain thoughts on the matter. Or not.

[wj]

then Biden could put a hit on the Deplorable Six, legally.

Only if he guarantees a pardon for the hit man.** Which means the hit has to occur where the homocide is a Federal, rather than state, crime. Not impossible, but it does impose some constraints.

** It belatedly occurs to me that I've assumed he doesn't do the deed himself. Avoiding the middleman could simplify things.

[Hartmut]

A nice invitation for a candlelight dinner with amanita soup as entree and some nice belladonna cocktails, water hemlock & nux vomica salad, a fugu liver side dish, taxus berries and datura fruit as dessert and the seeds as tea, bitter almond cream.
Absolutely fresh cassava beer is a must.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

If the "hit" occurs at the Supremely Deplorable Six's workplace: DC, then it's 100% federal and Biden could certainly pardon everyone.

Biden is far too nice for this age of history.

[Michael Cain]

Personally, I see it as mainly a case of supreme cowardice. They don't want to stick their neck out.

That's basically my guess. I believe Roberts still cares somewhat about how history looks at his court and at least one of the other conservatives will go along with "the president isn't a king". Let the DC Circuit be the ones to actually say that, though, then the SCOTUS declines to hear Trump's appeal.

[wj]

Let the DC Circuit be the ones to actually say that, though, then the SCOTUS declines to hear Trump's appeal.

That's definitely their best course. Not least because, with the quality of legal team he has (not to mention his penchant for demanding stuff even they wouldn't do), there's a decent chance that the grounds for his appeal to SCOTUS will be bogus enough to justify declining to hear the appeal. Not that they need to bother to say why they are declining to hear it, of course....

[CharlesWT]

"Every year, the Supreme Court’s nine justices fill out a form that discloses their financial connections to companies and people. Using our new database, you can now search for organizations and people that have paid the justices, reimbursed them for travel, given them gifts, and more."
Supreme Connections

[wj]

Using our new database, you can now search for organizations and people that have paid the justices, reimbursed them for travel, given them gifts, and more.

More accurately, you can search for who has paid, gifted etc. the various justices that they have admitted to. But, as we know from Justice Thomas' "corrections", what they report does not always reflect reality.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks for the post, Ugh. Can't speak for the others, but I've not got the stomach to write about politics lately.

I have to admit, I misread the title and took it as the colorado decision as giving Trump a gift, which is interesting, not because I skimmed over the SCOTUS in your title but because at some level (in my mind), the GOP=Trump. An oversimplification, to be sure, but I'm just too fatigued to try and read the tea leaves.

[Pro Bono]

The originalists - five by my count - will want to find a way to rule for Trump despite what the 14th amendment plainly says. The game is to guess which argument they'll go for:

- Trump did not engage in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution, nor give aid or comfort to its enemies.

- The president is not "an officer of the United States", and/or the presidency is not "an office under the United States".

The difficulty here is that the Constitution refers nine times to "the office of President".

- The 14th amendment is not self-executing, i.e. Trump is disqualified only if Congress says so.

- Trump may or may not be excluded from the presidency, but he is not excluded from the ballot. To exclude him would preempt the option Congress has to override the disability.

- Trump's exclusion from the ballot is a question for the states severally.

I'm trying to decide which option I'd go for in their place. The fourth makes the most sense, but risks an unholy mess if Trump wins the general election. The fifth similarly. The first three are absurd. I might just vote to throw Trump off the ballot - it's not as if there are no other Republicans.

[bobbyp]

PB,

Good analysis, but I would assert that this Court's majority would simply ignore any and/or all of their stated "originalist" qualms to ensure Trump obtains relief from the Colorado SC decision.

Given these folks their intellectual predelictions and partisan leanings, I would offer that precedent*, in this case Bush v. Gore, would obtain.

*The term is used loosely here. Partisan hackery shall prevail. They shall simply make something up.

[bobbyp]

....something along the lines of the "equitable dignitude of living ex-presidents".

[wj]

I would assert that this Court's majority would simply ignore any and/or all of their stated "originalist" qualms to ensure Trump obtains relief from the Colorado SC decision.

I'm still suspecting that they will simply decline to take up the matter.

The Chief Justice still cares enough about the reputation of the Court (and about his "legacy") to not want to open this can of worms. And the 3 political hacks, like most Republican politicians, can see that the sooner TIFG is gone, the better for their party -- not needing to run for office, they are at liberty to ignore probable tantrums from the base. Thomas and Alito alone aren't enough to get the case onto the SCOTUS docket.

[Michael Cain]

Trump's exclusion from the ballot is a question for the states severally... makes the most sense, but risks an unholy mess if Trump wins the general election.

For now, they can pick this and apply it to presidential primaries only. The states are already all over the place on how candidates get on the primary ballot, and who can vote in the election. Eg, here in Colorado, I'm a registered Democrat so will receive only the Democratic primary ballot in the mail. My neighbor, who is registered unaffiliated, will get both Democratic and Republican ballots in the mail and can vote either (but not both).

[CharlesWT]

This LLM evaluation seems to imply that there are narrow procedural grounds on which the Supreme Court could use to reverse the Colorado court. I'll leave it to anyone who understands the nuances better than I to judge whether it holds water or the LLM made it up.

Acting as a generic Supreme Court justice, would you vote to uphold or reverse this court decision and why?

"As a Supreme Court justice reviewing this case, I would reverse the lower courts' rulings for the following reasons:

1. Section 1-1-113 of Colorado's Election Code was not intended to adjudicate complex constitutional disqualification claims like the one brought under Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Section 1-1-113 handles relatively straightforward issues, not those requiring extensive factual and legal analysis.

2. Section Three poses mixed questions of fact and law that surpass the competency of expedited proceedings under section 1-1-113. Resolving whether someone "engaged in insurrection" requires the interpretation of undefined constitutional terms and the application of standards to complex facts - tasks ill-suited for truncated deadlines.

3. No federal legislation currently exists to enforce Section Three. While states can assess candidate qualifications, doing so to disqualify under Section Three exceeds their authority absent enabling legislation from Congress.

4. Section Three's drafters understood that the determination of who engaged in insurrection would require procedures beyond what states could supply independently. Only Congress can furnish those needed mechanisms through appropriate legislation.

In summary, while states may examine candidate qualifications, the complexity of disqualifying someone under Section Three exceeds what Colorado's election code can appropriately handle alone. This claim fell outside section 1-1-113's narrow jurisdiction. Therefore, I would reverse the lower courts and dismiss the challenge.

—Anthropic Claude-instant-100k

[wj]

There is the detail, on the first proposed grounds, that it is a matter of state, not Federal, law. As such, SCOTUS only has jurisdiction if it contravenes the Constitution. Which, as given here, it does not appear to.

The second proposed grounds also involve matters of state law, which (again, absent conflicts with the Constitution) are outside the purview of the Federal courts.

The last two might, indeed, turn on Federal and Constitutional questions. Specifically, where the Amendment requires, or merely allows, for Congress to provide explicit processes for enforcement.

[CharlesWT]

Reasons 1 and 2 are matters of state, not federal law. As such does the Supreme Court have any jurisdiction if reasons 1 and 2 do not contravene the Constitution?

"You're right that reasons 1 and 2 relate to interpretations of state law, not federal law, so the U.S. Supreme Court may not have direct jurisdiction to review those aspects of the decision. However, the Supreme Court's review in this hypothetical scenario would be based on the overall conclusion that the Section Three claim exceeded the proper scope of the state court proceedings under section 1-1-113.

In conducting that review, reasons 1 and 2 would still be relevant indirect factors for the Supreme Court to consider in assessing whether the state courts appropriately exercised their authority under state law. Even if no direct bases for reversal on their own, reasons 1 and 2 could help inform the Supreme Court's judgment on the overall legal conclusion.

So to directly answer your question - you're correct that the Supreme Court would not have direct jurisdiction over reasons 1 and 2 as matters of state law interpretation. But they could still be relevant indirect considerations in the Court's review of the legal conclusion regarding the applicability and sufficiency of section 1-1-113 proceedings for this type of complex constitutional claim."

—Anthropic Claude-instant-100k

[skeptonomist]

Trump and Haley have largely non-overlapping groups of supporters, aside from the big money (they both support tax cuts and deregulation). Just because Haley is in second place doesn't mean she would win if Trump is out for any reason. MAGAs will shift to DeSantis as the nearest to Trump, or maybe someone else could jump in if there is time.

But the odds of six Republican Justices, or even three, banning Trump are small. The Democratic Justices are not a sure thing for this either.

[nous]

Sidney Blumenthal in the Guardian seems to think this is going to be a difficult test for the USSC:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/26/trump-us-supreme-court-crisis

Would like to know what someone with some Con Law experience thinks.

[Hartmut]

Well, SCOTUS argued that the Voting Rights Act got renewed only under duress (congresspersons only voting for it because of the consequences should they not) and thus the unanimity of the renewal by itself was proof of that. Why should they not go the next step and declare the 13th and 14th amendment nil and void since their passing was clearly not conducted in a fashion the founders intended?* The main targets were excluded from the process and many of those voting for the amendments were not really free in their decision. And at no point have the founders stated that SCOTUS could NOT declare the constitution itself to be unconstitutional.
More seriously, what would stop GOP run states from simply declaring (no need for proof) that Biden had committed something and removing him from the ballot, should SCOTUS in a complete reversal of expectations let the Colorado decision stand (and give a wink-wink-nudge-nudge in that very direction)?

Just to be clear: I am of the opinion that His Orangeness IS disqualified under the 14th and that it is pure politics to try to legally cop out on that.

*OK, that would be too risky now and should thus be left until after handing the presidency and Congress to the GOP for good.

[wj]

Blumenthal might better have written that the decision faces the Court with another legitimacy crisis. (Yes, I realize the author doesn't write the headline. But still.)

It is, just barely, possible that the Court overall will rule based on the facts and the law. But it would be amazing if none of the Justices produced opinions exhibiting the usual handwaving, smoke-and-mirrors, etc.

The only real question is "in aid of what?" That is, what particular outcome will they be seeking to justify with their opinions. I could see 5 or 6 separate opinions -- dissenting or concurring.

[ral]

[wj:] It is, just barely, possible that the Court overall will rule based on the facts and the law.

I find it sad that respect for the Supreme Court is at such a low ebb, though I quite agree with the sentiment.

Whatever the Justices decide, whatever action they take, I doubt that the legal system will save us from Donald Trump. If enough people want him to become President he will. Personally, I doubt there are "enough people" though I admit the possibility.

Perhaps assigning blame is useless, but I must point out that the GOP engineered this situation. It is the logical conclusion of deliberate policies and tactics pursued for more than thirty years. I think of Newt Gingrich as a primary instigator but really the seeds were there even before him and he has many collaborators. He (Newt) just made it manifest.

In a way, this is a test for our country. Will we pass it? [I shudder as I write this...] Stay tuned.

[Michael Cain]

Personally, I doubt there are "enough people" [to elect Trump] though I admit the possibility.

Clinton beat Trump by three million in the national popular vote, but 44,000 votes in the right states gave him the Electoral College. Biden beat Trump by seven million, but 50,000 votes going the other way in the right states would have produced an EC tie and Trump would have won the Congressional one-vote-per-state tie breaker. I would not be surprised to see Biden beat Trump in 2024 by ten million in the popular vote, but the EC come down to <100,000 votes in the right states.

[Michael Cain]

Lauren Boebert (CO-3) has announced she will be running for the open CO-4 seat instead of her current seat. Also that she doesn't plan to move the 200 miles it would take for her to actually live in that district. Colorado primary elections just got more interesting.

[wj]

Well, that does make CO-3 a bit less of an easy pickup for the Democrats.

But I'd think the CO-4 voters would prefer that a carpetbagger at least pretend to be interested enough in their distrct to live there. Some Republican will win CO-4, but it seems very unlikely that it will be Boebert.

[JanieM]

Maine secretary of state rules Donald Trump ineligible for 2024 ballot.

[wj]

We'll see how her ruling holds up in the inevitable court challenge. Perhaps Maine's Supreme Judicial Court will rule as Colorado's Supreme Court did.

[ral]

@JanieM, I wrote on Balloon Juice, "as Maine goes, so goes Maine."

Did I make this up? I seem to have heard it somewhere. :-)

[JanieM]

I think the old saying is, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation."

I haven't heard your version, but it fits. Mainers can be cantankerous. ;-)

[Pause]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Maine_goes,_so_goes_the_nation

[ral]

Ah, I see I should have checked. From the WikiPedia,

That November [1936], however, Maine and Vermont were the only states that Republican nominee Alf Landon carried over President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential election, giving Landon only eight electoral votes (the three from Vermont and the five from Maine)...

James Farley, a leading Democratic strategist who managed FDR's campaign, quipped "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont."

[Snarki, child of Loki]

*I* would like to see PA also toss Scott Perry off the ballot because of insurrection.

And Sen. Hawley's iconic photo with raised fist should be considered as "giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists" also, too.

Even if he fled them later in the day, the coward.

[wj]

Even if he fled them later in the day, the coward.

Seems like there might be an opportunity here. Suppose the Democrats nominate a woman to run against him next time. I can see an ad: the video of him running away, with a quote from him (I'm assuming there's one somewhere at some point) about how they were "just tourists". Combined with a voice over saying "Vote for [her name]; we need a Senator with balls!"** It's the kind of thing that hits RWNJs where they live. Combine that with Dobbs and Missouri might surprise.

** I seem to recall a comment about Maggie Thatcher. Not sure if it was in reference to a meeting with EU leaders or something in Parliament. "She's got more balls than any of them"

[bobbyp]

It is, just barely, possible that the Court overall will rule based on the facts and the law.

I would go along with "barely possible", but this seems optimistic. Put me down for "not likely".

The Court has been decidedly right wing since the Nixon appointments, especially with respect to issues related to our economic system-collective bargaining issues, and embarrassingly more "pro-business". This has been accompanied by a general retreat when it came to civil liberties in their criminal law rulings.

This trend accelerated with the Rehnquist ascenscion. With the assist of even more conservative appointments, the Court went off the rails in Bush v. Gore.

The descent into lawlessness accelerated with the Bush appointments (cf Shelby County), and is approaching outright nihilism with the Trump super-majority.