• hddsx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Honestly, yes. I feel like the attorney arguing for Colorado voters fell flat in his arguments. I don’t necessarily find Trump’s attorney convincing, but he did a better job. Also this is my first time listening to SCOTUS and I’m surprised how many tangents they seem to take

    • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      That is super common in supreme court cases. They really like to explore the legality of each potential argument in a lot of depth.

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well, I guess I’m surprised because Judge Cannon was criticized for trying to find arguments for Trump and it feels like SCOTUS was doing the same thing. I suppose one federal court judge doesn’t have the impact SCOTUS does so they may need to consider more than what is presented

        • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          So I’m not familiar with why that particular judge was criticized, but you’ll note that the entirety of arguments and discussion surround the brief and response letters which were submitted to the supreme court. It’s possible that Cannon was stepping outside what was presented, which would warrant criticism. The supreme court never steps outside what is presented, except when it’s necessary to understand what is being presented - for example they may call upon other legal text or rulings in order to fully frame what is and is not in scope with regards to the presented case or to understand precisely what a particular lawyer is arguing for or against.

          But I also think that the fact that the supreme court is the final court which gets to have say on a matter lends them to pontificate in depth about some issues that other courts may not be given latitude to do the same because it may address issues which are currently working their way through the court system or may be called upon as a matter of jurisprudence in the future. The entire text of every decision they make can have consequences on lower courts and understanding the limits and the spirit of law they weigh in on and as of such it’s important to fully understand the exact claims being made and appropriately scope where the response lies and whether certain issues could or should be weighed in upon during that case.

        • pixelpop3@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          After O’Connor died, there was a discussion on The Political Junkie podcast where they were talking about her autobiography and in particular, about Bush vs Gore and what they were actually thinking about that case. And it had more to do with the whole maze of where things go depending on which contingencies (i.e. what cases happen next between Bush and Gore).

          So according to her it was more about the structure of the laws and government than the decision itself. Which I don’t think is something that Cannon is dealing with. Cannons is a trial court judge. The questions at the Supreme Court are more about structure and function of the government.