SCOTUS: An insurrectionist who attempted to overthrow a presidential election will remain on the ballot.

Sean Wilentz writing in The New York Review: The lead of any story about the decision in Trump v. Anderson should be that the Court has unanimously ruled that an insurrectionist who attempted to overthrow a presidential election will remain on the presidential ballot. As far as it goes, that statement is accurate. But the brazenness with which the majority exercised its power to reach a decision in flagrant contradiction of the Constitution’s plain meaning has deeper significance. 

It offers final proof, if any more were needed, that textualism and originalism, the doctrines on which conservatives have long based their judicial philosophy, are nothing but instruments of right-wing activism to produce prearranged outcomes. 

The Court severely weakened an essential constitutional barrier to violent despotism that had been erected in the aftermath of the Civil War. That the minority decided to issue what might be called a dissenting concurrence—quickly agreeing on a particular point while demolishing the majority’s main argument—only underscores how corrupt the Court’s majority has become.

To read more CLICK HERE