SCOTUS Watch

[Smoove_B]

Court reform would required overwhelming party support from President and Congress, right? Maybe I'm terminally cynical at this point, but I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where there is first, a Democrat controlled Congress that would then able to (2) agree on and (3) pass legislation that would expand the SCOTUS.

Dysfunction seems to be the norm now; non-stop logjam.

[LordMortis]

A few years is an unrealistically optimistic notion of when the SC issue will be resolved. It'll probably be at least a decade.

I’d put the over/under at 2.5 decades.

What are the ages of Supreme Court justices in 2023?

Justice Thomas, 75.
Justice Alito, 73.
Justice Sotomayor, 69.
Chief Justice Roberts, 68.
Justice Kagan, 63.
Justice Kavanaugh, 58.
Justice Gorsuch, 56.
Justice Jackson, 53.

Could happen in a decade but it's unlikely. I put the over under at 17 years, if we haven't lost our republic to fascism or crony capitalism before then.

[malchior]

Could happen in a decade but it's unlikely. I put the over under at 17 years, if we haven't lost our republic to fascism or crony capitalism before then.

Unfortunately it'll likely be both hand-in-hand.

[Blackhawk]

A few years is an unrealistically optimistic notion of when the SC issue will be resolved. It'll probably be at least a decade.

I’d put the over/under at 2.5 decades.

Thus the rolley-eyes in my post.

The chances are slim of it happening, but I also suspect that if reform (of any branch) is to happen, it's going to have to be very soon. Another decade+ with the status quo, and we'll be past fixing it.

[Kraken]

A few years is an unrealistically optimistic notion of when the SC issue will be resolved. It'll probably be at least a decade.

I’d put the over/under at 2.5 decades.

Maybe even longer. No Democratic president will ever be able to appoint another justice without a Democratic Senate to confirm. Openings are so infrequent, and occur so randomly, that the odds of those circumstances aligning are low.

[Unagi]

even longer. No Democratic president will ever be able to appoint another justice without a Democratic Senate to confirm.

Yeah, I was too lazy to post this earlier, but this was my thought as well.

[Jaymann]

The Orange Floridian will only overthrow the government for one day...maybe three.

[waitingtoconnect]

A few years is an unrealistically optimistic notion of when the SC issue will be resolved. It'll probably be at least a decade.

I’d put the over/under at 2.5 decades.

Maybe even longer. No Democratic president will ever be able to appoint another justice without a Democratic Senate to confirm. Openings are so infrequent, and occur so randomly, that the odds of those circumstances aligning are low.

And the odds that a West Virgina or an Arizona senator wont' upend the apple cart in order to get some leverage or an oil pipeline is incredibly low.

[Pyperkub]

By the headline (Supreme Court steps into Starbucks union fight ), I thought this was the Supremes about to make more RW Labor/gov't Regulation fantasies come true. It still might, but there appears to be a legitimate Supreme Court issue to be decided:

The 6th Circuit, along with four other federal appeals courts, grants the NLRB’s injunction requests when they clear a two-factor “reasonable cause” test showing the employer engaged in unfair labor practices.

Four other federal appeals courts employ a four-factor test used in other contexts when parties seek preliminary injunctions, a standard Starbucks argues is higher.

but, I have zero confidence the Supremes will do anything but adopt the more pro-business/anti-labor tests. Since Citizens United, that has been the primary determining factor in most cases they take, it appears.

[malchior]

WaPo

Good piece discussing the issues as SCOTUS looks to potentially undo Chevron. That threatens to make the United States even more dysfunctional. Could you imagine regulations of the land being decided inconsistently across the United States by partisan judges? This isn't even a theoretical question as we're already dealing with that at a lower scale in the 5th circuit.

A slender, silvery fish, sold for bait and canned as sardines, has the potential to play an outsize role in weakening the power of federal agencies to regulate vast areas of American life — overturning long-standing Supreme Court precedent in the process.

But the case before the high court this week is not really about the herring.

For 40 years, courts have generally deferred to the judgment of federal agencies when it comes to turning laws passed by Congress into detailed regulations designed to protect the environment, consumers and the workplace.

...

Now the high court is reviewing a pair of challenges to federal rules requiring commercial fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors — cases that could lead to the demise of Chevron, much as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022 overturned the historic Roe v. Wade ruling and eliminated the nationwide right to abortion.

...

The cases brought by Atlantic herring fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island will be argued Wednesday before a court remade by the addition of three justices nominated by President Donald Trump, whose administration put a premium on judges skeptical of federal government power.

Both lawsuits are backed by conservative legal organizations — the Cause of Action Institute and New Civil Liberties Alliance — that have received millions of dollars from the Koch network, founded by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch and his late brother, David Koch.

The framework, known as “Chevron deference,” may sound like a boring academic exercise, said William & Mary law professor Allison Orr Larsen, who specializes in administrative law. But the question of how much flexibility to give federal agencies to implement laws passed by Congress has enormous implications.

“There’s a lot of money and practical consequences attached to those legal ambiguities,” Larsen said. “It’s ultimately a question about who decides. Is it an agency who decides or a court?”

...

The framework for courts to evaluate agency action was not always the target of conservative derision. Justice Antonin Scalia, who taught administrative law, endorsed the precedent early in his tenure in a 1989 Duke Law School speech. “In the long run Chevron will endure and be given its full scope — not so much because it represents a rule that is easier to follow and thus easier to predict (though that is true enough), but because it more accurately reflects the reality of government, and thus more adequately serves its needs,” he predicted.

Years later, however, legal scholars point to opinions Scalia wrote that demonstrated greater skepticism of agency power, including in cases involving Environmental Protection Agency rules.

...

When the Supreme Court initially agreed to take the New Jersey case in May, it rejected a narrow question posed by the challengers and said it would only consider something broader: whether to overturn or scale back Chevron.

...

Kristin Hickman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, predicted the court may stop short of scrapping precedent and said agencies are well-positioned to decide how to implement the more technical aspects of statutes Congress has passed when the tools of interpretation that judges typically apply don’t offer clear answers.

“Let’s be real, the courts are not best suited for making those kinds of policy choices,” Hickman said. “If you left it to all the lower courts, you would end up with a lot of inconsistency. That’s not helpful for people trying to comply with regulations when you’re talking about the national economy.”

[malchior]

Listening to the argumentation it seems like Chevron is dead as a doornail. I haven't listened to these tyrants in a while now but I'm struck by how dishonest they are. I recommend people listen to how they present their arguments at least every once in a while. They're such dishonest brokers. I mean...for example...Alito literally said out loud that they can't be worried about judges inserting their policy preferences into their judicial decisions because it doesn't happen.

Kavanaugh at one point argued that it is not like policy is any more stable than a regime where judges decide it because policies change between administrations. You know...like democracies do...

[Zarathud]

The Republican Party engineered their SCOTUS appointments to get this activist result.

The whole point of Chevron deference is to handle conflict until Congress changes it’s mind by overriding the regulation. If judges can insert their policy preference over the Executive branch, that opens a floodgate of litigation and inconsistent enforcement as cases are brought before partisan judges. It weakens government consistency and function.

[stessier]

Which is the desired result, no?

[Zarathud]

Yes, Republican policy is stupid. Maximum damage to prove your allegiance to doctrine.

[malchior]

Some January 6th rioters have being sprung early because SCOTUS is taking up a case that may see many of their charges ruled unconstitutional. Sure why not. If you weren't individually violent when you tried to stop the transfer of power it's somehow not obstructing a proceeding? Isn't that the boil down of the theory here? I was very skeptical that they took this case and still believe they'll uphold it. I'm just confused why we're springing prisoners until it's over.

CNN

Last week, one convicted rioter already in jail successfully won an early release set for May. That rioter, Alexander Sheppard, will serve only six months of his 19-month sentence. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, he may be free after that or be forced to return to prison to finish out his sentence.

Another rioter, Kevin Seefried, the Delaware drywall installer who notoriously carried a Confederate flag into the Capitol, is arguing for a similar early release. A few others have been able to postpone their sentencings, meaning they won’t be sentenced or have to report to jail until the Supreme Court rules on the case, which might not happen until late June.

...

The case – brought by Joseph Fischer, a former police patrolman from central Pennsylvania who was convicted of obstruction for charging the police line at the Capitol – cuts to the heart of how the DOJ has secured felony convictions against hundreds of January 6 rioters. In those cases, the DOJ successfully argued they committed a felony by obstructing a federal proceeding.

...

The outcome at the Supreme Court is likely to have the greatest impact on riot defendants whose sole felony count is obstruction of an official proceeding — in other words, those who weren’t violent during the riot.

That amounts to roughly two dozen defendants who have been sentenced as of early January for a single felony charge of obstruction, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia said.

The question raised by Fischer is whether that law could apply to congressional proceedings like the certification of the 2020 election that was disrupted on January 6, 2021.

That is the same law that Smith used to secure an indictment on two of the charges against Trump in the federal election interference case. The former president’s lawyers plan to make challenges in his case around the obstruction law if it returns to the trial judge before the Supreme Court rules, a source has told CNN.

[Smoove_B]

I'm guessing nothing will happen:

Two days before oral arguments in a US supreme court case set to have a major impact on federal health and environmental regulation, a leading government watchdog called on Neil Gorsuch to recuse himself over close links to a billionaire oil baron who has hosted the rightwing justice at a mountain resort called Eagles Nest for weekends of dove shooting and who stands to benefit from the ruling at hand.

...

Gorsuch has indicated he thinks Chevron should go.

Like Gorsuch, 56, Anschutz, 84, is from Colorado. Anschutz has interests in energy, railroads, telecoms, real estate and entertainment, owning the Los Angeles Kings in the NHL, a stake in the Los Angeles Galaxy of MLS and the Coachella music festival. Forbes magazine pegs his fortune at $14.9bn, quoting him thus: “When you see what can be done, the possibilities, you want to be involved in something. You want to own it.”

Anschutz’s ties to Gorsuch are a matter of public record.

[Pyperkub]

I'm guessing nothing will happen:

Two days before oral arguments in a US supreme court case set to have a major impact on federal health and environmental regulation, a leading government watchdog called on Neil Gorsuch to recuse himself over close links to a billionaire oil baron who has hosted the rightwing justice at a mountain resort called Eagles Nest for weekends of dove shooting and who stands to benefit from the ruling at hand.

...

Gorsuch has indicated he thinks Chevron should go.

Like Gorsuch, 56, Anschutz, 84, is from Colorado. Anschutz has interests in energy, railroads, telecoms, real estate and entertainment, owning the Los Angeles Kings in the NHL, a stake in the Los Angeles Galaxy of MLS and the Coachella music festival. Forbes magazine pegs his fortune at $14.9bn, quoting him thus: “When you see what can be done, the possibilities, you want to be involved in something. You want to own it.”

Anschutz’s ties to Gorsuch are a matter of public record.

No recusal I'm assuming, not 'nothing' as in overturn of Chevron, that is.

[Blackhawk]

hosted the rightwing justice at a mountain resort called Eagles Nest

Talk about a dog whistle...

[Unagi]

hosted the rightwing justice at a mountain resort called Eagles Nest

Talk about a dog whistle...

You clipped off the best part!

for weekends of dove shooting

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I was going to comment on both of those things, but it honestly seemed like cartoon villain level of evil.

[Kurth]

hosted the rightwing justice at a mountain resort called Eagles Nest

Talk about a dog whistle...

Come on, now. I’m a die hard Philadelphia Eagles fan, and I have a loft where I watch games which I’ve dubbed, “The Eagles Nest.”

I’m not dog-whistling anyone!

[$iljanus]

I'm guessing nothing will happen:

Two days before oral arguments in a US supreme court case set to have a major impact on federal health and environmental regulation, a leading government watchdog called on Neil Gorsuch to recuse himself over close links to a billionaire oil baron who has hosted the rightwing justice at a mountain resort called Eagles Nest for weekends of dove shooting and who stands to benefit from the ruling at hand.

...

Gorsuch has indicated he thinks Chevron should go.

Like Gorsuch, 56, Anschutz, 84, is from Colorado. Anschutz has interests in energy, railroads, telecoms, real estate and entertainment, owning the Los Angeles Kings in the NHL, a stake in the Los Angeles Galaxy of MLS and the Coachella music festival. Forbes magazine pegs his fortune at $14.9bn, quoting him thus: “When you see what can be done, the possibilities, you want to be involved in something. You want to own it.”

Anschutz’s ties to Gorsuch are a matter of public record.

Every time I see Anschutz my mind sees the word “Anschluss”. But I guess it kinda fits with that whole Eagles Nest theme.

[Blackhawk]

Every time I see Anschutz my mind sees the word “Anschluss”. But I guess it kinda fits with that whole Eagles Nest theme.

And I see Arschloch.

[Kraken]

Every time I see Anschutz my mind sees the word “Anschluss”. But I guess it kinda fits with that whole Eagles Nest theme.

And I see Arschloch.

And I see Auschwitz

[Smoove_B]

Vox giving away the surprise ending:

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during Wednesday’s arguments, Chevron forces judges to grapple with a very basic question: “When does the court decide that this is not my call?”

And yet, four members of the Supreme Court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — spent much of Wednesday’s arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce speaking of Chevron with the same contempt most judges reserve for cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the pro-segregation decision rejected by Brown.

...

None of the Court’s three Democratic appointees were open to the massive transfer of power to federal judges contemplated by the plaintiffs in these two cases. That leaves Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the two votes that remain uncertain. To prevail — and to keep Chevron alive — the Justice Department needed its arguments to persuade both Roberts and Barrett to stay their hands.

Barrett, of the two, appeared the most open to preserving Chevron. Among other things, she repeatedly expressed concerns about the disruptive consequences that would result from overruling one of the most widely cited Supreme Court decisions of the last century. As Justice Elena Kagan noted at one point, Chevron has been cited by 17,000 lower court decisions, and Barrett appeared troubled by the “flood of litigation” that would result if all of these decisions were called into question.

Roberts, meanwhile, spent much of Wednesday’s arguments downplaying the significance of Chevron. That said, the Chief did have a colloquy with Paul Clement, one of the lawyers arguing in favor of overruling Chevron, which suggests he may be looking for a way to hand Clement’s client a narrow victory without deciding if Chevron itself should fall.

What the article author believes:

Spoiler:

So the bottom line is that, if you are a gambler, you should bet on Chevron being overruled. But there is an off chance that Roberts and Barrett will decide not to make one of the biggest power shifts to an unelected branch of government in American history.

[Dogstar]

Texas has decided to string more razor wire at Eagle Pass in defiance of the Supreme Court order authorizing federal agents to cut/remove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Isgrimnur]

Did SCOTUS actually tell Texas to stop?

[malchior]

Did SCOTUS actually tell Texas to stop?

No it rescinded an order that said the border patrol could not cut it.

[Isgrimnur]

[Dogstar]

Did SCOTUS actually tell Texas to stop?

Isgrimnur is correct, and I should have been more careful with my post. Just seems like a "Screw you!" gesture from Texas. Now if the Texas National Guard or other Texas officials prevent federal agents from cutting/removing the wire, then we'll have a more significant problem.

Perfect GIF response, Isgrimnur.

[Blackhawk]

Did SCOTUS actually tell Texas to stop?

Isgrimnur is correct, and I should have been more careful with my post. Just seems like a "Screw you!" gesture from Texas. Now if the Texas National Guard or other Texas officials prevent federal agents from cutting/removing the wire, then we'll have a more significant problem.

Which, given the recent statements, might be exactly what they're setting up.

[Kurth]

I’ve been following the Great Sardine case and the analysis of what SCOTUS is likely to do with Chevron deference. No spoiler needed, we all know they’re going to nuke or at least neuter it. But here’s my stab at a hot take: Maybe this isn’t a bad thing.

First, I understand why throwing out Chevron creates a potentially chaotic mess. Congress has always passed statutes with a fair bit of ambiguity, and that has been a feature, not a bug. They’re not subject matter experts and cannot predict future developments with any reliability. So they generally pass laws painted with broad strokes and let the administrative agencies fill in the details on implementation. Courts have always, under Chevron, shown extreme deference to administrative agencies in this regard, upholding any reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although the courts — and this SCOTUS — have been retreating from Chevron deference in practice for a while now, killing it off outright would be a sea change and essentially an enormous power grab by the judicial branch.

What strikes me as strange is how at odds this is with the longstanding conservative pushback against “unelected, activist judges.” There’s really no explanation (at least, not one that doesn’t start with a $) to square their hatred of activist judges with their aggressive mission to push power from administrative agencies to the judiciary.

But setting that aside, maybe it’s not such a bad thing considering where our democracy is right now and where it’s headed. Call me a pessimist, but I believe we’re about to elect (crown) Trump in 2024. While my faith in the judiciary has been significantly eroded, it’s still miles above my confidence in a Trump administration’s take on what is and is not reasonable.

There’s a large segment of this country that appears to be 100% ok with making the jump from a representative democracy to an authoritarian strongman. Set against that backdrop, is it really such a bad thing that the judiciary is making a power grab right now that will significantly diminish the power of the executive branch?

[ImLawBoy]

What strikes me as strange is how at odds this is with the longstanding conservative pushback against “unelected, activist judges.” There’s really no explanation (at least, not one that doesn’t start with a $) to square their hatred of activist judges with their aggressive mission to push power from administrative agencies to the judiciary.

That's because their issue was never really with unelected, activist judges. Their issue was with judges who didn't rule the way they wanted.

But setting that aside, maybe it’s not such a bad thing considering where our democracy is right now and where it’s headed. Call me a pessimist, but I believe we’re about to elect (crown) Trump in 2024. While my faith in the judiciary has been significantly eroded, it’s still miles above my confidence in a Trump administration’s take on what is and is not reasonable.

There’s a large segment of this country that appears to be 100% ok with making the jump from a representative democracy to an authoritarian strongman. Set against that backdrop, is it really such a bad thing that the judiciary is making a power grab right now that will significantly diminish the power of the executive branch?

If you're right and Trump does win in 2024, then he'll continue to load the judiciary with partisan judges with marginal (at best) qualifications. Seems like, at best, a push to me.

[Kurth]

What strikes me as strange is how at odds this is with the longstanding conservative pushback against “unelected, activist judges.” There’s really no explanation (at least, not one that doesn’t start with a $) to square their hatred of activist judges with their aggressive mission to push power from administrative agencies to the judiciary.

That's because their issue was never really with unelected, activist judges. Their issue was with judges who didn't rule the way they wanted.

But setting that aside, maybe it’s not such a bad thing considering where our democracy is right now and where it’s headed. Call me a pessimist, but I believe we’re about to elect (crown) Trump in 2024. While my faith in the judiciary has been significantly eroded, it’s still miles above my confidence in a Trump administration’s take on what is and is not reasonable.

There’s a large segment of this country that appears to be 100% ok with making the jump from a representative democracy to an authoritarian strongman. Set against that backdrop, is it really such a bad thing that the judiciary is making a power grab right now that will significantly diminish the power of the executive branch?

If you're right and Trump does win in 2024, then he'll continue to load the judiciary with partisan judges with marginal (at best) qualifications. Seems like, at best, a push to me.

Yes, I hear that. But I think the conversion of the judiciary is a longer running project, one in which conservatives have admittedly made major inroads (especially at the Supreme Court), but not one that is overwhelming or complete by any stretch.

More importantly, I still believe most conservative judges are not going to rubber stamp Trump authoritarianism. Sure, there are some examples of completely unqualified Trump Toadies like Cannon, but, at least from my experience with the federal judiciary, those types of judges are still few and far between. It may not be what it once was, but the judiciary is still our best defense against an overreaching executive. And I fear we’re going to need that defense more than ever in the near future.

[Pyperkub]

More importantly, I still believe most conservative judges are not going to rubber stamp Trump authoritarianism.

Don't dig in too deep on this belief - money is changing it RAPIDLY. The Federalist Society is increasingly becoming the dominant path to the Federal Judiciary under conservative Presidents.

Approximately half of Bush's nominees for appellate court judgeships were Federalist Society members

And Trump:

nearly 90% of Trump’s appellate judges, and both his Supreme Court justices, are members of the so-called Federalist Society. On the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas?—?all are members. Now that’s a little weird. What’s really weird is that through this Federalist Society vehicle, big special interests are picking federal judges.

More on this branch of the Federalist society from the Whitehouse page:

Then there is the third Federalist Society. This one doesn’t have much in common with the law school debating society, and it certainly doesn’t operate like your run-of-the-mill Washington think tank. This Federalist Society is the nerve center for a complicated apparatus that does not care much about conservative principles like judicial restraint, or originalism, or textualism. This Federalist Society is the vehicle for powerful interests, which seek not to simply “reorder” the judiciary, but to acquire control of the judiciary to benefit their interests.

This selling of the Judiciary is accelerating (the Federalist Society has only been around for 20-30 years, and is dramatically stepping up its game).

[Kurth]

More importantly, I still believe most conservative judges are not going to rubber stamp Trump authoritarianism.

Don't dig in too deep on this belief - money is changing it RAPIDLY. The Federalist Society is increasingly becoming the dominant path to the Federal Judiciary under conservative Presidents.

Approximately half of Bush's nominees for appellate court judgeships were Federalist Society members

And Trump:

nearly 90% of Trump’s appellate judges, and both his Supreme Court justices, are members of the so-called Federalist Society. On the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas?—?all are members. Now that’s a little weird. What’s really weird is that through this Federalist Society vehicle, big special interests are picking federal judges.

More on this branch of the Federalist society from the Whitehouse page:

Then there is the third Federalist Society. This one doesn’t have much in common with the law school debating society, and it certainly doesn’t operate like your run-of-the-mill Washington think tank. This Federalist Society is the nerve center for a complicated apparatus that does not care much about conservative principles like judicial restraint, or originalism, or textualism. This Federalist Society is the vehicle for powerful interests, which seek not to simply “reorder” the judiciary, but to acquire control of the judiciary to benefit their interests.

This selling of the Judiciary is accelerating (the Federalist Society has only been around for 20-30 years, and is dramatically stepping up its game).

All good points, and I'm not suggesting that as the Federalist Society influence in the federal judiciary becomes more pronounced, those judges won't be a rubber stamp for lots of conservative policies. But I don't think being a rubber stamp for conservative policies -- even detestable ones -- is necessarily the same thing as being a rubber stamp for whatever craziness emanates from executive agencies staffed by Trump sycophants and loonies.

In other words, I think a more conservative judiciary captured by the Federalist Society is a danger, but it's still a potential check on Trump authoritarianism.

[Isgrimnur]

Perfect GIF response, Isgrimnur.

Thank you.

[waitingtoconnect]

I’ve been following the Great Sardine case and the analysis of what SCOTUS is likely to do with Chevron deference. No spoiler needed, we all know they’re going to nuke or at least neuter it. But here’s my stab at a hot take: Maybe this isn’t a bad thing.

First, I understand why throwing out Chevron creates a potentially chaotic mess. Congress has always passed statutes with a fair bit of ambiguity, and that has been a feature, not a bug. They’re not subject matter experts and cannot predict future developments with any reliability. So they generally pass laws painted with broad strokes and let the administrative agencies fill in the details on implementation. Courts have always, under Chevron, shown extreme deference to administrative agencies in this regard, upholding any reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although the courts — and this SCOTUS — have been retreating from Chevron deference in practice for a while now, killing it off outright would be a sea change and essentially an enormous power grab by the judicial branch.

What strikes me as strange is how at odds this is with the longstanding conservative pushback against “unelected, activist judges.” There’s really no explanation (at least, not one that doesn’t start with a $) to square their hatred of activist judges with their aggressive mission to push power from administrative agencies to the judiciary.

But setting that aside, maybe it’s not such a bad thing considering where our democracy is right now and where it’s headed. Call me a pessimist, but I believe we’re about to elect (crown) Trump in 2024. While my faith in the judiciary has been significantly eroded, it’s still miles above my confidence in a Trump administration’s take on what is and is not reasonable.

There’s a large segment of this country that appears to be 100% ok with making the jump from a representative democracy to an authoritarian strongman. Set against that backdrop, is it really such a bad thing that the judiciary is making a power grab right now that will significantly diminish the power of the executive branch?

They aren’t making a power grab - they are actively aiding in undoing democracy for the benefit of the clown show.

[Kraken]

25 Civil War historians sign a brief supporting trump's removal from the ballot.

“For historians,” the group wrote, “contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment [ratified in 1868] is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”

I'd like to think this will sway the court, since they put so much emphasis on originalism and historical precedent. But I know that they really put politics above all else.

[Kurth]

Listening to SCOTUS argument going on right now on Trump's eligibility to run for President. Trump's attorney held up pretty well under questioning. The attorney for the Colorado voters is up now. Kept his opening very brief and simply turned it over for questioning. Thomas jumped right in.

I don't think SCOTUS let's this stand. I'm not expert on this issue, but I have a hard time seeing them vesting 50 secretaries of state with the power to keep candidates off the ballot. I'm not sure I disagree.

And now Kagan comes out swinging. She doesn't like this either:

Justice Kagan suggested some discomfort with the idea of individual states interpreting a candidate’s constitutional eligibility for a national office. Jason Murray, the lawyer for the Colorado voters, says that’s not what’s happening, because “ultimately it’s this court that is going to decide” and “settle the issue for the nation.”