Supreme Court Weighs Trump Eligibility

Five conservative justices joined in 2013’s Shelby County vs Holder to gut The Voting Rights Act’s core enforcement mechanism: the requirement of prior federal approval for voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ignored the detailed record—and common sense—to make his own finding that racial discrimination was no longer a problem in the United States. His decision makes American people further ponder is he racist or just naïve….

This is the pervasive thought process of the conservative court that makes the finale decisions that this year will profoundly affect the guard rails of democracy. The Supreme Court is now weighing eligibility and immunity that could have significant implications for American democracy as we know it. In furtherance, this conservative Supreme Court’s decisions will shape the fundamental principles such as the rule of law, equal protection, and accountability. Here are a few potential scenarios and their implications.

Presidential Eligibility:If the Supreme Court is considering cases related to the eligibility of a presidential candidate, such as questions about citizenship, age, or residency requirements, their decision could have far-reaching effects on the democratic process. For example, a ruling that expands or restricts the eligibility criteria could impact who can run for president, potentially altering the choices available to voters, and shaping the future direction of the country.

Executive Immunity: If the Court is examining issues related to executive immunity, such as whether a sitting president can be subject to civil or criminal lawsuits while in office, the outcome could have implications for the balance of power between the branches of government. A ruling that strengthens executive immunity could shield the president from legal accountability, potentially undermining the principle of equal justice under the law. Conversely, a ruling that limits executive immunity could promote accountability and ensure that no one, including the president, is above the law.

Legislative Eligibility and Immunity: The Court might also consider cases related to the eligibility and immunity of members of Congress or other elected officials. For example, questions about residency requirements or conflicts of interest could arise. Rulings in these cases could affect the composition and functioning of the legislative branch, potentially impacting the representation of different constituencies and the ability of lawmakers to fulfill their duties without undue influence or interference.

Here’s a potential solution; eliminating the filibuster could have a profound impact on how the Supreme Court’s decisions on eligibility and immunity are made and implemented.

Here’s how:

Confirmation of Judges: Without the filibuster, it becomes easier for the president to appoint judges and justices to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. This means that a president with a majority in the Senate could potentially appoint judges who align more closely with their own views on eligibility and immunity issues. As a result, the composition of the judiciary could shift, influencing the outcomes of future cases on these topics.

Legislation Affecting Eligibility and Immunity: Eliminating the filibuster also makes it easier for Congress to pass legislation related to eligibility requirements for elected office or executive immunity. Without the threat of a filibuster, majority parties in both the House and the Senate have more power to advance their policy priorities. This could lead to changes in the laws governing eligibility and immunity, potentially affecting the democratic process and the balance of power between branches of government.

Political Polarization and Judicial Nominations: The elimination of the filibuster could exacerbate political polarization, as it removes one of the few remaining tools for minority parties to influence legislation and judicial nominations. This polarization could further shape the types of judges appointed to the federal bench, potentially leading to more contentious confirmation battles and ideological divisions within the judiciary.

This change could usher in significant improvements for American democracy, potentially altering the balance of power between the branches of government and shaping the legal landscape for years to come…