WHAT DOES SETTLED LAW MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF TRUMP ET AL? Settled law means that

WHAT DOES SETTLED LAW MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF TRUMP ET AL?

Settled law means that the people consider the matter settled and just and as such no longer pursue remedy in court or legislation or worse. The court is chartered with the tradition of ‘keeping the kings peace’ so to speak by producing settled law. If the people and the legislature agree, and the court can find no failure in the construction of the law that violates the constitution, it’s concurrency and common law traditions, with some bias for the natural law per Blackstone, then the court will consider the matter settled.

However, given that american codification of anglo, germanic, and early european law is (alone in the world) empirical, (scientific) precisely because it is natural, common, and concurrent in construction, all (a) amendments (b) legislation (c) regulation, and (d) findings of the courts are open to revision just as is all scientific theory. (Which is of course why the institutionalization of law and science originated in england).

So, previously I said that the court is resisting and reversing lawfare, by which the people and the legislatures are bypassed – this is how the activism of the sixties was pushed through against the will of the population, and the due process demanded by the constitution. The reversal of roe v wade the most exemplary.

In this case the court could easily state that the attempt to deny Trump the ballot in the state is an activism by political wings in the state, and without the consent of the people of the state, which then affects the will of the people of other states. As such, the court would consider this lawfare: attempt to create new law by the court that must be decided either by the constitution and if tolerated by the constitution then by the legislature of the totality of the states – in the case of the presidency.

So the court will (likely) decide that this is a lack of clarity in the constitution and as such it is a SCOTUS issue. And thankfully SCOTUS is restoring originalism meaning that the text means what it meant at the time of its writing and if it must be altered then that must be a decision for the people and their legislatures not for the court. So in most cases the court is simply applying that logic to any given matter that is of constitutional import rather than legislative conflict or legitimacy.

How the election is conducted within states is a matter for states, yet that will just as likely soon be limited as well given the corruption of the election process that has been continuous since the early eighteen hundreds at least in immigrant urban centers.

The court is restoring rule of law and responsibility of the legislature to make good law, and ending discretionary rule. And in this case you’re arguing for discretionary rule by political activists and a questionable judge in a matter of constitutional clarity.

I can be wrong. It happens. It just doesn’t happen very often.

Cheers
CD