you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

what has confused me about people saying this is, well, what exactly stops the supreme court from overriding him being declared factually guilty of that? Im guessing theres some sort of law to the effect that decisions like that arent what higher courts are trying to answer, but the supreme court also has no higher court to appeal a ruling to, so if they just decided to declare that this finding was incorrect anyway, what would happen?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There's nothing stopping them but they are expected to consider precedent which that decision sets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    That’s not how precedent works. Higher courts set precedent that lower courts must follow, not vice versa. For instance, the SC could introduce a very narrow definition of (participating in) an insurrection. If they want to rule in Trump’s favor, they will find an excuse (and mangle the law in the process).

  • source
  • parent