Since the highest court in the land determined that abortion law would be sent back to the states, the Texas law cannot be found in Constitutional conflict. After the initial case was set to be dismissed, Truong appealed to the 5th Circuit, and when his case failed there, it went before SCOTUS. The case is rather scattershot, with defendants named including the state's Republican Governor Greg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, and former President Donald Trump. Others are also named, and this is where the case unraveled.

Also named as defendants are five of the Justices -- Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett -- all of whom recused themselves, as well as Chief Justice Roberts. This means that the remaining three justices are not enough for a quorum to take place. This also means that the case reverts to the 5th District court decision, which was a resounding rebuke. 

In that dismissal, the court recognized the frivolousness of the case, with the unanimous decision citing:

Contrary to MacTruong’s assertion otherwise, the district court was entitled to dismiss the action sua sponte upon a finding that the action was frivolous.

So why did I put "removed" in quotes at the beginning of this piece? I did so because it's obvious what's actually going on here. Just as with the Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing Trump from the ballot, Bellows stayed her own decision (meaning it doesn't go into effect), giving the final say to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

What does that tell you? It tells you that none of these cheap stunts are meant to succeed technically. It's essentially a foregone conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court will not only keep the stays in place, but they will ultimately rule against the states trying to use the 14th Amendment without any due process to bar Trump from the ballot. 

In the end, Bellows doesn't believe she'll win. She just wants her name in lights while setting up the U.S. Supreme Court to play the bad guy for half the country. It's a tactic the Biden administration has used over and over, enacting illegal measures with an eye on passing the buck to the judiciary so they can cry foul when they lose. 

The same thing will happen here. The nation's high court will eventually make a common sense ruling to reinstate Trump on these ballots, and then the far left will call them tyrants who want to destroy democracy. What does that accomplish? It helps juice Democrat turnout. It's all so predictable, and it's a blatant abuse of the system to influence an election.

SquidbillyCPO
16 hours ago
First of all that BS about the Supreme Court is just that BS and it would be unconstitutional to boot. Congress has zero constitutional authority to regulate the coequal judicial branch and the constitution is very clear Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments the only power they have is impeachment. Like gun control these tyrants in waiting just can’t seem to bring themselves to submit a constitutional amendment which is the right way to do it. And the same with legislative term limits, they are unconstitutional the Supreme Court ruled on that decades ago. //

etba_ss
19 hours ago
If you don't include Congressional staffers in term limits, stock trades and lobbying bans, you will make the problem worse, not better. Instead of having career Congressman and Senators, we will have career staffers who will have all the power and corruption of Congress now, only without the accountability of facing the voters and answering for their votes. //

anon-d4h1
20 hours ago
There's a huge trap here that I have never seen anybody mention in regards to term limits: staff.

Both committee staff and personal staff members.

I used to work on the Hill, and the power senior staff wields can be almost limitless.

They're in place before most members are elected, and they'll be there after those members are gone. Their expertise is almost always deferred to by the members. And as a result appropriations bills, procurement priorities, authorization language already reflect staff priorities and biases more than anything.

Imagine what the impact would be of reducing the time in office of elected members? The power of unelected staff members will grow even stronger.

Any move for term limits (which may in itself be a laudable goal), must include airtight limitations on staff tenure. //

Chris Paige
11 hours ago
None of these reforms will work. Term limits will become term minimums (as no decent candidate will challenge somebody who is leaving soon anyway & no one will fund such candidates as it's not worth it). Besides, it's done nothing in NYC (as you just get a rotating crew of losers).

The key is we need to make Congressional elections more competitive.

First, we need to abolish campaign donation limits. If someone's willing to give you $1MM to run for Congress, then God bless.

Second, we need to limit donations to NATURAL persons who are eligible to vote for the candidate at issue. This would increase intra-party disputes as. national donors couldn't enforce uniformity.

Third, we need to outlaw donations by government workers, government contractors, and employees of highly-regulated firms (ie. if you're company is FDIC insured or part of the Fed, you can't donate.).

Fourth, we need to redraw Congressional map lines to MAXIMIZE inter-party competition.

Fifth, we need to strip the media/social media of their outsized role - neither should be allowed to censor anything that isn't actually illegal.

Sixth, we need to limit secrecy - everything should become public after 20 years w/ exceedingly few exceptions.