Context Is Key

On Monday, the Supreme Court released its much anticipated but anti-climatic per curiam ruling in Trump v Anderson, the Colorado attempt to remove him from the 2024 Primary ballot. While there was nothing truly surprising in the ruling – that it is Congress that decides to enforce 14.3 – there was a bit of blowback from the fact that Justice Barrett appeared at first glance, to join the dissent in part. We had a caller to the show on Tuesday who referred to what she said as “the most naive thing” he had ever heard.

One of the the things that I most dislike about the immediacy of Talk Radio is that there are too many occasions when there isn’t time to fully digest a story after it breaks, and even less time to form anything but a surface level opinion about it. Often we lose out on the opportunity for deeper consideration of an idea or what someone has said.

Certainly that is the case with Justice Barrett’s comment.

While I fully agree that it was unnecessary, that does not equate to being “naive.” Moreover, what if what she said was to counter the dissent (in part) and point out the fact that the ruling was 9-0.

Which, by the by, is exactly what was unexpected in the ruling, but not for the reasons that you might think…

---

Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/plausibly-live/message