The precedent has already been set. Our USSC has in previous rulings set aside Constitutional law for what it poses as the “greater good of society.”
If that’s the way they think, what good are they?
I personally would not be surprised if Chief Justice Roberts were too busy to swear in our President-Elect. After all, the Supremes have been extraordinarily busy lately, FAR TOO BUSY to deal with what is one of the most burning constitutional issues of our time: The natural-born citizen question and the fact that no one is vetting presidential candidates for constitutional eligibility.
I believe that the Robed Nine have been playing cards in their chambers and even have taken up cultivating orchids to brighten the winter days. So what if we could have the American-born child of two illegal aliens elected president in the years to come and charged with enforcing our immigration laws. No biggie!
I believe that the chief justice will be trying out a new recipe for chocolate chip cookies next Tuesday and will be unable to attend. He will be using chocolate-nut-toffee bits instead of chocolate chips. At least the Supreme Court is breaking ground in some area of life.
“If that’s the way they think, what good are they?
Obviously, they excel at avoiding controversial matters like POTUS eligibility on technicalities. Then when challenged to a point where containment is no longer an option, they super excel at determing what is best for the “greater good of society.” Often in total disregard for the Constitution.
To answer your question, as obligated strict adherents to our Constitution, they are increasingy becoming irrevelent. Especially when their rulings are founded upon the “greater good” rather than our Constitution.
There are many examples of this precedent. You may be able to recall some of them from the past. That’s why I argue the precedent for the “greater good” has been well established.
Husseins’s eligibility fits neatly into this precedent.