▲ 888 ▼ Illinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballot (www.usatoday.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 219 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 60 points 2 years ago (2 children) Here comes a ruling from Trump's illegitimate SCOTUS in 3...2... permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) I am less concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that a national party nominee is disqualified from a ballot in a state he'll almost certainly lose than I am with a ruling that some court in Florida or Arizona or Georgia can pull the same shit on Biden. Very easy to see this become one more trick one-party states can pull to remove popular opponents from the ballot in close election years. And I would be very concerned if an Alito court authored an opinion in which this kind of thing was normalized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 40 points 2 years ago (3 children) I'm not afraid of bad faith attempts to ruin democracy as backlash from this decision because bad faith attempts to ruin democracy are coming regardless of the outcome of this particular case permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] drmeanfeel@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Exactly. This constant handwringing is so tiresome. They WILL try it, regardless of precedent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Bush pulled a bullshit card in 2000 and it worked permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago And were still paying for it. So did Regan, and Nixon. Its just a pattern at this point permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I think it's important to point out that they had a riot in Florida to stop the recount. The RNC paid for it, and they bragged about using the threat of violence to stop the recount. Google Brooks Brothers riot. In the last 30 years Republicans have had more riots to try to ignore the vote than they've had popular vote winners. The end of democracy is their only chance going forward, they know it and they're open about the fact that they're trying to make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* To rephrase the excellent point made: Its short sighted to think suffering no consequences for crimes will encourage the MAGA criminals to not do more bad faith crimes. We either legitimize their actions by witholding consequences or we attempt to give them consequences and they claim their next scheme is retaliation for the consequences rather than retaliation for something entirely fabricated (ex: "stolen election" bullshit) permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I have no doubt. But I'm not in a rush to open a new can of worms, when there's no discernible benefit. Let me know if a court in Michigan or Ohio or Pennsylvania yanks Trump off the ballot. Then we can talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Upholding the constitution is a discernable benefit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime – records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution – to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing. From "No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority" by Lyndard Spooner, discussing the fundamental failures of the document when confronting the horror of the antebellum South. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago There's always a new can of worms. permalink fedilink source parent [–] june@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) And so we decide to let tyrants through so that their party doesn’t have made up and twisted precedent to try to disqualify qualified candidates? It’s not like the GOP need or care about precedent anyway. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) And so we decide to let tyrants through We don't decide. A few Ivy League JDs in robes get to decide. The decision on whether to list a particular candidate on the ballot is, inherently, undemocratic. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. State governments don't need any more tools in the chest to decide who can and cannot appear on a ballot. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do. I agree. But he's not the only one who will get booted off under this rule. We both know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] june@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child) ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? The one in the constitution? We should just ignore it so that the bad guys don’t try to use it illegitimately when we know they will anyway? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? "This rule" being the judicial decision that invokes the 14th amendment. We should just ignore it You're free to do as you please, but it won't matter unless you're one of the Big Nine. What are you doing to do if the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, other than pounding sand? permalink fedilink source parent [–] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (3 children) What would the argument be for eliminating Biden though? Biden hasn't committed insurrection. Trump has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago They don't need facts. They'll say failing to secure the border is equivalent to an insurrection, or some such bullshit permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It might be prudent to require an actual conviction of one of a specific lists of crimes, but that leaves Trump in for a bit longer I don’t know what grounds they used but I don’t think Trump has been convicted yet permalink fedilink source parent [+] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 years ago* 1 ½... 1 ⅓... 1 ¼... They're gonna slow walk all the appeals responses so it doesn't matter which way they rule. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) I am less concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that a national party nominee is disqualified from a ballot in a state he'll almost certainly lose than I am with a ruling that some court in Florida or Arizona or Georgia can pull the same shit on Biden. Very easy to see this become one more trick one-party states can pull to remove popular opponents from the ballot in close election years. And I would be very concerned if an Alito court authored an opinion in which this kind of thing was normalized. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 40 points 2 years ago (3 children) I'm not afraid of bad faith attempts to ruin democracy as backlash from this decision because bad faith attempts to ruin democracy are coming regardless of the outcome of this particular case permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] drmeanfeel@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Exactly. This constant handwringing is so tiresome. They WILL try it, regardless of precedent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Bush pulled a bullshit card in 2000 and it worked permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago And were still paying for it. So did Regan, and Nixon. Its just a pattern at this point permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I think it's important to point out that they had a riot in Florida to stop the recount. The RNC paid for it, and they bragged about using the threat of violence to stop the recount. Google Brooks Brothers riot. In the last 30 years Republicans have had more riots to try to ignore the vote than they've had popular vote winners. The end of democracy is their only chance going forward, they know it and they're open about the fact that they're trying to make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* To rephrase the excellent point made: Its short sighted to think suffering no consequences for crimes will encourage the MAGA criminals to not do more bad faith crimes. We either legitimize their actions by witholding consequences or we attempt to give them consequences and they claim their next scheme is retaliation for the consequences rather than retaliation for something entirely fabricated (ex: "stolen election" bullshit) permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I have no doubt. But I'm not in a rush to open a new can of worms, when there's no discernible benefit. Let me know if a court in Michigan or Ohio or Pennsylvania yanks Trump off the ballot. Then we can talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Upholding the constitution is a discernable benefit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime – records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution – to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing. From "No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority" by Lyndard Spooner, discussing the fundamental failures of the document when confronting the horror of the antebellum South. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago There's always a new can of worms. permalink fedilink source parent [–] june@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) And so we decide to let tyrants through so that their party doesn’t have made up and twisted precedent to try to disqualify qualified candidates? It’s not like the GOP need or care about precedent anyway. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) And so we decide to let tyrants through We don't decide. A few Ivy League JDs in robes get to decide. The decision on whether to list a particular candidate on the ballot is, inherently, undemocratic. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. State governments don't need any more tools in the chest to decide who can and cannot appear on a ballot. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do. I agree. But he's not the only one who will get booted off under this rule. We both know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] june@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child) ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? The one in the constitution? We should just ignore it so that the bad guys don’t try to use it illegitimately when we know they will anyway? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? "This rule" being the judicial decision that invokes the 14th amendment. We should just ignore it You're free to do as you please, but it won't matter unless you're one of the Big Nine. What are you doing to do if the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, other than pounding sand? permalink fedilink source parent [–] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (3 children) What would the argument be for eliminating Biden though? Biden hasn't committed insurrection. Trump has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago They don't need facts. They'll say failing to secure the border is equivalent to an insurrection, or some such bullshit permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It might be prudent to require an actual conviction of one of a specific lists of crimes, but that leaves Trump in for a bit longer I don’t know what grounds they used but I don’t think Trump has been convicted yet permalink fedilink source parent [+] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 40 points 2 years ago (3 children) I'm not afraid of bad faith attempts to ruin democracy as backlash from this decision because bad faith attempts to ruin democracy are coming regardless of the outcome of this particular case permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] drmeanfeel@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Exactly. This constant handwringing is so tiresome. They WILL try it, regardless of precedent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Bush pulled a bullshit card in 2000 and it worked permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago And were still paying for it. So did Regan, and Nixon. Its just a pattern at this point permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I think it's important to point out that they had a riot in Florida to stop the recount. The RNC paid for it, and they bragged about using the threat of violence to stop the recount. Google Brooks Brothers riot. In the last 30 years Republicans have had more riots to try to ignore the vote than they've had popular vote winners. The end of democracy is their only chance going forward, they know it and they're open about the fact that they're trying to make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* To rephrase the excellent point made: Its short sighted to think suffering no consequences for crimes will encourage the MAGA criminals to not do more bad faith crimes. We either legitimize their actions by witholding consequences or we attempt to give them consequences and they claim their next scheme is retaliation for the consequences rather than retaliation for something entirely fabricated (ex: "stolen election" bullshit) permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I have no doubt. But I'm not in a rush to open a new can of worms, when there's no discernible benefit. Let me know if a court in Michigan or Ohio or Pennsylvania yanks Trump off the ballot. Then we can talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Upholding the constitution is a discernable benefit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime – records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution – to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing. From "No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority" by Lyndard Spooner, discussing the fundamental failures of the document when confronting the horror of the antebellum South. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago There's always a new can of worms. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] drmeanfeel@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Exactly. This constant handwringing is so tiresome. They WILL try it, regardless of precedent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Bush pulled a bullshit card in 2000 and it worked permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago And were still paying for it. So did Regan, and Nixon. Its just a pattern at this point permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I think it's important to point out that they had a riot in Florida to stop the recount. The RNC paid for it, and they bragged about using the threat of violence to stop the recount. Google Brooks Brothers riot. In the last 30 years Republicans have had more riots to try to ignore the vote than they've had popular vote winners. The end of democracy is their only chance going forward, they know it and they're open about the fact that they're trying to make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Bush pulled a bullshit card in 2000 and it worked permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago And were still paying for it. So did Regan, and Nixon. Its just a pattern at this point permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I think it's important to point out that they had a riot in Florida to stop the recount. The RNC paid for it, and they bragged about using the threat of violence to stop the recount. Google Brooks Brothers riot. In the last 30 years Republicans have had more riots to try to ignore the vote than they've had popular vote winners. The end of democracy is their only chance going forward, they know it and they're open about the fact that they're trying to make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago And were still paying for it. So did Regan, and Nixon. Its just a pattern at this point permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago I think it's important to point out that they had a riot in Florida to stop the recount. The RNC paid for it, and they bragged about using the threat of violence to stop the recount. Google Brooks Brothers riot. In the last 30 years Republicans have had more riots to try to ignore the vote than they've had popular vote winners. The end of democracy is their only chance going forward, they know it and they're open about the fact that they're trying to make it happen. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* To rephrase the excellent point made: Its short sighted to think suffering no consequences for crimes will encourage the MAGA criminals to not do more bad faith crimes. We either legitimize their actions by witholding consequences or we attempt to give them consequences and they claim their next scheme is retaliation for the consequences rather than retaliation for something entirely fabricated (ex: "stolen election" bullshit) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I have no doubt. But I'm not in a rush to open a new can of worms, when there's no discernible benefit. Let me know if a court in Michigan or Ohio or Pennsylvania yanks Trump off the ballot. Then we can talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Upholding the constitution is a discernable benefit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime – records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution – to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing. From "No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority" by Lyndard Spooner, discussing the fundamental failures of the document when confronting the horror of the antebellum South. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago There's always a new can of worms. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Upholding the constitution is a discernable benefit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime – records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution – to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing. From "No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority" by Lyndard Spooner, discussing the fundamental failures of the document when confronting the horror of the antebellum South. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime – records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution – to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing. From "No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority" by Lyndard Spooner, discussing the fundamental failures of the document when confronting the horror of the antebellum South. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago There's always a new can of worms. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] june@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) And so we decide to let tyrants through so that their party doesn’t have made up and twisted precedent to try to disqualify qualified candidates? It’s not like the GOP need or care about precedent anyway. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) And so we decide to let tyrants through We don't decide. A few Ivy League JDs in robes get to decide. The decision on whether to list a particular candidate on the ballot is, inherently, undemocratic. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. State governments don't need any more tools in the chest to decide who can and cannot appear on a ballot. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do. I agree. But he's not the only one who will get booted off under this rule. We both know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] june@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child) ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? The one in the constitution? We should just ignore it so that the bad guys don’t try to use it illegitimately when we know they will anyway? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? "This rule" being the judicial decision that invokes the 14th amendment. We should just ignore it You're free to do as you please, but it won't matter unless you're one of the Big Nine. What are you doing to do if the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, other than pounding sand? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) And so we decide to let tyrants through We don't decide. A few Ivy League JDs in robes get to decide. The decision on whether to list a particular candidate on the ballot is, inherently, undemocratic. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. State governments don't need any more tools in the chest to decide who can and cannot appear on a ballot. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do. I agree. But he's not the only one who will get booted off under this rule. We both know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] june@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child) ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? The one in the constitution? We should just ignore it so that the bad guys don’t try to use it illegitimately when we know they will anyway? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? "This rule" being the judicial decision that invokes the 14th amendment. We should just ignore it You're free to do as you please, but it won't matter unless you're one of the Big Nine. What are you doing to do if the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, other than pounding sand? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] june@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child) ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? The one in the constitution? We should just ignore it so that the bad guys don’t try to use it illegitimately when we know they will anyway? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? "This rule" being the judicial decision that invokes the 14th amendment. We should just ignore it You're free to do as you please, but it won't matter unless you're one of the Big Nine. What are you doing to do if the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, other than pounding sand? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? "This rule" being the judicial decision that invokes the 14th amendment. We should just ignore it You're free to do as you please, but it won't matter unless you're one of the Big Nine. What are you doing to do if the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, other than pounding sand? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (3 children) What would the argument be for eliminating Biden though? Biden hasn't committed insurrection. Trump has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago They don't need facts. They'll say failing to secure the border is equivalent to an insurrection, or some such bullshit permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It might be prudent to require an actual conviction of one of a specific lists of crimes, but that leaves Trump in for a bit longer I don’t know what grounds they used but I don’t think Trump has been convicted yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago They don't need facts. They'll say failing to secure the border is equivalent to an insurrection, or some such bullshit permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It might be prudent to require an actual conviction of one of a specific lists of crimes, but that leaves Trump in for a bit longer I don’t know what grounds they used but I don’t think Trump has been convicted yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 years ago* 1 ½... 1 ⅓... 1 ¼... They're gonna slow walk all the appeals responses so it doesn't matter which way they rule. permalink fedilink source parent