▲ 550 ▼ Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack (apnews.com) submitted 2 years ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world 298 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 165 points 2 years ago (20 children) Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve. permalink fedilink source hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 54 points 2 years ago (6 children) This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying "Trump did nothing wrong", this is specifically saying "States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots", which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed. The SC could come out tomorrow and say "We're disqualifying Trump", this doesn't preclude that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] charonn0@startrek.website 108 points 2 years ago* (28 children) States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it's never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments load more comments (28 replies) [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago (43 children) States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 43 child comments load more comments (43 replies) [–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Arguably states unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot is a major paving stone on the road to the civil war, when Lincoln won because of the split pro slave vote the south blew a gasket because it only just hit them then that everyone else had enough electors among them to ignore the south completely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (5 children) The idea that we have to let an insurrectionist campaign and win before disqualifying them is far worse. It would instantly lead to massive protests and violence from whichever party had that happen to them. If you want to avoid civil war then denial must happen early if at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can't use the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, it's a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn't yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they're just sort of declaring it's true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it's asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies) [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago It's not a State Law they're using to remove him. It's federal election laws. It's in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. They even specifically discussed if a President should have an exception and decided it did not. The Supreme Court is choosing NOT to enforce the US Federal Constitution! permalink fedilink source parent [–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago On the other hand, I could definitely see a bunch of red-controlled states deciding to remove Biden (or future Dem candidates) for whatever bullshit reason in the future, so while this ruling isn't necessarily consistent with current practice it at least doesn't open the door to that. Except that R's are already pretty cool with being inconsistent about what is our isn't allowed, which is how we got certain members of the SC in the first place... permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Rubisco@slrpnk.net 19 points 2 years ago No justice, no peace. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (3 children) In this case, I don't disagree with their decisions and neither did the moderate justices. This prevents all of the heavily gerrymandered red States from pulling Biden from the ballot as well. And if they ruled in favor of pulling Trump from the ballot, you can bet your ass that Biden will be gone from every red and swing state ballot too. Possibly more than we would be able to get Trump pulled from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago Then we knew it was a sham all along and we march in the streets. Giving a criminal conspiracy what they want because they might conspire is crazy town. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (17 replies)
[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 54 points 2 years ago (6 children) This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying "Trump did nothing wrong", this is specifically saying "States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots", which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed. The SC could come out tomorrow and say "We're disqualifying Trump", this doesn't preclude that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] charonn0@startrek.website 108 points 2 years ago* (28 children) States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it's never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments load more comments (28 replies) [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago (43 children) States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 43 child comments load more comments (43 replies) [–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Arguably states unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot is a major paving stone on the road to the civil war, when Lincoln won because of the split pro slave vote the south blew a gasket because it only just hit them then that everyone else had enough electors among them to ignore the south completely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (5 children) The idea that we have to let an insurrectionist campaign and win before disqualifying them is far worse. It would instantly lead to massive protests and violence from whichever party had that happen to them. If you want to avoid civil war then denial must happen early if at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can't use the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, it's a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn't yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they're just sort of declaring it's true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it's asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies) [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago It's not a State Law they're using to remove him. It's federal election laws. It's in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. They even specifically discussed if a President should have an exception and decided it did not. The Supreme Court is choosing NOT to enforce the US Federal Constitution! permalink fedilink source parent [–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago On the other hand, I could definitely see a bunch of red-controlled states deciding to remove Biden (or future Dem candidates) for whatever bullshit reason in the future, so while this ruling isn't necessarily consistent with current practice it at least doesn't open the door to that. Except that R's are already pretty cool with being inconsistent about what is our isn't allowed, which is how we got certain members of the SC in the first place... permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 108 points 2 years ago* (28 children) States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it's never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago (43 children) States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 43 child comments load more comments (43 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Arguably states unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot is a major paving stone on the road to the civil war, when Lincoln won because of the split pro slave vote the south blew a gasket because it only just hit them then that everyone else had enough electors among them to ignore the south completely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (5 children) The idea that we have to let an insurrectionist campaign and win before disqualifying them is far worse. It would instantly lead to massive protests and violence from whichever party had that happen to them. If you want to avoid civil war then denial must happen early if at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can't use the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, it's a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn't yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they're just sort of declaring it's true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it's asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (5 children) The idea that we have to let an insurrectionist campaign and win before disqualifying them is far worse. It would instantly lead to massive protests and violence from whichever party had that happen to them. If you want to avoid civil war then denial must happen early if at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can't use the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, it's a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn't yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they're just sort of declaring it's true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it's asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can't use the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, it's a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn't yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they're just sort of declaring it's true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it's asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago It's not a State Law they're using to remove him. It's federal election laws. It's in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. They even specifically discussed if a President should have an exception and decided it did not. The Supreme Court is choosing NOT to enforce the US Federal Constitution! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago On the other hand, I could definitely see a bunch of red-controlled states deciding to remove Biden (or future Dem candidates) for whatever bullshit reason in the future, so while this ruling isn't necessarily consistent with current practice it at least doesn't open the door to that. Except that R's are already pretty cool with being inconsistent about what is our isn't allowed, which is how we got certain members of the SC in the first place... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (3 children) In this case, I don't disagree with their decisions and neither did the moderate justices. This prevents all of the heavily gerrymandered red States from pulling Biden from the ballot as well. And if they ruled in favor of pulling Trump from the ballot, you can bet your ass that Biden will be gone from every red and swing state ballot too. Possibly more than we would be able to get Trump pulled from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago Then we knew it was a sham all along and we march in the streets. Giving a criminal conspiracy what they want because they might conspire is crazy town. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago Then we knew it was a sham all along and we march in the streets. Giving a criminal conspiracy what they want because they might conspire is crazy town. permalink fedilink source parent