In a surprise move, an Illinois judge has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s so-called “insurrectionist ban.”

The decision is paused, giving Trump a short period of time to appeal.

Wednesday’s unexpected decision comes as a similar anti-Trump challenge from Colorado is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is widely expected to reject arguments that Trump is barred from office.

Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter heavily relied on the prior finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, calling Colorado’s “rationale compelling.”

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 134 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

It is still crazy to me, he is responsible for an insurrection and still gets the option to run for President. Every time I've talked about it on twitter some right-winger will bring up it was mostly peaceful and some other event that has nothing to do with anything lol.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is an important lesson in Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Trump is very much a narcissist). Narcissists use vague and ambiguous language, usually rapid fire, in order to confuse and disorient listeners. The term is called Narcissistic Word Salad. It means that he can rile people up to commit an insurrection while at the same time be legally protected because he never directly commanded January 6ers to do what they did with clear and pointed language. All of his communication is very obviously crafted to manipulate and obfuscate, and it's how he's managed to keep his crime empire afloat for decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 96 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 176 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    No it's not. There's something else we're supposed to do to traitors.

    "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now"

    -Donald Trump, advocating for his own execution

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 97 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    We literally didn't hang most of the leaders of the Confederacy after the civil war. We just gave them back their land and citizenship. Big mistake

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Compassion should not seen as a weakness after war. Traditionally it make long term allies. This time it did not work out. But many other times it has.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    See modern Germany, agreed. See post WWI for the wrong way to treat the enemy afterwards

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    Yes but after WW2 we had the Nuremburg trials and the Nazi leaders were hanged. Show compassion to the society as a whole, but the leaders must still be held accountable in these situations.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 58 points 2 years ago (35 children)

    I'm glad it's happening. However, I am almost sure SCOTUS will not allow it no matter what and will find some spurious reason that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump.

    Also, I wish it wasn't a state that Trump was pretty much guaranteed to lose anyway. Oh well, I guess it's a start.

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I'm not so sure. SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low (18%). Even if Trump was re-elected I don't think there is more he can offer them. They already have the job. They need confidence back or the states are going to start ignoring them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the "plebes" think of them for that to make any difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You know for all our checks and balances the Supreme Court is surprisingly left out of them. Congress can supposedly tell them they can't hear a case but that's it. But it's fine cause the courts will never be able to change laws or enforce anything right? Right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    The court was supposed to be the main arbitrator of the checks and balances, because it was initially believed that they weren’t corruptible. That’s obviously not the case, and we’re all screwed because of it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the "plebes" think of them for that to make any difference.

    Does the SC have any recourse if confidence from the public gets so low that states start ignoring them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (33 replies)
    [–] 56 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    Hoo boy. January 6th-21st 2025 is going to be harrowing in DC should Trump win.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    My boy's getting absolutely SWAMPED with legal action

    I think he's at like $470,000 now for his fraud case

    *edit LOL my b dudes $470 MILLION

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    you're missing 3 zeroes in that number.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    Every single person in the country who has the power to make the decision to have the insurrectionist off the ballot , yet doesn't, is letting down The Constitution. Don't they have to take an oath, or is that only Federal positions?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    Good, just in time for it to not matter. Glad they're being so quick about it. Great judicial system.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    How many states does that make total?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Up to 3 now. Which is funny because the central point the Supreme Court made during the hearing of the Colorado case was "why would a single state get to decide the election for the rest of the country?" Would be nice if a few other states stepped up to show it's not just a "single state."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    That's so weird, I could have sworn in 2020 we were seriously about states' rights to conduct their elections as they please. But now states do not have rights to enforce laws for themselves? I must be misremembering because otherwise it would mean all Repubs are deceitful and without integrity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    'Insurrectionist ban', also know as the law and order this jackass bloviates about.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›