[–] 1 point 2 years ago

There’s no reason a state can’t make that decision. You didn’t even make an argument. Just made a statement.

I didn't need to make an argument because SCOTUS decided that only Congress is the authority for ballot removal per section 5. It made a lot of people mad and down-arrowed facts. The internet Constitutional scholars came out in droves.

Here is the decision that most of them didn't read PDF warning

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago

    It's literally moot at this point. Internet lawyers arguing constitutional law when SCOTUS has made a (unanimous decision) on the matter is just people blowing off steam.

    If you agree with the decision (I do), trying to change someone's mind (who doesn't) is probably not going to happen.

    You've been reasoned in your disagreement. I appreciate that.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Not if they didn't file the correct paperwork (on time), pay the necessary fees, and I believe, have enough qualified signatures is each state in which you want to appear on the ballot.

    Making the argument that a state can otherwise disqualify because they believe you are guilty of insurrection is now moot. 9-0.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago

    Lol. It's ok to disagree with the decision. It's ok to be mad at the decision. It's ok to internet argue the constitutionality of the decision. All of it makes this >< much difference. Trump will be on the ballot, will be the nominee, and will be absolutely crushed by the most popular president in history. I don't know why anyone is worried.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›