• Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    We all knew it wasn’t going to happen, right? Like no one actually believed he would be kept off the ballots, did they?

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      More of an outside chance. The Supreme Court might decide that saving the Republican party is more important than helping Trump.

      • ZK686@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        God forbid we have more than ONE political party in power right? I mean, hey, let’s just let Democrats decide and control everything!

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          One of the two powerful parties have collapsed before. It doesn’t mean one party rule forever. At most, they dominate a couple of election cycles.

  • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I mean, think of the chaotic implications of letting states determine who is eligible to be on their ballots by following a federal standard laid out in the constitution.

    Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The problem is that Republicans will obviously abuse this. They’ve wrecked our justice system across all levels.

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        ⬆️ This is the correct answer.

        If they allow individual states to make their own “objective” legal determinations regarding what is or is not an insurrection then you will never have a democratic candidate on the ballot in any Republican majority controlled state ever again. They will take that as carte blanche authority to say that every single Democrat is a traitor to the Constitution, and is unfit to hold office.

        Edit: I am following up because I realize what a contentious and controversial position this is, and I agree. However, the important thing to note is that this is the exact logic that was repeatedly broached by the Supreme Court itself. We can argue ad nauseum about the legitimacy of that body, but the bottom line is this: they are not going to allow Donald Trump to be unilaterally removed from the ballot. They are afraid of the ramifications of that decision, that much is clear. So, regardless of anyone’s personal feelings on the matter you need to make peace with the fact that the Supreme Court is going to all but destroy the protections of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. That is just the reality, and that means it is more important than ever that we make sure Donald Trump does not make it back to the White House. If he does, that is going to be the beginning of the end of the United States for the foreseeable future.

        The worst case scenario that nobody wants to talk about is Donald Trump being able to pack additional justices onto the Supreme Court that are in their late 40’s who will be on the bench for another 40 years, and guarantee the further erosion of civil rights in a way that will permanently destroy any chance for reform for the rest of your fucking life. This is not a game, this is not a drill, the Supreme Court has made it clear they are not going to do the right thing. The only remaining choice is collective action through voting or mass civil disobedience. Get ready…

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          No. You’re literally advocating for letting Trump do unconstitutional things because Republicans are threatening to do unconstitutional things if we don’t.

          Making legal rulings based on obviously fallacious reasonings because of what Republicans might do or how they’ll abuse that ruling is morally wrong and absolutely unjust. What SCOTUS should do (assuming they want to find Colorado correct, which… Roberts’ Court 🤷) is issue the ruling saying Trump shouldn’t be on the ballot, then when GOP fascist states try to remove Biden, take those inevitable cases and judge them on their merits, upholding or overturning them as the facts allow.

          They’re judges. This is their job.

          • ZK686@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            So, Colorado determines who their residents are allowed to vote for, because THEY determine that Trump did something unconstitutional? I don’t get that…I mean, isn’t that what communist countries do? They pick and choose who the people can vote for?

            • agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s called having eligibility criteria, and it’s a fact of life everywhere. You wouldn’t want a five year old driving a car or drinking alcohol, and the law addresses this. Insurrectionists are disqualified in the Constitution, plain and simple. At least Trump doesn’t have to worry about being disqualified for being a rapist or bad businessman as the Constitution is silent on both of those items.

            • Billiam@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              First my dude, none of us “pick” who to vote for. The parties decide who to put in front of us. But you’re still free to write-in Trump if you want. Also the GOP could decide to run a candidate who is Constitutionally eligible, but they don’t have the spine/guts/balls/chutzpah/decency/insert whatever adjective you want here to do that.

              Second, no, a court decided based on the facts that Trump is ineligible. Feel free to read their opinion and cite what part of the analysis you think they got wrong.

              And third, my dude, think about what year you were born. Then look up every single law passed before that, going all the way back to the Constitution. And then realize that you are expected to follow each and every one of those laws, despite having no say in their passing. That is far closer to the Conservative’s boogeyman definition of “cOMmUNIsm” than the Colorado court case.

    • ZK686@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Are you serious? So, every state in the country should just throw out whoever they wan.t…allowing their residents to ONLY vote for the people that the state government wants them too? Sounds very…communist.

      • sanguine_artichoke@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think it was more a rhetorical point about how Feiblicans insist issues dear to them should be decided by each state, but are happy to forget about that when they want a certain policy nationally.

        Anyway, yes. I thought states were free to choose how to run their own elections.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s because trump hasn’t been found guilty of insurrection yet.

    That’s likely to take longer than next election, which is one of many reasons our justice system moves too slow.

    • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      A guilt verdict for insurrection was not required for any of the other people made ineligible by the 14th Amendment, why does a different standard apply only to Donald Trump?

      Couy Griffin, for a recent example, was removed from office in 2022 based on the 14th Amendment; the only thing he was found guilt of was trespassing. And after the 14th Amendment was ratified thousand of Confederates who had been convicted of nothing filed amnesty requests with Congress to remove their disqualification under the 14th Amendment because it was well understood that a conviction wasn’t required.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      No. It isn’t. If you read the summaries I saw from today, it says the Justices didn’t even discuss whether he participated in insurrection. (Ed. nor anything about conviction. What have you been reading??)

      Also if you look at the original Colorado ruling, it lays out in pretty great detail, based on the evidence presented, that Trump did, in fact, participate in insurrection.

      • ZK686@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        “Colorado laid out in detail why someone shouldn’t be on their ballot…” So, by allowing this, any state in the country can do this…“Texas laid out in detail why Biden shouldn’t be on their ballot, therefore, he’s not…”

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      In a sense, yes. To be precise, the blame for this lies solely with inept, cowardly Merrick Garland, who took two and a half years to begin doing anything at all to hold Trump accountable. If not for Garland’s incomprehensible delays, the matter would have been settled well before ‘24 election season.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        No blame for the president who though Garland would be a good SC pick and then made him AG?

        I’m not saying “don’t blame Garland” btw.

        I’m pointing out one of the main reasons we’re losing so hard is we’re not even trying

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      14A arguments have been used to DQ people many times in the past without court proceedings.

      The Supreme Court is obviously going to put Trump on the ballot, but we shouldn’t pretend they have any justified reason to do so.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Let’s just ignore loopholes because Republicans would never use the same one twice!

        /s

        If we fight fascism with inaction, I do t like our chances.

        We need to do shit not just say “it would happen anyways, nothing we can do”

    • ashok36@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Trump’s main argument, though he doesn’t admit to insurrection, is that he isn’t technically an officer under the united states and so technically the 14th amendment doesn’t apply.

      He could be arguing, strongly, that he didn’t commit insurrection but he’s not. His lawyer basically said, “yeah, we don’t admit that but it doesn’t matter because of this technicality”.

      Its a super weak argument. Trumps lawyer gave the scotus very little reason to find in his favor other than, “if you find against us there will be a tit for tat among the states leading to chaos” which, yeah, but that’s not a legal argument.

  • ZK686@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Not sure why everyone around here thinks this okay to do because of “state rights.” The argument makes sense…if a state can decide, according to their own definition, that someone shouldn’t be allowed to be on a Presidential ballot, it will open the doors to chaos…

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      There’s a long history of states deciding to keep people off the ballot for other reasons the Constitution disqualifies them, such as not being 35. It’s also pretty common for minor-party candidates to only qualify for the ballot in some states.

      None of this has caused chaos.

      • ZK686@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re talking about enforcing certain laws to keep them off, that’s different than what Colorado’s doing. Colorado is deciding on their own that Trump is guilty of something, and therefore, must be kept off the ballot. Our voting system can’t allow states to determine who’s guilty of what, and who to keep of the ballots, simply based on opinion.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          We literally have an amendment to the constitution to keep insurrectionists off the ballot. That’s a form of law

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection was part of how Colorado got to booting him from the ballot.

              A criminal conviction has never been a requirement for keeping somebody out of office under the 14th amendment

              • beardown@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                SCOTUS disagrees with you. And their opinion of Constitutional legality is ultimately the only one that has any relevance

                • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  They haven’t actually issued a ruling at this point. And I don’t have to agree even if they do