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.
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.
This is always such a spurious argument; Republicans will do what they're going to do regardless of precedent. There was no precedent for their attempt to throw out the results of last election but they did it anyway.
Exactly. Precedents only give them more ideas, but they’re perfectly capable of coming up with them on their own. Besides, if we keep worrying about how bodies of government doing their damn jobs to kepp the R’s in line will later be abused by republicans, then that’s just giving that full control to the republicans in a lot fewer steps
Republicans straight up dont give a flying fuck about rules, laws or precedent. They will always do whatever the fuck they want to do. Damn the consequences.
Oh no they do. Their strategy is to push a precedent that fits their agenda little by little. Once they’ve got that president set they can carry out their designs more easily, and spend efforts setting other convenient precedents.
Like, they are going to continue breaking the rules. But that doesn’t mean the rules aren’t still slowing them down.
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…
I was thinking this too. But let’s suppose the Democratic run states decide to play dirty (I know, I know). Now nobody gets past the post in a presidential election… Now what?
If a candidate for President fails to receive 270 [electoral college] votes, the House itself will choose the President from among the three individuals who received the most electoral votes. In this process, each state receives one vote, and it’s up to the House members from that state to decide how to cast it. The election has gone to the House twice, in 1801 and 1825.
And if the House cannot do it, the Speaker becomes President until the House elects someone.
Fine, then the civil war that’s been brewing finally kicks off and we can deal with fascists in the appropriate manner. That’s not a compelling reason to implicitly allow fascists to participate in elections after attempting a coup, which would be the message sent if this is denied.
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.
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?
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.
I mean, it never really should’ve gotten to the Colorado court in the first place.
And like, we already can’t vote someone under 35, or a foreign national into the Whitehouse. Honestly I think “no insurrectionists” is the most reasonable restriction of the three.
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.
You’re literally advocating for letting Trump do unconstitutional things
No, I’m not. I’m reinforcing the likely outcome that is coming from the Supreme Court based on their own words, and threads of inquiry during oral arguments. I don’t agree with it, but I am preparing for it. They are 100% not going to unilaterally allow Donald Trump to be removed from state ballots. If you think they are, you are lying to yourself.
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.
I agree, but I’m not the one you need to convince. The Supreme Court doesn’t share your impassioned desire for justice and ethics. They are absolutely going to hedge their bets in preparation for retaliatory legal action by Republican majority states who are already acting with impunity right now if you hadn’t noticed.
They’re judges. This is their job.
They are also human beings, and they are prone to irrational actions based on implicit personal biases. This is a body that, in my opinion, no longer serves its designed function and now exists solely as an abstract exercise in mentally masturbatory naval gazing that collectively sees itself as completely disconnected from the ramifications of its actions. It is literally the godhead of a profoundly sick society that is trapped in a self-imposed negative feedback loop that is unlikely to be changed without mass civil unrest.
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…
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.
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.
Obviously they haven’t issued an opinion, but their comments today make it clear what they’re going to do
My point is that you can’t put forth any authoritative argument on this matter when SCOTUS is just going to rule for Trump. And they ultimately decide what the Constitution means and does not mean.
Legally, they are sovereign over the interpretation of all aspects of the constitution. So saying that they’re being hypocritical or are ignoring precedent isn’t really relevant. They’re allowed to do that.
It is true that the Constitution does not explicitly grant SCOTUS the power of judicial review. SCOTUS granted itself that power in Marbury v Madison, which was 225+ years ago
Libs should bring that up more often tbh. As should textualists, tbh
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.
Trump being kicked off the ballot wouldn’t save the Republican Party at all. It’s likely Trump would turn his ire toward them more than ever, and many of his voters would stay home
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.
I’m afraid this issue (contingent on the expected result of failure of the “justice” system) can no longer be solved peacefully. This is the moment all those 2nd amendment goons were keeping their dicks hard guns ready for, and they’re all in arms to support the domestic enemy. There’s nothing left to do. Get a gun.
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.
He was found by a court in Colorado to have engaged insurrection. A criminal conviction is not necessary. Just like there’s no conviction necessary for any other disqualification like age, citizenship, residency, and all the others.
The 14th amendment requires no criminal conviction. Your whole argument about needing to be convicted of insurrection is just flat out wrong based on the actual text of the amendment. You can argue it’s poorly written, and I might agree with you, but it says what it says.
The remedy for being disqualified by the 14th is to petition congress to remove the disqualification. Such remedies were petitioned for and approved in the 1860s and 70s without much fuss.
See, while what you’re saying is true, it’s not the whole truth.
The remedies in the late 1800’s were required because Congress had already taken action to define the events of the Civil War as an insurrection. It was an act of Congress that they were having to appeal. There has been no similar act of Congress that Trump would need to appeal.
The core question, and one that the justices seem to be asking pointedly, is who determines whether someone’s actions constitute “insurrection”? In the past, it was Congress. There’s certainly an argument to be made that if someone was convicted of criminal insurrection, that would suffice. But absent those two, how do you make that determination, and who makes that determination.
I think the court feels that, while the 14th doesn’t explicitly state how to make that determination, absent a criminal conviction or act of Congress, that there is no grounds to disqualify a candidate due to 14th amendment rules.
And I think I kind of agree. Or, at least, I think there should be some sort of objective metric that gets defined before making a determination. Especially since the last major use of the 14th was literally the Civil War, which, as bad as Jan6 was, is a pretty huge amount worse. And if we’re plotting them along a continuum, to the left of Jan6 you have things like mass protests that attempt to shut down government functions to push certain agendas, which I think we all agree is well within the bounds of freedom of speech.
I’m not defending Trump, let me be clear. I am simply advocating that we note that there is nuance to this issue. Life is not painted in black and white. Just because something was bad, and even that it should be disqualifying, doesn’t mean that it’s easy to justify that fact in the current legal framework we exist in.
The state of Colorado has found, as a matter of fact, that Trump engaged in insurrection.
To argue that it takes an act of congress to declare someone an insurrectionist when the remedy for such a declaration is also congress doesn’t make any sense. You can’t have the same body deciding such things because you’d just have a chicken and egg situation (which is exactly what trump wants).
That’s nice, but SCOTUS is going to disagree with your interpretation.
There’s no point in arguing with any sense of clarity on any matter of Constitutional interpretation while this Supreme Court is on the bench. They will do whatever they want, and we will suffer the consequences as always
And a large part of the SCOTUS scepticism is why should one state be able to decide that as a matter of fact for the rest of the country. From their point of view this should be a federal decision.
And typically you wouldn’t see Congress declare a single person as traitorous. Congress could declare Jan6 an insurrection, and then anyone involved who believes they should get an exception is allowed to seek remediation by Congress. Hardly a chicken and egg problem.
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.
“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…”
Right, and so we end up with even more of a mess than usual with presidential elections. Because some judges will actually do their job while others will find any excuse to play dirty.
The flip side is someone who actually participated in insurrection, like Trump, gets to be elected to office until Congress establishes a new set of laws for eligibility. Which won’t happen with the current political parties. But… What can you do.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The language is deliberately vague here. It doesn’t say a person needs to be convicted of anything, only that they committed the act. Colorado put forth an excellent case that the actions Trump engaged in count as insurrection.
During oral arguments in the court today, the justices hand-waved this aside and changed the subject, asking “what if” questions about them allowing Trump’s removal, speculating that any state could easily gin-up boloney insurrection arguments against any candidate and have them yanked off the ballot. “What would we do then?” they kept asking.
From home, I’m yelling “You do your fucking job.” Let the speculative bullshit charges be made, appealed, heard and rejected for the bullshit that they are, shaming the shit-slinging politicians for wasting the peoples’ time.
It’s hilarious that you got this exactly wrong. Nowhere does it say he needs to be convicted. Prior uses of this amendment haven’t required convictions.
Prior uses of this amendment haven’t required convictions.
So what? Even if true, why would SCOTUS care about that?
Trump is a former president of the United States who allegedly engaged in insurrection while actively serving as president, and was never convicted of any crime relating to that alleged insurrection.
Given those facts, you seriously think Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts are incapable of finding that those facts are so unique as to materially distinguish him from any prior application of the 14th amendment? Even after Dobbs? And Heller? And Citizen’s United?
You’re acting like you believe that SCOTUS must apply the law according to its plain text and in conformity with legal precedent. That is a delusion and a fairy tale.
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.
Considering holding the orange dotard accountable was essentially his whole campaign platform, yeah, plenty of blame for Biden on this one too. But it was Garland’s job to do the needful and he slept on it, until finally calling in Jack Smith at the 11th hour to do something.
Too little, too late, once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - the DNC.
Add comment