Illinois judge removes Trump from ballot because of ‘insurrectionist ban’

News@lemmy.world – 867 points – 7 months ago

Illinois judge removes Trump from ballot because of ‘insurrectionist ban’ | CNN Politics

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.”

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

I agree to a point. But everyone with the power to do something about this also has the obligation to act within and maintain the law. They have to use their best judgement on what it means to have "committed" insurrection, whether it is just based on vibes or a common understanding or a conviction in a court. I can't fault them for any of those choices. Legally at least.

I didn't take an binding oath to respect our legal system, so I can easily say he shouldn't be on the ballot anywhere in America. They can't make that assertion so easily.

I'm no scholar but maybe guiding a mob to disrupt an official proceeding with the threat of murder by gallows that were setup by a makeshift militia qualifies as an insurrection.

No shit. But everyone knowing something is different than being convicted of it. It's why OJ Simpson isn't in jail. Either we all agree to abide by the legal system or we don't.

OJ was (stupidly) found to be not guilty in a court of law.

The difference here is that the 14th Amendment says nothing about a court of law.

Section 3

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.

Well if a 7 foot wookie is living on a planet with 3 foot tall ewoks then why shouldn't insurrectionist Trump be president? It don't make sense.

If it don't make sense then my client can do whatever they want. Here look at the silly monkey.

Since it says nothing, it's left up to "us" to decide. And by us, I mean our elected representatives and the courts. And those entities are indeed making these decisions right now. I'm just not shocked that they don't all come to the same conclusion like some people in this thread.

"I'm sorry officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that"

We do. They don't.

The judge in Colorado did state that trump "engaged in insurrection". SCOTUS did everything they could to ignore that part of the case in listening to the appeal, like in the illegitimate court it is.