Illinois judge removes Trump from ballot because of ‘insurrectionist ban’
cnn.com
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Does the SC have any recourse if confidence from the public gets so low that states start ignoring them?
Not really, and it's happened before. Heck one of the worst presidents we ever had famously stated, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him try to enforce it."
SCOTUS caused the civil war this way. You should remain vigilant.
Already happening, see Hawaii ruling.
Maybe, but the more important questions are "do they care", and also "does it improve their behavior"?
Not only has he nothing more to offer them, but he has promised to be a dictator from day one, if reelected. A dictator threatens the power of judges in all courts. That's not something they should take lightly.
Hey, they've got Ethics guidelines now, so they've solved whatever trust issues the public may have had, so they don't need to hear any of this malarkey anymore. It's full steam ahead for the Christo-nationalist fascist takeover.
I hope you're right.
I don't think SCOTUS has any incentive to allow him to run. They got what they wanted, control of the courts. Disallowing him to run normalizes the practice, gets them support, and sets precedent. Now they can go after any candidate later on. Another Trump presidency would be extremely unfavorable to Americas business interests, especially now.
The business interest thing is definitely a big factor, but I don't know if it will be enough.
He's not against business interests when the cheapest labor is slave labor and we have 3 massive companies arguing that the NLRB and FTC protections are unconstitutional.
META is currently suing so that they can track and deliver ads to minors. That's their lawsuit. That they deserve the right to openly admit they are courting minors in their platforms.
Trump is a yes man and I'm sure they want him back.
I agree domestically, but internationally trump is bad for american power projection, including economic. A second trump term would convince the world this is our new norm, and there is no value in a promise made by a country whose president will ignore them to serve short term needs. And while business also seems caught in the cycle of “short term gain for long term misery,” I hope the larger institutions see the cost long term… unless ducking out of the US is part of their plan.
SCOTUS knows that Haley polls better against Biden than Trump does. It's in the interest of their owners that they block him from running.
Oh gimme a break. Those must be the same polls that showed Hillary by a landslide in 2016.
Not to mention that if he is off of any 1 ballot and loses, he has ammunition for another Jan6. If he has a "fair shot" and loses, there is less plausibility and (hopefully) fewer followers in the repeat.
I get what you're saying, but we need to stop hand-wringing what Trump and his supporters will do if we actually have consequences for him.
Not only are repercussions for him smart politically, they are the right thing to do. Dude's a fucking traitor to his country, of course he should be ineligible to hold office, no matter what Party! Lastly, these Trumpets are basically a cult at this point. "Nothing Dear Leader does is wrong, and if it was, the dems and minorities deserved it." They will say the election was rigged no matter what. Many still believe the last one was, despite Trump losing all his court cases about it and the majority of Republican leadership admitting it was a free and fair election...
They are going to do whatever malicious thing they want, regardless of what the rest of us do.
We can't allow the potential threat of whatever thing they might do push us away from continuing to strive for better outcomes.
The difference is we control the military this time.
Yeah, but every R in the house voted against a bill that would have investigated how deep the white supremacist infiltration of the military and law enforcement has penetrated. (Which FBI has been warning of for a decade or more.) I'm a veteran, and decades ago I'd have confidently stated no one I worked with would take action to support an insurrection, no matter on whose behalf. Today I'm less sure, but I've also been out of the military for quite some time.
This!
Oh I hadn’t thought of that, goodness you’re right.
States don't have to obey the supreme court.
The supreme court is a suggestion body more than anything else.
As soon as we stop taking them seriously, they stop having power.
That's certainly what Alabama thinks and why they won't draw districts that aren't racist.
The question is why you're on their side that state law takes precedence over federal law.
Because federal law isn't always just.
Look at the war on drugs.
Unjust federal laws means that the South should be allowed to be as racist as they want to be? Really? Plessy vs. Ferguson can just be ignored?
Try looking at things on a case-by-case basis then life will start to make more sense.
After that, look into the concepts of "civil disobedience" and the "social contract."
Come back when you've educated yourself more on the subject matter.
Who decides which SCOTUS cases can be ignored? Because right now, Alabama is ignoring a SCOTUS ruling to stop their racist gerrymandering. No one is able to stop them from doing it. Insulting me will not change the fact that ignoring a SCOTUS ruling is, right now, allowing official state racism to stand. And there has been no civil disobedience enough to stop it.
So, without insulting me- how do you ensure the South doesn't just ignore Plessy vs. Ferguson?
They already are. What did Illinois following rulings by an illegitimate court do to change that?
The discussion was about how states could just ignore SCOTUS. It had moved on from the topic in the article.
As far as I understand, your argument was if Illinois ignores a SCOTUS ruling that allows southern states to also ignore SCOTUS rulings, which they are already doing. What is your argument if I've misunderstood, and what is your proposal in regards to how states should deal with a ruling that is contrary to what the law should be?
This is the comment I was responding to:
And if that is the case, any Southern state can ignore Plessy v. Ferguson.
But it is clearly not the case.
Alabama is currently ignoring the Supreme Court's directive to redraw their congressional map.
Yes, I know. I already brought that up. And, again, if Alabama is legally able to do that, they are also legally able to ignore Plessy. It's one or the other.
Federal law has never controlled state elections.
Why do u think scotus has any power over how state elections are run here? Plessy v Ferguson doesn't even apply here.
Plessy v. Ferguson was another example of racist laws that could be allowed if SCOTUS can just be ignored whenever states want.
And racist gerrymandering has absolutely been taken up by SCOTUS before. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Johnson
Legal racism is not a state-by-state issue.
Why don't you just make your own thread to talk about your specific case instead of trying to hijack my comments?
You clearly can't understand the words being put in front of you, so why would I continue this discussion?
Goodbye.
I don't think your insults are called for and I don't think it would be hard to answer my question if it is such a simple matter.
Lol, someone skipped basic civics class
I mean actually they explicitly don't have the right to enforce their judgements or the ability to change laws (which has since been ignored and not challenged when they do).
Their purpose was to just make judgements and pass them to the appropriate branch. The supreme Court is a bit of a mess. I think the founders just wanted a room of smart lawyers to ask questions to on payroll.