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

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 867 points –
Illinois judge removes Trump from ballot because of ‘insurrectionist ban’ | CNN Politics
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.”

124

You are viewing a single comment

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:

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.

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.

if Alabama is legally able to do that

What are the consequences for Alabama doing that?

We'll have to wait and see apparently. Does that change what I said somehow?

Considering Illinois would not be setting a precedent here, yes.

You have yet to explain why Southern states couldn't just ignore Plessy if SCOTUS rulings are just suggestions.

(Remember? The thing I was replying to?)