Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.
This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying "Trump did nothing wrong", this is specifically saying "States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots", which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.
The SC could come out tomorrow and say "We're disqualifying Trump", this doesn't preclude that.
States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it's never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.
Now they do not, as outlined by the supreme court this morning. You can disagree with the ruling all you want, but that doesn't make the premise that "the SC has no problem with insurrectionist behavior!" any less stupid. It's a fallacious premise.
Consider the fact that there is more than one grounds for disqualification. For president, there are also age and naturalization disqualifications.
Who do you think has been determining those all these years?
You're getting further and further away from your original, still ridiculous statement that the SCOTUS has no problem with you storming the building.
That is what is known as "sarcasm". I wasn't sincerely calling for violence against the Supreme Court, but rather drawing attention to their hypocrisy.
it’s never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.
It's up to Congress to decide if someone is guilty of federal insurrection, not the states.
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see replies. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
On the contrary, Congress is expressly forbidden from deciding whether someone is guilty of a crime.
IMPEACHMENT has entered the chat.
Impeachment is expressly not a criminal procedure. It can't result in prison or fines, nor can it can't be pardoned by the President.
But it is the process by which a candidate can be removed from the ballot.
So if you want to go with Trump is criminally guilty of insurrection, and therefore ineligible to be on the ballot, when and where was the trial?
Being convicted of a crime doesn't disqualify anyone; people have run for President from prison. And most of the people who attacked Congress on Jan. 6 would not be disqualified for it even if they are convicted of a crime for it.
Disqualification is not a criminal punishment. It's not a crime to be 34 years old, for example, or to have been born in another country. But those are still disqualifications, and they are and always have been enforced by the states.
The specific crimes I was thinking of were: impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors or criminal conviction for treason.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art that refers to acts committed by a public official which, while not necessarily a crime in themselves, are a violation of public trust.
For example, a president that accepted a foreign title of nobility without Congressional consent would have committed a high crime, but they couldn't be hauled into a criminal court for it.
Right.
Congress would control that, just like determining an insurrection was committed.
They didn't do that.
The media did.
The only thing Congress can do is remove Trump's disqualification under the 14th amendment. They can't decide whether he's disqualified in the first place.
One judge "finds" he did it. What a lovely country we would have if that's all it took. No defense, no evidence needed. Just a judges opinion.
Short slope to a work camp. Maybe we could sort of concentrate all the people we disagree with in one.
All fair points that still ignore the guy who tried to overthrow the country where absolutely nothing was done about him, to hold him accountable.
If the feds are saying only they can protect the country from all enemies orange and domestic, there’s about 80 million active voters who might, uh, decidedly disagree. As opposed to some other adverb.
Point is that if the three blue states disqualify without a federal ruling and that stands, then you can bet a bunch of red states will declare Biden disqualified because he stole the election or some crap.
The place to direct frustration is the federal government for failing to make the requisite determination. Not at the unanimous supreme court decision that prevents chaotic behavior by the states with respect to federal races. There should be consistency state to state as to whether a candidate is fundamentally qualified or not.
If O'l Joe has 80 million voters, why are you worried about Trump being on the ballot? He can't possibly win.
Because that anti-american filth being on the ballot legitimizes treason.
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see replies. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
Textbook Sealion
There's no reason a state can't make that decision. You didn't even make an argument. Just made a statement.
There’s no reason a state can’t make that decision. You didn’t even make an argument. Just made a statement.
I didn't need to make an argument because SCOTUS decided that only Congress is the authority for ballot removal per section 5. It made a lot of people mad and down-arrowed facts. The internet Constitutional scholars came out in droves.
States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.
[citation needed]
List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn't convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don't see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it's as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it's the state, of course.)
Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning?
Only those thrown off the ballot using section 3 of the 14th amendment. Ballot access requirements in general have been before the court many times before and upheld generally, while some have been struck down when excessive or discriminatory.
It's legal to say something like all candidates must get signatures equal to 3% of the number of voters for the office in the last election in order to be on the ballot. It's illegal to say something like black candidates must get signatures of 15% of voters.
Funny. Have you read the ruling? They absolutely do not stop at section 3 of the 14th. They are over turning 200 plus years of precedent in which states disqualified ineligible candidates.
They opine that there is no bar to campaigning, just holding office. And that any disqualification must therefore come after the election, via a federal law or congressional framework.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Have you read the ruling? It actually states there was no precedent of its use as applied here, and was in violation of precedents such as prohibitions against congressional term limits.
Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Oh yes convenient for them to ignore the existence of reality.
States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.
Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.
Me, I don't want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that's what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.
This is all a moot point. Trump simply does not qualify.
It's just like he was 34.
He cannot hold that office. What the states do is irrelevant.
Trump got due process through the congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.
Nowhere does the Constitution even say due process is needed here.
This is not a punishment. Trump has no right to run for president.
He has to qualify.
He does not qualify.
This is all a moot point.
You're right, the Supreme Court ruled.
Trump simply does not qualify.
Nine Justices disagreed. Final Answer.
congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.
Meaningless. It has to go to the entire House. And BTW...where is the evidence from that bipartisan panel? O right, it was deleted before the other party took control of the House. Nothing to see here.
You didn't look at the link, did you? There's a map that shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in each state. If the federal government was in charge of presidential candidates, wouldn't all those numbers be the same?
Not if they didn't file the correct paperwork (on time), pay the necessary fees, and I believe, have enough qualified signatures is each state in which you want to appear on the ballot.
Making the argument that a state can otherwise disqualify because they believe you are guilty of insurrection is now moot. 9-0.
So states do have the right to set requirements to be on their ballot for a federal election in their state?
Yes, as long as the requirements are uniform in every state and don't discriminate against any particular candidate. SCOTUS affirmed that last part today.
They're not uniform. That's the whole point of my post.
You just won my argument for me. Those are all state rules limiting who can be on a ballot. The state used to make the rules, now it seems there are no limitations whatsoever.
deleted by creator
I'm neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I'll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.
And they decided 9-0.
deleted by creator
their own ballots
Not federal ballots.
Except a state tried here and got slapped down 9-0. Seems to me it was deemed unconstitutional by the folks that decide that sort of thing.
deleted by creator
Lol. It's ok to disagree with the decision. It's ok to be mad at the decision. It's ok to internet argue the constitutionality of the decision. All of it makes this >< much difference. Trump will be on the ballot, will be the nominee, and will be absolutely crushed by the most popular president in history. I don't know why anyone is worried.
States have been doing this for 232 years. It is wild that it's suddenly now not Constitutional. Especially when the Constitution has this to say on the matter.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So what law is there?
And why the fuck is SCOTUS inserting itself into the electoral process again? It's not mentioned anywhere in that section for a reason. If SCOTUS can influence elections then they can influence appointments and regulations about them, which makes the entire checks and balance system a dead letter.
They’re going off of the lack of due process and any hope that his crimes will be answered for.
Legally, it’s this but actually it’s that. The court can argue its points, if they survive. Meanwhile has anyone seen the unredacted Mueller report yet? No? No one? Hmm. HOW STRANGE. Legally, the courts are fine with that too, though.
Trump’s process is going to come due, and we’d all prefer it be on live tv.
unredacted Mueller report
I'm still waiting for the Epstein list.
They use procedural reasons all the time. It's why ballot access is a huge deal to third parties, and they still have to sue some state or another every election.
Abdul Hassan, Colorado, 2012.
And I'm not a genie. I don't wait here for your every request. The fact that I got back to this inside an hour is a miracle. So maybe less of the "woe is me!" Routine next time?
Abdul Hassan
Guyanese-born, so not a natural born citizen, therefore not otherwise eligible. He sued, citing discrimination, and lost. Try again, this time with a natural born citizen >35 years old.
And "the woe is me routine" is for all the down arrows on this subject that didn't or couldn't provide a name.
Buddy. That's why people get disqualified. They aren't eligible. You're asking for something beyond reality.
I'm asking for something that doesn't exist.
Most recently, it continues to not exist because States can't disqualify according to SCOTUS.
Except, as I've demonstrated, they have disqualified people in the past.
Think the point is the criteria for disqualification and if there is a determination and who must make it.
Under 35? Ok, a state can clearly see that they are under 35, it's not a judgement, it's just a boring fact.
Not a natural born citizen? Again, a sinple fact.
Failed to appropriately follow that state's procedures to get on the ballot? Again, local determination is easy.
But if the only disqualification proposed is 14th amendment, needs federal government (and evidently Congress specifically, which I didn't expect) to determine. The states cannot unilaterally declare a federal candidate to be an insurrectionest, no matter how obvious it may seem. If it is so obvious the federal government should have acted, buy if they don't, there isn't a judicial remedy.
In short, just vote against the dude. The three states were all symbolic only anyway, They weren't going to sway the primaries and especially not the general election. Use this energy to motivate folks to go vote against him, that is the only remedy.
If we can't disqualify someone without an act of Congress after they've become president-elect then section 3 is either a dead letter or a suicide pact. There's also the problem of why specifically enjoin congress to remove the disability but not to impose it? The reasoning they used to come to these conclusions is twisted and obviously a result of working backwards from a conclusion they already wanted.
Well I'll agree that I was surprised they said Congress specifically, but I at least do think it'd have to be a federal matter, rather than state's discretion.
Note this was unanimous. The liberal justices also agreed a state shouldn't do this. It would be a mess if you opened that up. The GOP would absolutely game that if it were allowed.
In a well functioning version of the US that would mean Congress refuses to certify their state election results. There's also the problem that this isn't going away. This kind of leadership crisis has to dealt with as early as possible and we're kicking the can down the road because we're afraid of the consequences. (The liberal judges inferred as much in their separate opinion)
But a look at history tells us that the further a crisis like this gets kicked down the road, the bloodier the resolution is when it happens, and the long term situation just gets worse too. The ultimate in can kicking was the French Revolution which saw mass murder of commoners in areas backing the king, and mob warfare in the Capitol.
So while we might weather some limited political violence and a lot of protests now, in the future that ratio flips
The Green Party, 2020 election. State supreme Court removed them from the presidential election ballot for errors in paperwork that... Are honestly entirely bureaucratic nightmare to read.
Not the first or last time there have been state based hearings in court to remove candidates especially Green Party. States decide their own ballots all the time.
Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election ballot since you can't be removed by the state.
We should make the ballot 12 pages long with every single vague or minor party enforcing they can't have their name removed running for any federal position.
Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election
Nah, I'll just write it in. My wife still likes me, so maybe I can get two votes.
Hey I'm actually trying to have the conversation you apparently wanted. I get you are, I guess, done with that notion.
So I'm just gonna point out this waste of a comment. You'd be better off just ignoring the people who try to legitimately add rather than just adding a wasted joke and delegitimizing your position further.
It's literally moot at this point. Internet lawyers arguing constitutional law when SCOTUS has made a (unanimous decision) on the matter is just people blowing off steam.
If you agree with the decision (I do), trying to change someone's mind (who doesn't) is probably not going to happen.
You've been reasoned in your disagreement. I appreciate that.
Arguably states unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot is a major paving stone on the road to the civil war, when Lincoln won because of the split pro slave vote the south blew a gasket because it only just hit them then that everyone else had enough electors among them to ignore the south completely.
The idea that we have to let an insurrectionist campaign and win before disqualifying them is far worse. It would instantly lead to massive protests and violence from whichever party had that happen to them. If you want to avoid civil war then denial must happen early if at all.
A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can't use the 14th Amendment.
Ultimately, it's a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn't yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they're just sort of declaring it's true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it's asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare
in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office.
That may be true, but the problem is that we really needed the federal government to actually bother to inflict consequences on Trump.
Colorado can't make the determination of insurrectionest for say North Dakota, and it's nuts if the eligibility of a president varies state to state. So the federal government has to be responsible for the determination.
Even putting that aside, only three states even tried to declare him insurrectionist. The three states didn't have even enough sway to influence the Republican race. Even to the extent they did, Republicans already declared they would caucus to sidestep the primary ballot if Trump were banned. In the general election, those states have been true blue for at least 16 years, no Republican was going to get those electoral votes anyway. It was only ever going to be a symbolic gesture even if it could stand, the federal government would have had to disqualify him in states that actually mattered for any meaningful result.
And ND is free to keep him on the ballot. If a state is acting egregiously there is a remedy for that in the certification of electors in early January.
Maybe the actual fix is to make the college of electors real again. We elect not a president but someone we trust to make a decision in that college and possibly become president.
Oh my, could you imagine the disaster of the certification of electors genuinely became contentious? Could you imagine what happens if the electors chose whomever they felt like without the general populace knowing in advance? It would end up being supremely corrupt.
Eh, it's certainly different. Most likely one of the electors would be president and the electors who supported them would take high ranking appointments in the administration.
It's not a State Law they're using to remove him. It's federal election laws. It's in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. They even specifically discussed if a President should have an exception and decided it did not. The Supreme Court is choosing NOT to enforce the US Federal Constitution!
On the other hand, I could definitely see a bunch of red-controlled states deciding to remove Biden (or future Dem candidates) for whatever bullshit reason in the future, so while this ruling isn't necessarily consistent with current practice it at least doesn't open the door to that.
Except that R's are already pretty cool with being inconsistent about what is our isn't allowed, which is how we got certain members of the SC in the first place...
In this case, I don't disagree with their decisions and neither did the moderate justices.
This prevents all of the heavily gerrymandered red States from pulling Biden from the ballot as well.
And if they ruled in favor of pulling Trump from the ballot, you can bet your ass that Biden will be gone from every red and swing state ballot too. Possibly more than we would be able to get Trump pulled from.
Then we knew it was a sham all along and we march in the streets. Giving a criminal conspiracy what they want because they might conspire is crazy town.
. . . For no reason, being the difference. Right.
The thing is, there being no reason wouldn't stop them from declaring that they have a reason. They'd abuse the hell out of it. No one is saying there is a justification for disqualifying Biden, just that a lot of GOP folks would do it anyway.
See when they decided they needed some sort of revenge impeachment and impeached without any particular reason.
Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.
This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying "Trump did nothing wrong", this is specifically saying "States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots", which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.
The SC could come out tomorrow and say "We're disqualifying Trump", this doesn't preclude that.
States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it's never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.
Now they do not, as outlined by the supreme court this morning. You can disagree with the ruling all you want, but that doesn't make the premise that "the SC has no problem with insurrectionist behavior!" any less stupid. It's a fallacious premise.
Consider the fact that there is more than one grounds for disqualification. For president, there are also age and naturalization disqualifications.
Who do you think has been determining those all these years?
You're getting further and further away from your original, still ridiculous statement that the SCOTUS has no problem with you storming the building.
That is what is known as "sarcasm". I wasn't sincerely calling for violence against the Supreme Court, but rather drawing attention to their hypocrisy.
It's up to Congress to decide if someone is guilty of federal insurrection, not the states.
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see replies. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
On the contrary, Congress is expressly forbidden from deciding whether someone is guilty of a crime.
IMPEACHMENT has entered the chat.
Impeachment is expressly not a criminal procedure. It can't result in prison or fines, nor can it can't be pardoned by the President.
But it is the process by which a candidate can be removed from the ballot.
So if you want to go with Trump is criminally guilty of insurrection, and therefore ineligible to be on the ballot, when and where was the trial?
Being convicted of a crime doesn't disqualify anyone; people have run for President from prison. And most of the people who attacked Congress on Jan. 6 would not be disqualified for it even if they are convicted of a crime for it.
Disqualification is not a criminal punishment. It's not a crime to be 34 years old, for example, or to have been born in another country. But those are still disqualifications, and they are and always have been enforced by the states.
The specific crimes I was thinking of were: impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors or criminal conviction for treason.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art that refers to acts committed by a public official which, while not necessarily a crime in themselves, are a violation of public trust.
For example, a president that accepted a foreign title of nobility without Congressional consent would have committed a high crime, but they couldn't be hauled into a criminal court for it.
Right.
Congress would control that, just like determining an insurrection was committed.
They didn't do that.
The media did.
The only thing Congress can do is remove Trump's disqualification under the 14th amendment. They can't decide whether he's disqualified in the first place.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot
One judge "finds" he did it. What a lovely country we would have if that's all it took. No defense, no evidence needed. Just a judges opinion.
Short slope to a work camp. Maybe we could sort of concentrate all the people we disagree with in one.
All fair points that still ignore the guy who tried to overthrow the country where absolutely nothing was done about him, to hold him accountable.
If the feds are saying only they can protect the country from all enemies orange and domestic, there’s about 80 million active voters who might, uh, decidedly disagree. As opposed to some other adverb.
Point is that if the three blue states disqualify without a federal ruling and that stands, then you can bet a bunch of red states will declare Biden disqualified because he stole the election or some crap.
The place to direct frustration is the federal government for failing to make the requisite determination. Not at the unanimous supreme court decision that prevents chaotic behavior by the states with respect to federal races. There should be consistency state to state as to whether a candidate is fundamentally qualified or not.
If O'l Joe has 80 million voters, why are you worried about Trump being on the ballot? He can't possibly win.
Because that anti-american filth being on the ballot legitimizes treason.
Textbook Sealion
There's no reason a state can't make that decision. You didn't even make an argument. Just made a statement.
I didn't need to make an argument because SCOTUS decided that only Congress is the authority for ballot removal per section 5. It made a lot of people mad and down-arrowed facts. The internet Constitutional scholars came out in droves.
Here is the decision that most of them didn't read PDF warning
States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.
[citation needed]
List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn't convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don't see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it's as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020
Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it's the state, of course.)
Only those thrown off the ballot using section 3 of the 14th amendment. Ballot access requirements in general have been before the court many times before and upheld generally, while some have been struck down when excessive or discriminatory.
It's legal to say something like all candidates must get signatures equal to 3% of the number of voters for the office in the last election in order to be on the ballot. It's illegal to say something like black candidates must get signatures of 15% of voters.
Funny. Have you read the ruling? They absolutely do not stop at section 3 of the 14th. They are over turning 200 plus years of precedent in which states disqualified ineligible candidates.
They opine that there is no bar to campaigning, just holding office. And that any disqualification must therefore come after the election, via a federal law or congressional framework.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Have you read the ruling? It actually states there was no precedent of its use as applied here, and was in violation of precedents such as prohibitions against congressional term limits. Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Oh yes convenient for them to ignore the existence of reality.
States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.
Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.
Me, I don't want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that's what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.
This is all a moot point. Trump simply does not qualify.
It's just like he was 34.
He cannot hold that office. What the states do is irrelevant.
Trump got due process through the congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.
Nowhere does the Constitution even say due process is needed here.
This is not a punishment. Trump has no right to run for president.
He has to qualify.
He does not qualify.
You're right, the Supreme Court ruled.
Nine Justices disagreed. Final Answer.
Meaningless. It has to go to the entire House. And BTW...where is the evidence from that bipartisan panel? O right, it was deleted before the other party took control of the House. Nothing to see here.
You didn't look at the link, did you? There's a map that shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in each state. If the federal government was in charge of presidential candidates, wouldn't all those numbers be the same?
Not if they didn't file the correct paperwork (on time), pay the necessary fees, and I believe, have enough qualified signatures is each state in which you want to appear on the ballot.
Making the argument that a state can otherwise disqualify because they believe you are guilty of insurrection is now moot. 9-0.
So states do have the right to set requirements to be on their ballot for a federal election in their state?
Yes, as long as the requirements are uniform in every state and don't discriminate against any particular candidate. SCOTUS affirmed that last part today.
They're not uniform. That's the whole point of my post.
You just won my argument for me. Those are all state rules limiting who can be on a ballot. The state used to make the rules, now it seems there are no limitations whatsoever.
deleted by creator
I'm neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I'll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.
And they decided 9-0.
deleted by creator
Not federal ballots.
Except a state tried here and got slapped down 9-0. Seems to me it was deemed unconstitutional by the folks that decide that sort of thing.
deleted by creator
Lol. It's ok to disagree with the decision. It's ok to be mad at the decision. It's ok to internet argue the constitutionality of the decision. All of it makes this >< much difference. Trump will be on the ballot, will be the nominee, and will be absolutely crushed by the most popular president in history. I don't know why anyone is worried.
States have been doing this for 232 years. It is wild that it's suddenly now not Constitutional. Especially when the Constitution has this to say on the matter.
So what law is there?
And why the fuck is SCOTUS inserting itself into the electoral process again? It's not mentioned anywhere in that section for a reason. If SCOTUS can influence elections then they can influence appointments and regulations about them, which makes the entire checks and balance system a dead letter.
They’re going off of the lack of due process and any hope that his crimes will be answered for.
Legally, it’s this but actually it’s that. The court can argue its points, if they survive. Meanwhile has anyone seen the unredacted Mueller report yet? No? No one? Hmm. HOW STRANGE. Legally, the courts are fine with that too, though.
Trump’s process is going to come due, and we’d all prefer it be on live tv.
I'm still waiting for the Epstein list.
They use procedural reasons all the time. It's why ballot access is a huge deal to third parties, and they still have to sue some state or another every election.
Abdul Hassan, Colorado, 2012.
And I'm not a genie. I don't wait here for your every request. The fact that I got back to this inside an hour is a miracle. So maybe less of the "woe is me!" Routine next time?
Guyanese-born, so not a natural born citizen, therefore not otherwise eligible. He sued, citing discrimination, and lost. Try again, this time with a natural born citizen >35 years old.
And "the woe is me routine" is for all the down arrows on this subject that didn't or couldn't provide a name.
Buddy. That's why people get disqualified. They aren't eligible. You're asking for something beyond reality.
I'm asking for something that doesn't exist.
Most recently, it continues to not exist because States can't disqualify according to SCOTUS.
Except, as I've demonstrated, they have disqualified people in the past.
Think the point is the criteria for disqualification and if there is a determination and who must make it.
Under 35? Ok, a state can clearly see that they are under 35, it's not a judgement, it's just a boring fact.
Not a natural born citizen? Again, a sinple fact.
Failed to appropriately follow that state's procedures to get on the ballot? Again, local determination is easy.
But if the only disqualification proposed is 14th amendment, needs federal government (and evidently Congress specifically, which I didn't expect) to determine. The states cannot unilaterally declare a federal candidate to be an insurrectionest, no matter how obvious it may seem. If it is so obvious the federal government should have acted, buy if they don't, there isn't a judicial remedy.
In short, just vote against the dude. The three states were all symbolic only anyway, They weren't going to sway the primaries and especially not the general election. Use this energy to motivate folks to go vote against him, that is the only remedy.
If we can't disqualify someone without an act of Congress after they've become president-elect then section 3 is either a dead letter or a suicide pact. There's also the problem of why specifically enjoin congress to remove the disability but not to impose it? The reasoning they used to come to these conclusions is twisted and obviously a result of working backwards from a conclusion they already wanted.
Well I'll agree that I was surprised they said Congress specifically, but I at least do think it'd have to be a federal matter, rather than state's discretion.
Note this was unanimous. The liberal justices also agreed a state shouldn't do this. It would be a mess if you opened that up. The GOP would absolutely game that if it were allowed.
In a well functioning version of the US that would mean Congress refuses to certify their state election results. There's also the problem that this isn't going away. This kind of leadership crisis has to dealt with as early as possible and we're kicking the can down the road because we're afraid of the consequences. (The liberal judges inferred as much in their separate opinion)
But a look at history tells us that the further a crisis like this gets kicked down the road, the bloodier the resolution is when it happens, and the long term situation just gets worse too. The ultimate in can kicking was the French Revolution which saw mass murder of commoners in areas backing the king, and mob warfare in the Capitol.
So while we might weather some limited political violence and a lot of protests now, in the future that ratio flips
Not an otherwise eligible candidate on a federal ballot.
Ohhh. So you think they have to be under 35, not a citizen by birth, and an insurrectionist who previously took an oath to the country?
Yeah, you're wrong.
And you're hilarious.
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/green-party-presidential-candidate-off-pennsylvania-ballot-20200917.html
The Green Party, 2020 election. State supreme Court removed them from the presidential election ballot for errors in paperwork that... Are honestly entirely bureaucratic nightmare to read.
Not the first or last time there have been state based hearings in court to remove candidates especially Green Party. States decide their own ballots all the time. Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election ballot since you can't be removed by the state.
We should make the ballot 12 pages long with every single vague or minor party enforcing they can't have their name removed running for any federal position.
Nah, I'll just write it in. My wife still likes me, so maybe I can get two votes.
Hey I'm actually trying to have the conversation you apparently wanted. I get you are, I guess, done with that notion.
So I'm just gonna point out this waste of a comment. You'd be better off just ignoring the people who try to legitimately add rather than just adding a wasted joke and delegitimizing your position further.
It's literally moot at this point. Internet lawyers arguing constitutional law when SCOTUS has made a (unanimous decision) on the matter is just people blowing off steam.
If you agree with the decision (I do), trying to change someone's mind (who doesn't) is probably not going to happen.
You've been reasoned in your disagreement. I appreciate that.
Arguably states unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot is a major paving stone on the road to the civil war, when Lincoln won because of the split pro slave vote the south blew a gasket because it only just hit them then that everyone else had enough electors among them to ignore the south completely.
The idea that we have to let an insurrectionist campaign and win before disqualifying them is far worse. It would instantly lead to massive protests and violence from whichever party had that happen to them. If you want to avoid civil war then denial must happen early if at all.
A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can't use the 14th Amendment.
Ultimately, it's a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn't yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they're just sort of declaring it's true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it's asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office.
That may be true, but the problem is that we really needed the federal government to actually bother to inflict consequences on Trump.
Colorado can't make the determination of insurrectionest for say North Dakota, and it's nuts if the eligibility of a president varies state to state. So the federal government has to be responsible for the determination.
Even putting that aside, only three states even tried to declare him insurrectionist. The three states didn't have even enough sway to influence the Republican race. Even to the extent they did, Republicans already declared they would caucus to sidestep the primary ballot if Trump were banned. In the general election, those states have been true blue for at least 16 years, no Republican was going to get those electoral votes anyway. It was only ever going to be a symbolic gesture even if it could stand, the federal government would have had to disqualify him in states that actually mattered for any meaningful result.
And ND is free to keep him on the ballot. If a state is acting egregiously there is a remedy for that in the certification of electors in early January.
Maybe the actual fix is to make the college of electors real again. We elect not a president but someone we trust to make a decision in that college and possibly become president.
Oh my, could you imagine the disaster of the certification of electors genuinely became contentious? Could you imagine what happens if the electors chose whomever they felt like without the general populace knowing in advance? It would end up being supremely corrupt.
Eh, it's certainly different. Most likely one of the electors would be president and the electors who supported them would take high ranking appointments in the administration.
It's not a State Law they're using to remove him. It's federal election laws. It's in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. They even specifically discussed if a President should have an exception and decided it did not. The Supreme Court is choosing NOT to enforce the US Federal Constitution!
On the other hand, I could definitely see a bunch of red-controlled states deciding to remove Biden (or future Dem candidates) for whatever bullshit reason in the future, so while this ruling isn't necessarily consistent with current practice it at least doesn't open the door to that.
Except that R's are already pretty cool with being inconsistent about what is our isn't allowed, which is how we got certain members of the SC in the first place...
No justice, no peace.
In this case, I don't disagree with their decisions and neither did the moderate justices.
This prevents all of the heavily gerrymandered red States from pulling Biden from the ballot as well.
And if they ruled in favor of pulling Trump from the ballot, you can bet your ass that Biden will be gone from every red and swing state ballot too. Possibly more than we would be able to get Trump pulled from.
Then we knew it was a sham all along and we march in the streets. Giving a criminal conspiracy what they want because they might conspire is crazy town.
. . . For no reason, being the difference. Right.
The thing is, there being no reason wouldn't stop them from declaring that they have a reason. They'd abuse the hell out of it. No one is saying there is a justification for disqualifying Biden, just that a lot of GOP folks would do it anyway.
See when they decided they needed some sort of revenge impeachment and impeached without any particular reason.