Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack

floofloof@lemmy.ca to News@lemmy.world – 540 points –
Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
apnews.com
286

You are viewing a single comment

They explain in the ruling why it doesn’t make sense in the context of when this law was made to have states decide.

Should a confederate state decide who is eligible to run? No, it should be the federal government

…or so they argue

So we can just ignore the Constitution when the laws are outdated and don't make sense anymore? Cool. Let's do gun control.

The Constitution says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." SCOTUS isn't ignoring the Constitution for once.

Noteably, SCOTUS doesn't legislate, nor are they "Congress". If there is a law saying as much (states can't control primary ballots), though, sure.

Yeah, SCOTUS can't remove a candidate for insurrection. The only way is if Congress passes a law describing who is.

Of course not. Not when it suits them.

Where did I say that we can just ignore the constitution? Hell, I’ve been downvoted to hell on Reddit for suggesting that rights to firearms is restricted for militias…

My comment is on the opinion, not on you.

1 more...

I couldn't find a single legitimate reason in that decision to arbitrarily remove the power of the states or the democratic voters to remove a candidate based on very clear strictures in the Constitution, except for the implication that the conservatives would try to use this measure by claiming every valid candidate had somehow committed insurrection.

But conservatives already basically tried to do that with Biden with their "documents" case for more than 2 years now and it didn't work, they couldn't make even that relatively insignificant charge stick.

In this case, we have a judgment of a candidate liabile of an insurrection that directly violates the presidential oath of office thay previously took.

Notice I said confederate not conservative

It is hereby noted that 17 hours ago hddsx said confederate not conservative.

Someone give you shit about it?

You ignored the context of the civil war. It wasn’t about liberals or conservatives. It was about the federal government not allowing former confederate states to elect confederates into federal office. In other words, as determined by SCOTUS, this is the constitution explicitly taking power away from states and delegating it to the federal government. Thereby it is NOT a reserved right of the states and the people

I haven't talked about the civil war at all, I think you're trying to respond to a different commenter.

1 more...