Supreme Court rejects appeal by former New Mexico county commissioner banned for Jan. 6 insurrection

girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to News@lemmy.world – 289 points –
Supreme Court rejects appeal by former New Mexico county commissioner banned for Jan. 6 insurrection
apnews.com

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was kicked out of office over his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Former Otero County commissioner Couy Griffin, a cowboy pastor who rode to national political fame by embracing then-President Donald Trump with a series of horseback caravans, is the only elected official thus far to be banned from office in connection with the Capitol attack, which disrupted Congress as it was trying to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory over Trump.

At a 2022 trial in state district court, Griffin received the first disqualification from office in over a century under a provision of the 14th Amendment written to prevent former Confederates from serving in government after the Civil War.

Though the Supreme Court ruled this month that states don’t have the ability to bar Trump or other candidates for federal offices from the ballot, the justices said different rules apply to state and local candidates.

33

You are viewing a single comment

Griffin received the first disqualification from office in over a century under a provision of the 14th Amendment written to prevent former Confederates from serving in government after the Civil War.

And yet Trump is eligible to run for office because...?

.. because we live in one of the worst timelines.

Couy was found guilty of trespassing, while Trump is only facing charges, no verdict yet.

trespassing isn't insurgency

My point is that he's not found guilty of that yet.

My point is that we can infer he participated in the insurgency without his direct conviction for insurgency. The trespassing conviction is strong enough evidence to make the inference.

But Trump's role was public and undeniable. No inference is needed. His participation was directly observed by anyone old enough to make a judgement.

Surely you know this by now, a verdict is not required to invoke the ammendment.

Sadly it seems the Supreme Court thinks otherwise for presidential candidates.

Sadly this is why the supreme court is ILLEGITIMATE!

If states could remove candidates from federal elections, there would never be a Democrat on a federal ballot in a red state ever again. Literally, never again. It's frustrating, but I actually think the court made a good call here.

Elaborate. How will the GOP present actual proof when Dems haven't ever done an insurrection?

Go.

First, have they ever presented good evidence of anything?

Second, who would they present it to? There's no governmental agency or regulatory body in charge of disqualifying for insurrection. The only precedent we have for this is Confederates trying to run for office after the civil war, but that precedent got botched.

10/10 condescending attitude tho

Which then destroys any legitimacy the GOP has and those states results can be discarded during certification. Which, ironically is what Trump wanted to have happen on January 6th.

States can, right now, just suspend elections and have the legislature or governor appoint people. But you don't see that happening for the same reason you wouldn't see red states ban every democratic candidate.

18 more...