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.”
It is still crazy to me, he is responsible for an insurrection and still gets the option to run for President. Every time I've talked about it on twitter some right-winger will bring up it was mostly peaceful and some other event that has nothing to do with anything lol.
This is an important lesson in Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Trump is very much a narcissist). Narcissists use vague and ambiguous language, usually rapid fire, in order to confuse and disorient listeners. The term is called Narcissistic Word Salad. It means that he can rile people up to commit an insurrection while at the same time be legally protected because he never directly commanded January 6ers to do what they did with clear and pointed language. All of his communication is very obviously crafted to manipulate and obfuscate, and it's how he's managed to keep his crime empire afloat for decades.
I thought he spoke vaguely cause he knows he's commiting crimes and has some semblance of tact about it (to save himself of course) not a great one but something. I never realized it could be another part of narcissism. I
There needs to be a law for a limit, like yes you used vague language but you did it 50 (random number but something that shows a pattern) times that's enough to charge you for your actions.
I wonder what actual organized crime bosses think of him, he must have dealt with them in construction in the 80s and 90s.
because at no time since this nation was founded was it considered possible for a president of this country to be under the thrall of a hostile foreign power and want to overthrow it.
I dunno. I think that impeachment probably considered this in a time when there were still many who supported the British.
Yup. They clearly thought individuals could be compromised. Their falling was in not considering the possibility that more than half the people leading the 3 branches of the federal government could all be in cahoots.
They thought the self interest of the individual states would keep them independent.
Ah yes absolutely non-violent, the guys going around with cable ties just wanted to do some cable management.
Nothing says "peaceful" like stealing a cops riot shield and using it to bash through a security window, or using bear spray on the cops trying to protect the lawmakers.
That’s how you handle traitors.
No it's not. There's something else we're supposed to do to traitors.
-Donald Trump, advocating for his own execution
We literally didn't hang most of the leaders of the Confederacy after the civil war. We just gave them back their land and citizenship. Big mistake
Compassion should not seen as a weakness after war. Traditionally it make long term allies. This time it did not work out. But many other times it has.
See modern Germany, agreed. See post WWI for the wrong way to treat the enemy afterwards
There was at least an attempt to denazify Germany, in the South the racist could just carry on.
Yes but after WW2 we had the Nuremburg trials and the Nazi leaders were hanged. Show compassion to the society as a whole, but the leaders must still be held accountable in these situations.
I agree and I think it's important to review why that didn't work, because I think it's relevant today.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree that compassion is the best course of action. However the Confederacy largely left the union and then went to war over the ability to own people, claiming it was a "right". There was a whole world doing away with the practice, with abolitionists saying their peace for a long time up until war broke out. And rather than change tact, and do away with the inherently immoral practice of slavery, these guys doubled-down. To me, that's exactly the kind of situation where you must withhold compassion, because it demonstrates both a track record and a potential future willingness to break the social contract.
A lot of Americans seem to think their civil war was a long time ago. It was pretty recent, it may work out better soon.
Better late than never
We really should have hanged Bobby Lee
Yep. Should have burned their wealth into the ground and only then let them back in.
This is called irony
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.
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.
Hoo boy. January 6th-21st 2025 is going to be harrowing in DC should Trump win.
I suspect it will be harrowing when he loses too. It was last time.
At least this time he is not in charge, so it should be a lot harder to try pushing people around to subvert democracy
Hopefully harder to push around government types, I agree. But at the same time, easier to summon and unleash his mob without restraint. At that point, what else can he possibly lose?
Gonna be the least of your worries unless you live in DC. Look forward to armed take overs at every state capital and military deployments across the country (with help from our great friends in the Russian military), and murdered Democrats on every street corner should Trump win.
It will be worse than that probably
The military owes allegiance to the constitution not the president.
Tell the CIA that.
He told the cia to get fucked I dony think they will support him.
In theory a lot of things should be true.
But you're talking about a career criminal who committed crimes as president and half the country is going to vote for him to be president again.. so tell me you honestly don't think that it's going to happen
The military may have its problems but if you talk to anyone in a serious leadership position in the military they're very clearly tell you that they will support whoever is the person that is freely elected and if that is subverted it is their duty to fix it
There's some hope, but I suggest we expect the worst and prepare for it. Not because I'm some crazy tinfoil idiot .. because of the long trail of "That will never happen"'s that have happened.
I legitimately think your average soldier is generally a higher educated and better critical thinker than the fifty percent of America below the average ..
Shipmates I've talked to in the Navy, at least, would not obey any such unlawful orders. As an active duty submariner, in accordance with my oath and creed, neither would I.
If you truly believe this you should be training with firearms. Go far enough left and you get your guns back
You think that will only be the case if he wins?
He’s not doing s as well as hoped in primaries. If his base is taking notice, he has little chance with the general populace.
a lot of cry babies we have in America yup no doubt! like Dump
My boy's getting absolutely SWAMPED with legal action
I think he's at like $470,000 now for his fraud case
*edit LOL my b dudes $470 MILLION
you're missing 3 zeroes in that number.
My third world mind literally couldn't comprehend that many zeros
3 numbers so far...
https://trumpdebtcounter.com/
Do you really want him to be your boy?
Nahh honestly not looking to be bros with someone constantly asking for handouts (or is into NFT's)
Trump NFT
Every single person in the country who has the power to make the decision to have the insurrectionist off the ballot , yet doesn't, is letting down The Constitution. Don't they have to take an oath, or is that only Federal positions?
I agree to a point. But everyone with the power to do something about this also has the obligation to act within and maintain the law. They have to use their best judgement on what it means to have "committed" insurrection, whether it is just based on vibes or a common understanding or a conviction in a court. I can't fault them for any of those choices. Legally at least.
I didn't take an binding oath to respect our legal system, so I can easily say he shouldn't be on the ballot anywhere in America. They can't make that assertion so easily.
I'm no scholar but maybe guiding a mob to disrupt an official proceeding with the threat of murder by gallows that were setup by a makeshift militia qualifies as an insurrection.
No shit. But everyone knowing something is different than being convicted of it. It's why OJ Simpson isn't in jail. Either we all agree to abide by the legal system or we don't.
OJ was (stupidly) found to be not guilty in a court of law.
The difference here is that the 14th Amendment says nothing about a court of law.
Well if a 7 foot wookie is living on a planet with 3 foot tall ewoks then why shouldn't insurrectionist Trump be president? It don't make sense.
If it don't make sense then my client can do whatever they want. Here look at the silly monkey.
Since it says nothing, it's left up to "us" to decide. And by us, I mean our elected representatives and the courts. And those entities are indeed making these decisions right now. I'm just not shocked that they don't all come to the same conclusion like some people in this thread.
"I'm sorry officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that"
We do. They don't.
The judge in Colorado did state that trump "engaged in insurrection". SCOTUS did everything they could to ignore that part of the case in listening to the appeal, like in the illegitimate court it is.
Good, just in time for it to not matter. Glad they're being so quick about it. Great judicial system.
How many states does that make total?
Up to 3 now. Which is funny because the central point the Supreme Court made during the hearing of the Colorado case was "why would a single state get to decide the election for the rest of the country?" Would be nice if a few other states stepped up to show it's not just a "single state."
That's so weird, I could have sworn in 2020 we were seriously about states' rights to conduct their elections as they please. But now states do not have rights to enforce laws for themselves? I must be misremembering because otherwise it would mean all Repubs are deceitful and without integrity.
Say it ain't so.
God I mean look at Arizona's election procedure now. No one in the GOP questioning the state being able to ignore their citizens to push whoever they want. No complaints in fact the GOP keeps trying to get even less voters.
I’m just worried Magats will start trying to remove dems from the ballot, just cause.
'Insurrectionist ban', also know as the law and order this jackass bloviates about.
One of the reasons SCOTUS won't let this stand is they don't want the fracturing of ballots state by state. But that's actually kind of an interesting proposal to fix Presidential systems.
Parliamentary systems can be better because the power is in the People's House, you can't have a Jan 6th in the UK because the Prime Minister is not their own branch of government they are the leader of Parliament.
If there's a patchwork of ballots, it makes it more likely nobody can get to 270 and it goes to Congress to decide who gets elected. Pretty big change in power structures in Washington if that became the regular way we elect a president.
When someone still didn't read what he actually tweeted. I hate this timeline.
I enjoyed not really hearing about this dumbfuck clown for the past few years and here comes election year, so we're going to hear about every little detail of this stupid shit for the whole year. If you people would stop engaging with content featuring him, then he wouldn't get as much press. Now every time he takes a shit, it's front page news.
"Man, if we just ignore the nazis they are sure to go away."
Social media works by engagement. It doesn't matter if the comments are negative or not. The more you engage with content the more people will see it because algorithms will push it higher in the feed. Any press is good press, so engagement with everything about Trump just gives him more airtime. If he wasn't in the press every five seconds then he wouldn't be as popular.
It doesn't fucking matter, the Supreme Court is going to make all this go away for him.
Demoralized people will try to demoralize others so they feel more confident in their own opinions. Don't listen to people like this.
Educate, Organize, Act.
I agree with you in general, but education, organization and action will not change the current makeup or ideology of the Supreme Court.
That's fine. Organizing to vote in November does matter.
Whooping and hollering when a meaningless, soon to be overturned legal decision occurs is false hope and a distraction.
Civil disobedience is making a comeback, thanks in no small part to this illegitimate supreme court.
They don't have any power, anyways. States do not have to obey supreme court rulings.
You are right, of course. It may come to simply ignoring this court. But we are in for a bumpy ride when that happens.