And this folks, is why voting in November is IMPERATIVE. Don’t listen to the right-wing propaganda-spreading accounts here that post all day about how you should not vote because both parties are bad for America.
They KNOW you’re not voting for Trump and they KNOW you cannot be persuaded to- so the next best thing is for them to bullshit you into not voting at all- which in the end- will still help Trump win America.
If you think conservatives judges denying us our right to ban a “man” from running because of an attempted overthrowing of our government- denying us AFTER we went through due process to arrive at a legal decision to-
Just wait until the someone even worse than them has the authority to pass laws.
Do the right thing and vote.
I just got run out of hexbear because I believe voting for Biden, while shitty, is a form of harm reduction. I got called a genocide supporter and a fascist followed by hours of threats and wishes of harm, including my favorite. An emoji of a location where Nazis were executed by partisans in Yugoslavia.
I'm new to lemmy so just kinda assumed it was a leftist space. I didn't realize that it's just red tented Nazis with no actual love for their fellow human beings. Something I consider necessary to being a socialist in any form. That sucked.
Yep. I have them and .ml and lemmygrad blocked from my feed. It’s toxic there.
"Block hexbear" is to browsing Lemmy as "use an ad blocker" is to browsing the internet.
Pretty much. Yeah. That place is gross, it’s like the dark-web of willful ignorance.
This. Lemmy requires a blocklist. But fortunately it’s easy to make.
Same.
They're tankies, some of the most bizarre idiots around.
I don't really understand hexbear. They are leftists that are so left they are Nazis?
I get it, I don't like voting for Biden, but we live in a two party system where we have to vote for the least evil one.
And despite myself, Biden has passed some of the most progressive legislation ever (at least my lefty podcasts tell me that)
So while he was glacially, immorally, slow to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, he has done it and his policies are inarguably more moral than Trumps were and likely will be, should trump win.
Horseshoe theory. The extremes ends on both sides aren't identical, but they sure do rhyme
Biden has passed some of the most progressive legislation ever
No, but he has passed some horribly racist bills back when he was involved in passing bills
And yet he was overwhelmingly the favorite pick for Black voters in the 2020 primary.
People change. Context matters -- some of those bills were even supported by black community leaders. It obviously didn't turn out well.
Plus, it matters to some people that he was happily VP under Obama. I personally don't get it, but to some people being #2 to a black person at #1 meant something.
I always see reports of this behavior from hexbear, but I've never been subjected to it, even when disagreeing with the user base there. Though,I am wondering if they just blocked me because I haven't seen any of their posts in a while, now that I think about it.
I made a snarky comment on a post from a Hexbear Truth-Teller once. The OP replied to me after a few days and thought it was important that I knew they couldn't see my post from the Hexbear server.
Uh sorry guy, not my concern really since it seems your server is the one blocking me.
This is their classic pincer maneuver employed by the establishment - and it works really well: the left wing candidate is both too left and not left enough.
You see it in every election.
It works so well because they own mainstream media so they can run all narratives at the same time as opinion pieces to hamstrung the left. That's how the ratchet works also.
Well said and thanks for the explanation.
It also works because, simply put, those of us not on the Right have a tendency to disagree with one another on what to support. Now I'm not saying this doesn't happen in general. Only that we'll do it even to the point of detriment as we recognize situations and cases we feel need to be supported, instead of just what needs to be attacked, and those can vary widely.
My biggest and most consistent concern every election is whether we can come together in consensus long enough to make a difference. My second concern is whether we can hold that energy long enough to continue pushing for positive change.
I mean you are right, but hopefully we learnt our lesson when we got the current supreme court because Hillary was not pure like Sanders.
So long as we keep in mind that their goal is to split the working class in manageable little pieces we can put our differences aside to come together to at least stop the slide and hopefully take a few steps in the right direction.
That’s why it bears repeating that if you don’t vote for Biden in the General Election, YOU ARE HELPING TRUMP. No “genocide Joe” arguments matter at that point no matter how much you twist your logic, no matter how you WISH things worked with the US general election. These are simple FACTS.
It's worth doing more than voting. If you're able, sign up to volunteer and donate. Adopt a close congressional race too; fairly modest travel can get a lot of people to a swing district for the day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘States rights only apply when not direct conflict with conservative views’
John 22:16
More like states rights only apply when not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They should really have written that down somewhere.
They also probably should've put something about how the rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution were not our only rights, and the explicit mention of some rights did not disparage other rights. That way the conservative court wouldn't have been able to say "we can't find a right to xyz in the Constitution therefore it isn't a right".
If only there was a Ninth Amendment or something, and a way to hold the Court accountable to it.
And you definitely always believe this should be applied consistently?
Yeah
The states explicitly have that determining power according to the constitution, specifically for insurrection.
Fuuuck the Supreme Cowards.
Unanimous? How?
Because the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings, while the conservatives justices all of a sudden forgot that they think these things should be deferred to the states.
Or, alternatively:
The liberals are also part of the problem.
See: the Citizens United ruling.
What are you talking about? Citizens United was a 5-4 decision as to the parts everyone is mad about. The 4 dissents were Ginsberg, Kagan, Stevens, and Sotomayor. The liberals concurred with the conservatives as to a disclosure requirement, which, why wouldn't they? They dissented as to the rest of the opinion. Unsurprisingly with the benefit of hindsight, the only justice who disagreed with the reporting requirements was Thomas.
If the liberals actually gave a fuck about stopping the blatant corruption of the Court they'd have told Obama his primary responsibility in office was filling Court seats, including RBG's, and expanding it when they had the chance for the express goal of overturning a bought and paid for decision.
They knew from the moment those five voted yes to Citizens United what they were dealing with, and buried their heads in the sand instead. There is a direct quote from Stevens outright stating "Democracy can not function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
Instead, they sit and smile at their "colleagues" and murmur quietly about "the reputation of the Court" instead of using their position to call out corruption.
Now, why do you think they aren't screaming about being in the same room with a travesty like Thomas?
Do you think it's because they actually respect his legal opinions?
Or are they worried their own finances can't stand up to scrutiny?
How do you mean the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings?
The conservatives are being very consistent by pursuing their political agenda regardless of states rights or the rights of the electorate.
Yep and they just handwaive it. They assert the other sections are held against the states so this must be too. They also assert that only Congress has enforcement power for it despite nothing in the amendment saying so. It says "Congress shall have power...", not sole power, not the power. There is no exclusionary language to preclude a state's normal constitutional right to run it's elections. Instead this adds Congress to the list of bodies that can enforce this.
The remedy for a state running an improper election is also not the supreme court. It is Congress, as laid out in the Constitution they supposedly are experts at enforcing. And yet they keep giving themselves major powers not in Constitution.
You have the most interesting take that I’ve read: Congress shall also have a way to enforce this and not just the States. I kind of wish you had argued that in front of SCOTUS.
Sometimes I wonder if our constitutional interpretation is so twisted because we've been going at for so many years. But getting a new one is going to require decades of catch up work by the Democrats. Republicans have been practicing for a Constitutional Convention and actively seek one.
Yes, why?
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…
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.
The section specifically says congress can allow someone to hold office with a 2/3rds vote. How does it make any sense that it also takes specific congressional action to disqualify someone? A simple majority could stop that.
They even noted on a footnote a case where a 2/3rds majority voted to seat a former confederate. Yet they didn’t bother to outline how he was disqualified to start with. It wasn’t congressional action.
And they exceed legal thoughts as the suppose there needs to be uniformity so the president is president for all. History is filled with candidates that didn’t appear on the ballot is some states. Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in some southern states. Like it or not, that is how it works.
And while the majority was rightfully chided for going beyond the question presented, shame on the liberals for ruling to protect their federal power rather than protecting the integrity of elections. I hated the oral arguments where they were all saying it “feels” like a federal question. If you want it to be a federal question, amend the constitution so the feds are in charge of elections. Until then, states have the right to decide who is on their ballot.
What about a motion in congress to exempt Donald Trump under the 14th amendment? If it failed to get 2/3 approval would that defacto mean he is barred from office?
Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm not American.
Simple answer: this process could be used to disqualify essentially any candidate.
...And yet it hasn't been used in 150 years
States should still have full power to tell their own electors who they can and can't vote for, congress deliberately can't control that and SCOTUS can't tell them what rules to use. Ballot access don't matter if votes for the traitor are void by default.
It's a shame the Romans didn't at least have Dip n' Dots before their republic fell.
It's a shame for anyone to model themselves after the Romans, to be honest.
Lmao we're on cruise control to be exactly like their society with a Caesar and collapsing under it's own weight.
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.
deleted by creator
It's so wild that the 'but the people have democratic rights to choose among candidates' crowd invoke that argument to make the candidate that's promised to end democracy and rights one of the options they can vote for
You know, because democracy
And also, he never won on the people's democratic right to choose among candidates. Hillary did. He won because the president is chosen by the states, not the people. Don't like it? Abolish the electoral college.
Abolish electoral college is not the answer to these issues. Unless you have a new idea in mind. Electoral college is better than using popular vote. It helps prevent fraud from any one particular state.
How so? And does that outweigh the negatives and weaknesses we've seen in the electoral college system over the past 2 election cycles?
I was mostly curious those that want to abolish it what their alternative solution is.
Under popular vote, DeSantis is still running and maybe now he gets 63 billion votes from Florida alone. The impact of this fraud (there are not 63 billion ppl voting in Florida) is bigger with no electoral college.
Other countries don't have EC bc other counties don't have our state and government structure.
Also it occurs to me that there are other factors that disqualify candidates from being president- the bit about being 35 or older means AOC can't be president right now and the bit about being a natural-born citizen disqualifies Schwarzenegger and isn't it interesting that the court hasn't taken up the issue on how that denies voters their democratic rights? I mean, when you want to understand how to apply the constitution as it pertains to who may not serve in office, don't you want to consider all the disqualifiers and their mechanisms?
If you're under 35 or foreign-born, it doesn't take an act of congress to bar you from office, those things are the law and already in the constitution with plain wording. A plain reading of sec 3 of the 14th amendment basically reads as if the authors of the amendment intended it to take an act of congress (with 2/3rds majorities, in both houses) to allow an insurrectionist that previously took an oath of office to serve again, but the court magically inverted that by asserting the only congress could invoke section 3
Nope, this is the court bending over backwards to deliver a political outcome
I thought a president can do anything with full immunity. So Biden could make it so, according to Trump’s own rules.
Does this case not also show that they will infact say he has immunity as well unless Congress impeaches him and the Senate agrees/dismissed the person. Aka the president has immunity to do anything they want so long as one of the legislative departments will not act. Aka, they can be run by fear of death as well unless they can pass the impeachment and dismissal faster than the president can hear about it or act to stop it.
Theoretically wouldn't it be legal for the president to blow up Congress in session because they couldn't impeach him for doing so until a new Congress is elected.... Which of course cannot happen without them all being scared for their lives. Legal dictatorship. : /
Anyone here watched the video of Saddam and how he rose to power? It's like a scene from Godfather.
Could that happen here? I'd absolutely hope not. But how many committed people do you need in order to make it happen? How many have to die in order for all others to be cowed?
Giffords didn't die and it sent an absolute chill.
This ruling was an inevitability. No matter how strong the case, they weren't going to kick Trump off the ballot. Even if the Court didn't have a conservative majority, the Court generally doesn't like being seen as political. This is a polarizing case that asks them to choose between the election proceeding as usual, or being the ones responsible for disqualifying Trump. They may be willing to dive head first into polarizing issues of their choosing, but this wasn't something they wanted, it was something that they could reasonably ignore. So, forced into ruling on this case, they voted 9-0 to take the easy way out and make an excuse.
The question of total presidential immunity to all prosecution doesn't cause quite the same problem. Hell, they don't even need to rule on presidential immunity, they can just rule that there's no immunity for ex-presidents. It's the obviously correct answer, and it isn't really changing the status quo. Ruling that current and former presidents have total immunity would put the Court in a much worse position, setting a massive game changing precedent and bailing Trump out in a way that looks corrupt. This seems especially implausible given the way the lower courts have explored this issue. A ruling in favor of Trump has very clearly been established to be a ruling that gives presidents a license to kill. I would honestly be surprised if we don't get a 9-0 decision against Trump whenever they get around to deciding the case.
Biden can't do that because he didn't win the election. But Trump still can because he is technically the president. But you might say, then he cant run in 2024, right? Well, he'll just have to change that as president. You've gotta think bigger and dumber.
States rights only applies when it benefits the GQP
What I don't understand about the ruling is that congress has already exercised their power. Donald Trump was impeached by congress in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. The states are only enforcing the law based on the ruling a of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate.
Removal from office takes a supermajority in the Senate, so maybe disqualification via the 14th does as well. That would presumably depend on Senate rules that currently don't cover it.
A simple majority ought to be sufficient, but it also ought to be sufficient for just about everything, but it's not.
14th didn't say that
14th didn't say it's up to Congress either. The Supreme Court said that, and now it's up to Congress to decide what that looks like. The constitution lets the legislative bodies setup their own rules for how a lot of things function.
If the Supes said it without merit then it can be ignored. Ban him from the ballot anyway.
I'm not sure I even disagree with the idea that it needs to be done at the Federal level. If individual states can do it, then Republicans will start declaring that everything they don't like is an insurrection (as their rhetoric already does on many issues) and remove Democrats from ballots.
Whether that means it has to be the legislature and what that looks like are different questions.
Correct. States simply don't have this power. The decision was unanimous for a reason.
States rights*
*terms and conditions apply
*terms and conditions apply
Always has been. States have never had free reign to do anything they want. This is one of the things they cannot do.
States already do things like bar felons from voting and only put on 3rd party candidates that meet a certain signature threshold. Or add barriers to voting, like restricting when you can vote and ID laws.
Pretty much how it goes. Laws affect peons: oh well. Laws affect wealthy politicians: off to SCOTUS for them to overturn it!
For anyone wondering if the wording of the Constitution is unclear, this is the provision that constitutionally bars trump from office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Here is Article 2 section 1, referring to the office of the President of the United States:
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,..."
Trump engaged in insurrection, violating the oath of office he took. As such, he is constitutionally ineligible to run for office.
Supreme Cowards
What is the text of the last section of Amendment 14?
Why?
There is no "why". I asked a question.
For no reason? Helpful of you.
My bad. I overestimated the ability of people on this website to infer subtext.
The last section of Amendment 14 explains why the Supreme Court was more or less correct in its interpretation before you edited your original comment.
This is why I added that context to my original comment.
All I had to do was add the literal quotes from the constitution to render the supreme court obviously incorrect.
No.
The Supreme Court ruled that the provisions you cited are not "self executing". It needs to be enforced by an Act of Congress. You assumed that because it says that, therefore it works on its own without the need for anything else. That's not how the law works in the US.
The text of Amendment 14 §5 which are you so reluctant to post:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Now tell me, is it not a reasonable interpretation of this clause that the terms of Amendment 14 may only be enforced by Congress and not anyone else.
Don't cite Amendment 10 here. It doesn't apply. This power is explicitly delegated to Congress.
So your contention is that the meanings of the phrase "congress shall have power to enforce" are:
this constitutional amendment "may only be enforced by congress and not by anyone else" even though this is not stated in the Constitution.
"needs to be enforced by congress", even though this is not stated in the Constitution.
"this power is explicitly delegated to Congress", even though this is an implicit permission rather than an explicit designation?
You'll want to reference what is written and is not, in the Constitution, rather than your imagining of my assumptions.
Fwiw i got it
States rights!!!!! Sometimes.
"It's not for us to decide. It's up to the Republican controlled Congress to decide to allow Trump and any other Republican candidate and not allow Democrat candidates the same luxury."
They want to leave it to states' rights when it benefits them. Then they want it to Republican-controlled groups.
Short term this is disappointing, but long term I think it is for the best. Being unanimous makes it less likely a state will ignore the rulling, and had they ruled against Trump, then we would have seen decades of retaliation from red states removing all democrats for any reason.
The root of the problem remains that nearly half our voting citizens support electing a violent and hateful criminal.
then we would have seen decades of retaliation from red states removing all democrats for any reason.
You say this with an optimism that I wish I had.
I guarantee you that so long as we have a shit judicial bench, red states are going to fuck around. Not because they can. They always could.
But because no one is going to stop them.
Whelp, now I guess Elon can run for president. Be pretty awkward if he won.
Elon still can't run, because the states still have authority over enforcing the qualifications for president enumerated in Article II Section 1. The Supreme Court ruling only covers Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment for federal office holders or people running for federal office. I honestly like this ruling. The conservative justices ruled this way because they wanted to keep Trump on the ballot, but if they are going to do that no matter what, I'll take the win. edit: added clarification
Guess we really are going the route of states ignoring federal rulings and laws. This might get scary in the next few years.
It is already scary now.
Deadly is the word you mean
That isn't at all what this is about. This is asserting the inability for individual states to make rulings on federal matters. This is a good thing. It's not states' place to be ruling on federal cases. Those rulings need to come from the federal level.
With every ruling the SC makes more and more states are setting themselves against the federal government. It’s becoming clear this union is not working at this point and it’s seeming inevitable that sometime in the near future we’re going to see more states than just Texas speaking of breaking away. Probably from more sides of the political spectrum and auth-right too
Commerce clause fucked us.
Unless I’m misremembering, the scope is more limited. It’s specifically allocating the right to determine federal office eligibility to the federal government and not the state.
Any other rights without precedent currently remain with the states
If that's what you think, you don't understand the situation.
So what happens if the states continue to keep him off the ballot? Does the federal government take over their elections, or do they refuse to recognize the electors?
The supreme clowns are giving an opinion and states are already starting to ignore their opinions. What happens if the states ignore this and say their state rights exceed here?
The bigger news isn't that he's back on the ballot, but the 5-4 split within the unanimous ruling.
They unanimously agreed that a state Court can't ban someone from election to a federal office based on federal rules. There's something to be said for that, which is why the liberal justices were all on board with it.
The 5-4 split with the separate opinions, however, was Thomas, Alito, Robert's, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch saying that federal courts also can't ban someone from holding office for insurrection even if convicted of the crime in a federal court.
They're setting up Trump to be eligible to be elected President even if he loses the insurrection trial prior to the election. They're saying only Congress can ban him from office for insurrection.
The liberal justices wrote a heated rebuke of that in their concurring opinion, and Barrett sided with the liberals, but scolded the liberals for being too mean about it in her standalone concurring opinion.
What a mystery! Who knows what happens when States try and assert their "State's Rights" to ignore the federal government, it's never happened ever in American history, thank you for asking such a deep and intellectually thought-out question!
/s
The US is a weird place. Why can't you just ignore your strange council of all powerful wizards that rule for life? Didn't some other state do that only a few months ago and face no repercussion? Just ignore the geriatric corrupt bastards.
Hawaii already is. Our government is run by honor system. Once enough stop honoring it, it will all come crumbling down.
Tangential to the decision but something for jubilant MAGA types to try out for themselves:
While feeling this happy, stand in front of a mirror. Now, hold your fists up exactly like Donald Trump is doing in this picture, and do your utmost to physically express joy, without deviating from Donald Trump's movement patterns.
If this felt very fucking weird to do, look up ideomotor apraxia.
booooooooooooooo
Did anyone read the opinions?
MidasTouch on YouTube does good analyses of such things
Did any one read the Constitution?
Trump doesn't qualify as an insurrectionist.
Just as if he was 34
Why that image, he looks like Dr Evil dancing after getting away with it. It's kind of cartoonishly hilarious.
Boo State’s rights, hooray strong federal government!
Isnt that what everyone wants?
I want choices that aren't false dichotomies
What hilarious is that the Republican agenda was historically for small government afaik
I leave it to legal minds better versed in this but it was a unanimous decision and its not devoid of sense that States (some of whom consistently elect bad-faith actors who are a threat to civil society) should not be able to mix-match disqualify candidates, but rather that a federal mechanism for enforcement needs to be legislated by Congress.
They have literally provided a roadmap to disqualify Trump/future ilk that they cannot turn around and deny when it comes back to them to adjudicate on eventually. The law is iterative so its for the best. In any case, he's gonna lose his state criminal trials so they'll finally be able to put him away or dispose of him. Even Barrett was bitching about giving too much of the plot away
LMAO see it came in since months ago, finally they did it..
Looks like we can't agree with the (unanimous) SCOTUS decision without invoking the downvote brigade. But for all of those wishing for Trump to be kept off the ballot, consider what will happen in four years when Texas comes up with some bullshit reason to keep the democrat frontrunner off the ballot.
I understand and completely agree that Trump started an insurrection and deserves to be kicked off the ballot. But we all know Texas, Kansas, or whatever other godforsaken backward red state will not play by the rules next time.
It's funny you think this ruling will stop fascist states from kicking non republicans off the ballots. Lets look at gerymandering. States submit illegal maps, play the waiting game, courts decide they're illegal, states run illegal districts anyway because its too close to the election.
Im willing to bet they’re gonna try it anyway.
I'd rather do what right now instead of doing what's wrong in hopes it doesn't get weaponized. There isn't a politician I care about enough that I'm willing let trump get away with insurrection in fear that red states might try to fuck with a dem nominee
If someone has done something that a state can even remotely argue inssurection, we should just dump that person and move on to the next. Maybe it'd force some new blood into the system
So tired of letting Republicans get away with shit out of fear of them abusing. They are already abusing everything and at some point we might need step up and stand on buisness
Fuck you. Kansas voters voted to keep abortion legal and we regularly have democrat governors. Try Oklahoma or something.
This assumes the Republicans will respect precedent and play by the rules. But when do they ever do that? Are they going to start playing fair as soon as their chosen dictator is installed? You don't beat fascists this way. You have to keep them from seizing power in the first place.
Good. Democracy means that it can be democratically dissolved. If you're holding on to a piece of paper written by slave owners to save your democracy, then you've missed the point of democracy.
If a majority of voters want racist, sexist fascism, that's what you'll get. No amount of social media posts will change that. Ask the slaves, Indigenous Peoples, women, poor men, non-Christians, and children of the United States for the majority of its history.
Vote. And get others to do it too. Change people's minds--and, no, posting on social media isn't changing anyone's mind. You have to actually go out and do the work of talking to people, understanding them, and then changing minds. Yelling at people, digitally or actually, isn't doing anything. Sorry.
Now all the people that want to sit in their room doing nothing and act like it is doing something can downvote.
It's the only form of "democracy" you know: cheap and easy. "I NO LIKE."
Well that would be great if we had a democracy. No Republican has won the popular vote for something like 20 years, but we've had more than one Republican president since then.
Voting is super important, but we also need a better democracy because we know the majority don't want a bigot in office. But we're still getting one every couple years
Yeah GW Bush won in 88 and since then there's only been one GOP population vote win when W won in the middle of the war in 04. Only one republican win in the past 35 years, and this coming election will be no different. There's no way in hell the popular vote goes against Biden in November.
The United States is HUGE. Do you feel like population centers should get to dictate the terms to everyone that doesn't live in a populous state? If so, then, again: vote. If you don't like the current election process then change it.
You Americans complain so much about your electoral processes, but you do nothing to change them.
You get bigots and violent offenders in office either way you cut it. Obama normalized the massive, largely remote kill operations in non-battlefield engagements. He authorized the death of several thousand people exclusively through remote kill actions. As he noted himself, "turns out I'm really good at killing people. Didn't know that was going to be my strong suit."
The popular vote for an overpowered executive isn't the answer. And I think you know that. The answer is harder and requires more work. But it's nice to think it's just about voting once every four years to fix it, isn't it?
Good luck.
I don’t like the guy, but I like even less the government deciding to take candidates off the ballot.
We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
To be fair, the government has always set criteria for being on the ballot. For example, to be US president you have to be at least 35, a natural citizen, and have live in the states for at least 14 years.
Not being an insurrectionist is also part of that criteria. We’ve just never had a presidential candidate that has needed us to consider that part of the constitution.
Think of it this way. It’s not that the government is trying take an eligible person off the ballot, but it’s clarifying the ineligibility criterion.
If the person committed a crime that exempts them from the ballot- I absolutely want them removed.
If conservatives want to try and prove innocent men and women need to be removed- I want them to try it in court.
Denying the ability to follow the law outright out of fear of what the other side will do is essentially negotiating with terrorists.
And this folks, is why voting in November is IMPERATIVE. Don’t listen to the right-wing propaganda-spreading accounts here that post all day about how you should not vote because both parties are bad for America.
They KNOW you’re not voting for Trump and they KNOW you cannot be persuaded to- so the next best thing is for them to bullshit you into not voting at all- which in the end- will still help Trump win America.
If you think conservatives judges denying us our right to ban a “man” from running because of an attempted overthrowing of our government- denying us AFTER we went through due process to arrive at a legal decision to-
Just wait until the someone even worse than them has the authority to pass laws.
Do the right thing and vote.
I just got run out of hexbear because I believe voting for Biden, while shitty, is a form of harm reduction. I got called a genocide supporter and a fascist followed by hours of threats and wishes of harm, including my favorite. An emoji of a location where Nazis were executed by partisans in Yugoslavia.
I'm new to lemmy so just kinda assumed it was a leftist space. I didn't realize that it's just red tented Nazis with no actual love for their fellow human beings. Something I consider necessary to being a socialist in any form. That sucked.
Yep. I have them and .ml and lemmygrad blocked from my feed. It’s toxic there.
"Block hexbear" is to browsing Lemmy as "use an ad blocker" is to browsing the internet.
Pretty much. Yeah. That place is gross, it’s like the dark-web of willful ignorance.
This. Lemmy requires a blocklist. But fortunately it’s easy to make.
Same.
They're tankies, some of the most bizarre idiots around.
I don't really understand hexbear. They are leftists that are so left they are Nazis?
I get it, I don't like voting for Biden, but we live in a two party system where we have to vote for the least evil one.
And despite myself, Biden has passed some of the most progressive legislation ever (at least my lefty podcasts tell me that) So while he was glacially, immorally, slow to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, he has done it and his policies are inarguably more moral than Trumps were and likely will be, should trump win.
They're fascists LARPing as leftists.
Yeah they're like how Mao was a communist.
Maybe it's kind of like how if you go far enough west you end up on the East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
Horseshoe theory. The extremes ends on both sides aren't identical, but they sure do rhyme
No, but he has passed some horribly racist bills back when he was involved in passing bills
And yet he was overwhelmingly the favorite pick for Black voters in the 2020 primary.
People change. Context matters -- some of those bills were even supported by black community leaders. It obviously didn't turn out well.
Plus, it matters to some people that he was happily VP under Obama. I personally don't get it, but to some people being #2 to a black person at #1 meant something.
I always see reports of this behavior from hexbear, but I've never been subjected to it, even when disagreeing with the user base there. Though,I am wondering if they just blocked me because I haven't seen any of their posts in a while, now that I think about it.
I made a snarky comment on a post from a Hexbear Truth-Teller once. The OP replied to me after a few days and thought it was important that I knew they couldn't see my post from the Hexbear server.
Uh sorry guy, not my concern really since it seems your server is the one blocking me.
This is their classic pincer maneuver employed by the establishment - and it works really well: the left wing candidate is both too left and not left enough.
You see it in every election.
It works so well because they own mainstream media so they can run all narratives at the same time as opinion pieces to hamstrung the left. That's how the ratchet works also.
Well said and thanks for the explanation.
It also works because, simply put, those of us not on the Right have a tendency to disagree with one another on what to support. Now I'm not saying this doesn't happen in general. Only that we'll do it even to the point of detriment as we recognize situations and cases we feel need to be supported, instead of just what needs to be attacked, and those can vary widely.
My biggest and most consistent concern every election is whether we can come together in consensus long enough to make a difference. My second concern is whether we can hold that energy long enough to continue pushing for positive change.
I mean you are right, but hopefully we learnt our lesson when we got the current supreme court because Hillary was not pure like Sanders.
So long as we keep in mind that their goal is to split the working class in manageable little pieces we can put our differences aside to come together to at least stop the slide and hopefully take a few steps in the right direction.
That’s why it bears repeating that if you don’t vote for Biden in the General Election, YOU ARE HELPING TRUMP. No “genocide Joe” arguments matter at that point no matter how much you twist your logic, no matter how you WISH things worked with the US general election. These are simple FACTS.
It's worth doing more than voting. If you're able, sign up to volunteer and donate. Adopt a close congressional race too; fairly modest travel can get a lot of people to a swing district for the day.
VERY well said!
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘States rights only apply when not direct conflict with conservative views’
More like states rights only apply when not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They should really have written that down somewhere.
They also probably should've put something about how the rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution were not our only rights, and the explicit mention of some rights did not disparage other rights. That way the conservative court wouldn't have been able to say "we can't find a right to xyz in the Constitution therefore it isn't a right".
If only there was a Ninth Amendment or something, and a way to hold the Court accountable to it.
And you definitely always believe this should be applied consistently?
Yeah
The states explicitly have that determining power according to the constitution, specifically for insurrection.
Fuuuck the Supreme Cowards.
Unanimous? How?
Because the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings, while the conservatives justices all of a sudden forgot that they think these things should be deferred to the states.
Or, alternatively:
The liberals are also part of the problem.
See: the Citizens United ruling.
What are you talking about? Citizens United was a 5-4 decision as to the parts everyone is mad about. The 4 dissents were Ginsberg, Kagan, Stevens, and Sotomayor. The liberals concurred with the conservatives as to a disclosure requirement, which, why wouldn't they? They dissented as to the rest of the opinion. Unsurprisingly with the benefit of hindsight, the only justice who disagreed with the reporting requirements was Thomas.
If the liberals actually gave a fuck about stopping the blatant corruption of the Court they'd have told Obama his primary responsibility in office was filling Court seats, including RBG's, and expanding it when they had the chance for the express goal of overturning a bought and paid for decision.
They knew from the moment those five voted yes to Citizens United what they were dealing with, and buried their heads in the sand instead. There is a direct quote from Stevens outright stating "Democracy can not function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
Instead, they sit and smile at their "colleagues" and murmur quietly about "the reputation of the Court" instead of using their position to call out corruption.
Now, why do you think they aren't screaming about being in the same room with a travesty like Thomas?
Do you think it's because they actually respect his legal opinions?
Or are they worried their own finances can't stand up to scrutiny?
How do you mean the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings?
The conservatives are being very consistent by pursuing their political agenda regardless of states rights or the rights of the electorate.
Did you read the actual ruling?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Yep and they just handwaive it. They assert the other sections are held against the states so this must be too. They also assert that only Congress has enforcement power for it despite nothing in the amendment saying so. It says "Congress shall have power...", not sole power, not the power. There is no exclusionary language to preclude a state's normal constitutional right to run it's elections. Instead this adds Congress to the list of bodies that can enforce this.
The remedy for a state running an improper election is also not the supreme court. It is Congress, as laid out in the Constitution they supposedly are experts at enforcing. And yet they keep giving themselves major powers not in Constitution.
You have the most interesting take that I’ve read: Congress shall also have a way to enforce this and not just the States. I kind of wish you had argued that in front of SCOTUS.
Sometimes I wonder if our constitutional interpretation is so twisted because we've been going at for so many years. But getting a new one is going to require decades of catch up work by the Democrats. Republicans have been practicing for a Constitutional Convention and actively seek one.
Yes, why?
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.
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.
Fascism.
Fascists use institutions to secure and entrench power. They are not restricted by them.
The question for those cheering this decision as a win for the rule of law or the institution is: how aware of this are you?
A nonsensical ruling.
The section specifically says congress can allow someone to hold office with a 2/3rds vote. How does it make any sense that it also takes specific congressional action to disqualify someone? A simple majority could stop that.
They even noted on a footnote a case where a 2/3rds majority voted to seat a former confederate. Yet they didn’t bother to outline how he was disqualified to start with. It wasn’t congressional action.
And they exceed legal thoughts as the suppose there needs to be uniformity so the president is president for all. History is filled with candidates that didn’t appear on the ballot is some states. Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in some southern states. Like it or not, that is how it works.
And while the majority was rightfully chided for going beyond the question presented, shame on the liberals for ruling to protect their federal power rather than protecting the integrity of elections. I hated the oral arguments where they were all saying it “feels” like a federal question. If you want it to be a federal question, amend the constitution so the feds are in charge of elections. Until then, states have the right to decide who is on their ballot.
What about a motion in congress to exempt Donald Trump under the 14th amendment? If it failed to get 2/3 approval would that defacto mean he is barred from office?
Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm not American.
Simple answer: this process could be used to disqualify essentially any candidate.
...And yet it hasn't been used in 150 years
States should still have full power to tell their own electors who they can and can't vote for, congress deliberately can't control that and SCOTUS can't tell them what rules to use. Ballot access don't matter if votes for the traitor are void by default.
It's a shame the Romans didn't at least have Dip n' Dots before their republic fell.
It's a shame for anyone to model themselves after the Romans, to be honest.
Lmao we're on cruise control to be exactly like their society with a Caesar and collapsing under it's own weight.
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.
deleted by creator
It's so wild that the 'but the people have democratic rights to choose among candidates' crowd invoke that argument to make the candidate that's promised to end democracy and rights one of the options they can vote for
You know, because democracy
And also, he never won on the people's democratic right to choose among candidates. Hillary did. He won because the president is chosen by the states, not the people. Don't like it? Abolish the electoral college.
Abolish electoral college is not the answer to these issues. Unless you have a new idea in mind. Electoral college is better than using popular vote. It helps prevent fraud from any one particular state.
How so? And does that outweigh the negatives and weaknesses we've seen in the electoral college system over the past 2 election cycles?
I was mostly curious those that want to abolish it what their alternative solution is.
Under popular vote, DeSantis is still running and maybe now he gets 63 billion votes from Florida alone. The impact of this fraud (there are not 63 billion ppl voting in Florida) is bigger with no electoral college.
Other countries don't have EC bc other counties don't have our state and government structure.
Yall do you. I'm not very political anyway.
Except this assinine system only exists in 'murica, which also happens to be the country where democracy doesn't work.
Also it occurs to me that there are other factors that disqualify candidates from being president- the bit about being 35 or older means AOC can't be president right now and the bit about being a natural-born citizen disqualifies Schwarzenegger and isn't it interesting that the court hasn't taken up the issue on how that denies voters their democratic rights? I mean, when you want to understand how to apply the constitution as it pertains to who may not serve in office, don't you want to consider all the disqualifiers and their mechanisms?
If you're under 35 or foreign-born, it doesn't take an act of congress to bar you from office, those things are the law and already in the constitution with plain wording. A plain reading of sec 3 of the 14th amendment basically reads as if the authors of the amendment intended it to take an act of congress (with 2/3rds majorities, in both houses) to allow an insurrectionist that previously took an oath of office to serve again, but the court magically inverted that by asserting the only congress could invoke section 3
Nope, this is the court bending over backwards to deliver a political outcome
I thought a president can do anything with full immunity. So Biden could make it so, according to Trump’s own rules.
Does this case not also show that they will infact say he has immunity as well unless Congress impeaches him and the Senate agrees/dismissed the person. Aka the president has immunity to do anything they want so long as one of the legislative departments will not act. Aka, they can be run by fear of death as well unless they can pass the impeachment and dismissal faster than the president can hear about it or act to stop it.
Theoretically wouldn't it be legal for the president to blow up Congress in session because they couldn't impeach him for doing so until a new Congress is elected.... Which of course cannot happen without them all being scared for their lives. Legal dictatorship. : /
Anyone here watched the video of Saddam and how he rose to power? It's like a scene from Godfather.
It's worth a watch.
Could that happen here? I'd absolutely hope not. But how many committed people do you need in order to make it happen? How many have to die in order for all others to be cowed?
Giffords didn't die and it sent an absolute chill.
This ruling was an inevitability. No matter how strong the case, they weren't going to kick Trump off the ballot. Even if the Court didn't have a conservative majority, the Court generally doesn't like being seen as political. This is a polarizing case that asks them to choose between the election proceeding as usual, or being the ones responsible for disqualifying Trump. They may be willing to dive head first into polarizing issues of their choosing, but this wasn't something they wanted, it was something that they could reasonably ignore. So, forced into ruling on this case, they voted 9-0 to take the easy way out and make an excuse.
The question of total presidential immunity to all prosecution doesn't cause quite the same problem. Hell, they don't even need to rule on presidential immunity, they can just rule that there's no immunity for ex-presidents. It's the obviously correct answer, and it isn't really changing the status quo. Ruling that current and former presidents have total immunity would put the Court in a much worse position, setting a massive game changing precedent and bailing Trump out in a way that looks corrupt. This seems especially implausible given the way the lower courts have explored this issue. A ruling in favor of Trump has very clearly been established to be a ruling that gives presidents a license to kill. I would honestly be surprised if we don't get a 9-0 decision against Trump whenever they get around to deciding the case.
Biden can't do that because he didn't win the election. But Trump still can because he is technically the president. But you might say, then he cant run in 2024, right? Well, he'll just have to change that as president. You've gotta think bigger and dumber.
States rights only applies when it benefits the GQP
What I don't understand about the ruling is that congress has already exercised their power. Donald Trump was impeached by congress in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. The states are only enforcing the law based on the ruling a of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate.
Removal from office takes a supermajority in the Senate, so maybe disqualification via the 14th does as well. That would presumably depend on Senate rules that currently don't cover it.
A simple majority ought to be sufficient, but it also ought to be sufficient for just about everything, but it's not.
14th didn't say that
14th didn't say it's up to Congress either. The Supreme Court said that, and now it's up to Congress to decide what that looks like. The constitution lets the legislative bodies setup their own rules for how a lot of things function.
If the Supes said it without merit then it can be ignored. Ban him from the ballot anyway.
I'm not sure I even disagree with the idea that it needs to be done at the Federal level. If individual states can do it, then Republicans will start declaring that everything they don't like is an insurrection (as their rhetoric already does on many issues) and remove Democrats from ballots.
Whether that means it has to be the legislature and what that looks like are different questions.
Naturally
Correct. States simply don't have this power. The decision was unanimous for a reason.
States rights*
*terms and conditions apply
Always has been. States have never had free reign to do anything they want. This is one of the things they cannot do.
States already do things like bar felons from voting and only put on 3rd party candidates that meet a certain signature threshold. Or add barriers to voting, like restricting when you can vote and ID laws.
Pretty much how it goes. Laws affect peons: oh well. Laws affect wealthy politicians: off to SCOTUS for them to overturn it!
For anyone wondering if the wording of the Constitution is unclear, this is the provision that constitutionally bars trump from office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Here is Article 2 section 1, referring to the office of the President of the United States:
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,..."
Trump engaged in insurrection, violating the oath of office he took. As such, he is constitutionally ineligible to run for office.
Supreme Cowards
What is the text of the last section of Amendment 14?
Why?
There is no "why". I asked a question.
For no reason? Helpful of you.
My bad. I overestimated the ability of people on this website to infer subtext.
The last section of Amendment 14 explains why the Supreme Court was more or less correct in its interpretation before you edited your original comment.
This is why I added that context to my original comment.
All I had to do was add the literal quotes from the constitution to render the supreme court obviously incorrect.
No.
The Supreme Court ruled that the provisions you cited are not "self executing". It needs to be enforced by an Act of Congress. You assumed that because it says that, therefore it works on its own without the need for anything else. That's not how the law works in the US.
The text of Amendment 14 §5 which are you so reluctant to post:
Now tell me, is it not a reasonable interpretation of this clause that the terms of Amendment 14 may only be enforced by Congress and not anyone else.
Don't cite Amendment 10 here. It doesn't apply. This power is explicitly delegated to Congress.
So your contention is that the meanings of the phrase "congress shall have power to enforce" are:
this constitutional amendment "may only be enforced by congress and not by anyone else" even though this is not stated in the Constitution.
"needs to be enforced by congress", even though this is not stated in the Constitution.
"this power is explicitly delegated to Congress", even though this is an implicit permission rather than an explicit designation?
You'll want to reference what is written and is not, in the Constitution, rather than your imagining of my assumptions.
Fwiw i got it
States rights!!!!! Sometimes.
"It's not for us to decide. It's up to the Republican controlled Congress to decide to allow Trump and any other Republican candidate and not allow Democrat candidates the same luxury."
They want to leave it to states' rights when it benefits them. Then they want it to Republican-controlled groups.
Short term this is disappointing, but long term I think it is for the best. Being unanimous makes it less likely a state will ignore the rulling, and had they ruled against Trump, then we would have seen decades of retaliation from red states removing all democrats for any reason.
The root of the problem remains that nearly half our voting citizens support electing a violent and hateful criminal.
You say this with an optimism that I wish I had.
I guarantee you that so long as we have a shit judicial bench, red states are going to fuck around. Not because they can. They always could.
But because no one is going to stop them.
Whelp, now I guess Elon can run for president. Be pretty awkward if he won.
Elon still can't run, because the states still have authority over enforcing the qualifications for president enumerated in Article II Section 1. The Supreme Court ruling only covers Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment for federal office holders or people running for federal office. I honestly like this ruling. The conservative justices ruled this way because they wanted to keep Trump on the ballot, but if they are going to do that no matter what, I'll take the win. edit: added clarification
Guess we really are going the route of states ignoring federal rulings and laws. This might get scary in the next few years.
It is already scary now.
Deadly is the word you mean
That isn't at all what this is about. This is asserting the inability for individual states to make rulings on federal matters. This is a good thing. It's not states' place to be ruling on federal cases. Those rulings need to come from the federal level.
With every ruling the SC makes more and more states are setting themselves against the federal government. It’s becoming clear this union is not working at this point and it’s seeming inevitable that sometime in the near future we’re going to see more states than just Texas speaking of breaking away. Probably from more sides of the political spectrum and auth-right too
Commerce clause fucked us.
Unless I’m misremembering, the scope is more limited. It’s specifically allocating the right to determine federal office eligibility to the federal government and not the state.
Any other rights without precedent currently remain with the states
If that's what you think, you don't understand the situation.
So what happens if the states continue to keep him off the ballot? Does the federal government take over their elections, or do they refuse to recognize the electors?
The supreme clowns are giving an opinion and states are already starting to ignore their opinions. What happens if the states ignore this and say their state rights exceed here?
The bigger news isn't that he's back on the ballot, but the 5-4 split within the unanimous ruling.
They unanimously agreed that a state Court can't ban someone from election to a federal office based on federal rules. There's something to be said for that, which is why the liberal justices were all on board with it.
The 5-4 split with the separate opinions, however, was Thomas, Alito, Robert's, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch saying that federal courts also can't ban someone from holding office for insurrection even if convicted of the crime in a federal court.
They're setting up Trump to be eligible to be elected President even if he loses the insurrection trial prior to the election. They're saying only Congress can ban him from office for insurrection.
The liberal justices wrote a heated rebuke of that in their concurring opinion, and Barrett sided with the liberals, but scolded the liberals for being too mean about it in her standalone concurring opinion.
What a mystery! Who knows what happens when States try and assert their "State's Rights" to ignore the federal government, it's never happened ever in American history, thank you for asking such a deep and intellectually thought-out question!
/s
The US is a weird place. Why can't you just ignore your strange council of all powerful wizards that rule for life? Didn't some other state do that only a few months ago and face no repercussion? Just ignore the geriatric corrupt bastards.
Hawaii already is. Our government is run by honor system. Once enough stop honoring it, it will all come crumbling down.
Tangential to the decision but something for jubilant MAGA types to try out for themselves:
While feeling this happy, stand in front of a mirror. Now, hold your fists up exactly like Donald Trump is doing in this picture, and do your utmost to physically express joy, without deviating from Donald Trump's movement patterns.
If this felt very fucking weird to do, look up ideomotor apraxia.
booooooooooooooo
Did anyone read the opinions?
MidasTouch on YouTube does good analyses of such things
Did any one read the Constitution?
Trump doesn't qualify as an insurrectionist. Just as if he was 34
Why that image, he looks like Dr Evil dancing after getting away with it. It's kind of cartoonishly hilarious.
Boo State’s rights, hooray strong federal government!
Isnt that what everyone wants?
I want choices that aren't false dichotomies
What hilarious is that the Republican agenda was historically for small government afaik
I leave it to legal minds better versed in this but it was a unanimous decision and its not devoid of sense that States (some of whom consistently elect bad-faith actors who are a threat to civil society) should not be able to mix-match disqualify candidates, but rather that a federal mechanism for enforcement needs to be legislated by Congress.
They have literally provided a roadmap to disqualify Trump/future ilk that they cannot turn around and deny when it comes back to them to adjudicate on eventually. The law is iterative so its for the best. In any case, he's gonna lose his state criminal trials so they'll finally be able to put him away or dispose of him. Even Barrett was bitching about giving too much of the plot away
LMAO see it came in since months ago, finally they did it..
Looks like we can't agree with the (unanimous) SCOTUS decision without invoking the downvote brigade. But for all of those wishing for Trump to be kept off the ballot, consider what will happen in four years when Texas comes up with some bullshit reason to keep the democrat frontrunner off the ballot.
I understand and completely agree that Trump started an insurrection and deserves to be kicked off the ballot. But we all know Texas, Kansas, or whatever other godforsaken backward red state will not play by the rules next time.
It's funny you think this ruling will stop fascist states from kicking non republicans off the ballots. Lets look at gerymandering. States submit illegal maps, play the waiting game, courts decide they're illegal, states run illegal districts anyway because its too close to the election.
Im willing to bet they’re gonna try it anyway.
I'd rather do what right now instead of doing what's wrong in hopes it doesn't get weaponized. There isn't a politician I care about enough that I'm willing let trump get away with insurrection in fear that red states might try to fuck with a dem nominee
If someone has done something that a state can even remotely argue inssurection, we should just dump that person and move on to the next. Maybe it'd force some new blood into the system
So tired of letting Republicans get away with shit out of fear of them abusing. They are already abusing everything and at some point we might need step up and stand on buisness
Fuck you. Kansas voters voted to keep abortion legal and we regularly have democrat governors. Try Oklahoma or something.
This assumes the Republicans will respect precedent and play by the rules. But when do they ever do that? Are they going to start playing fair as soon as their chosen dictator is installed? You don't beat fascists this way. You have to keep them from seizing power in the first place.
Good. Democracy means that it can be democratically dissolved. If you're holding on to a piece of paper written by slave owners to save your democracy, then you've missed the point of democracy.
If a majority of voters want racist, sexist fascism, that's what you'll get. No amount of social media posts will change that. Ask the slaves, Indigenous Peoples, women, poor men, non-Christians, and children of the United States for the majority of its history.
Vote. And get others to do it too. Change people's minds--and, no, posting on social media isn't changing anyone's mind. You have to actually go out and do the work of talking to people, understanding them, and then changing minds. Yelling at people, digitally or actually, isn't doing anything. Sorry.
Now all the people that want to sit in their room doing nothing and act like it is doing something can downvote.
It's the only form of "democracy" you know: cheap and easy. "I NO LIKE."
Well that would be great if we had a democracy. No Republican has won the popular vote for something like 20 years, but we've had more than one Republican president since then.
Voting is super important, but we also need a better democracy because we know the majority don't want a bigot in office. But we're still getting one every couple years
Yeah GW Bush won in 88 and since then there's only been one GOP population vote win when W won in the middle of the war in 04. Only one republican win in the past 35 years, and this coming election will be no different. There's no way in hell the popular vote goes against Biden in November.
The United States is HUGE. Do you feel like population centers should get to dictate the terms to everyone that doesn't live in a populous state? If so, then, again: vote. If you don't like the current election process then change it.
You Americans complain so much about your electoral processes, but you do nothing to change them.
You get bigots and violent offenders in office either way you cut it. Obama normalized the massive, largely remote kill operations in non-battlefield engagements. He authorized the death of several thousand people exclusively through remote kill actions. As he noted himself, "turns out I'm really good at killing people. Didn't know that was going to be my strong suit."
The popular vote for an overpowered executive isn't the answer. And I think you know that. The answer is harder and requires more work. But it's nice to think it's just about voting once every four years to fix it, isn't it?
Good luck.
I don’t like the guy, but I like even less the government deciding to take candidates off the ballot.
The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
To be fair, the government has always set criteria for being on the ballot. For example, to be US president you have to be at least 35, a natural citizen, and have live in the states for at least 14 years.
Not being an insurrectionist is also part of that criteria. We’ve just never had a presidential candidate that has needed us to consider that part of the constitution.
Think of it this way. It’s not that the government is trying take an eligible person off the ballot, but it’s clarifying the ineligibility criterion.
If the person committed a crime that exempts them from the ballot- I absolutely want them removed.
If conservatives want to try and prove innocent men and women need to be removed- I want them to try it in court.
Denying the ability to follow the law outright out of fear of what the other side will do is essentially negotiating with terrorists.