You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
20 points

I am less concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that a national party nominee is disqualified from a ballot in a state he’ll almost certainly lose than I am with a ruling that some court in Florida or Arizona or Georgia can pull the same shit on Biden.

Very easy to see this become one more trick one-party states can pull to remove popular opponents from the ballot in close election years. And I would be very concerned if an Alito court authored an opinion in which this kind of thing was normalized.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

I’m not afraid of bad faith attempts to ruin democracy as backlash from this decision because bad faith attempts to ruin democracy are coming regardless of the outcome of this particular case

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Exactly. This constant handwringing is so tiresome.

They WILL try it, regardless of precedent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Bush pulled a bullshit card in 2000 and it worked

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

To rephrase the excellent point made: Its short sighted to think suffering no consequences for crimes will encourage the MAGA criminals to not do more bad faith crimes.

We either legitimize their actions by witholding consequences or we attempt to give them consequences and they claim their next scheme is retaliation for the consequences rather than retaliation for something entirely fabricated (ex: “stolen election” bullshit)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I have no doubt. But I’m not in a rush to open a new can of worms, when there’s no discernible benefit.

Let me know if a court in Michigan or Ohio or Pennsylvania yanks Trump off the ballot. Then we can talk.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Upholding the constitution is a discernable benefit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

There’s always a new can of worms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

And so we decide to let tyrants through so that their party doesn’t have made up and twisted precedent to try to disqualify qualified candidates? It’s not like the GOP need or care about precedent anyway. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

And so we decide to let tyrants through

We don’t decide. A few Ivy League JDs in robes get to decide. The decision on whether to list a particular candidate on the ballot is, inherently, undemocratic.

If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it.

State governments don’t need any more tools in the chest to decide who can and cannot appear on a ballot.

Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do.

I agree. But he’s not the only one who will get booted off under this rule. We both know it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? The one in the constitution? We should just ignore it so that the bad guys don’t try to use it illegitimately when we know they will anyway?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

What would the argument be for eliminating Biden though? Biden hasn’t committed insurrection. Trump has.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

They don’t need facts. They’ll say failing to secure the border is equivalent to an insurrection, or some such bullshit

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The point is, I think, to try and falsely equivocate the two things so they appear similar enough that people won’t raise too big of a fuss if Biden is removed for illegitimate reasons, because they somehow believe the same thing happened with trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It might be prudent to require an actual conviction of one of a specific lists of crimes, but that leaves Trump in for a bit longer

I don’t know what grounds they used but I don’t think Trump has been convicted yet

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 387K

    Comments