You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
165 points

Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

No justice, no peace.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

. . . For no reason, being the difference. Right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
76 points

States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-31 points
*

[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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
108 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-38 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-34 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Sorry, but this is absolutely a victory for democracy and what little structure our government still has. If the states were to be allowed to remove candidates from the ballot, you could kiss any chance of Democrat candidates showing up on red state ballots goodbye.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

States remove candidates routinely. It’s their constitutional right. Except with Trump for some reason.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Do you have any examples of that? I’m certainly no expert in this subject, so I’d love to know more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

For some Reason indeed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

Call me old fashioned, but an outgoing president who falsely claims their challenger stole the election and incites their supporters to storm the capitol building should be barred from holding office again, Democrat or Republican.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I absolutely agree. But it’s up to Congress to actually do that. That’s the branch of government that has failed here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

States have always had control over federal elections and candidate qualifications. That’s been fundamental to American federalism since the very beginning.

It’s not like oath-breaking is the only disqualifier, and states decide those too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

Except for the part where they punt to Congress as the sole arbiter of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. They absolutely know Congress won’t get off its collective ass to enforce, because it’s too broken to even pass a budget.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s a problem with Congress. That doesn’t change the fact that we should not give Republicans a new route to undermine the voting process.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 511K

    Comments