126
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
126 points (95.7% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3545 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Actually, I'm going to say that Trump was correct in calling it a victory. It's just not the victory he says it is.
Make no mistake, this judge was always looking for an excuse.......any excuse to not remove Trump from the ballot after expressing concern over what would happen if she disqualified Trump from the ballot. The same thing happened in Michigan and Minnesota, where they also came up with flimsy excuses to not take action against Trump: Michigan said Congress should be the enforcement mechanism for the 14th amendment, and Minnesota kicked the can down the road by saying that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the primaries.
In all 3 cases, the judges concluded that Trump engaged in conduct disqualifying him from the ballot. But in all 3 cases, they all simply found a different excuse to continue doing nothing. Not based on the correct interpretation of the law, but based on a desire not to deal with the fallout that would come from making the correct ruling. Whether it was fear of setting precedent or fear of violence, the end result was the same.
And this is why it should be considered a victory for Trump. He has so far survived 3 attempts at being properly disqualified from the ballot not because of an interpretation of the 14th amendment, but because of fears of violence. He continues to prove violence works, and has been successful in evading accountability by slinging threats. It may be disastrous for the viability of the Constitution and the rule of law, but it no doubt was an enormous victory for Trump.
All these judges know full well that no matter what they decide, it's going to be appealed, first to their state's Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS. Why should any of them put themselves at real personal risk of harassment, intimidation, threats, and actual violence; when they know full well that their ruling ultimately doesn't matter?
What Wallace did, though, was find the fact that Trump "engaged in insurrection." Findings of fact are tremendously more difficult for an appeal to overturn. The ruling about not disqualifying him from the ballot is a legal finding, and that is much more likely to be overturned on appeal. She also used one standard (a "liberally broad" interpretation of the amendment) to find the fact, and then used a much more specific technical reading on the definition of "officer under the United States" to make the legal finding. And she referred to Trump, earlier in the order, as "Chief Exectuive Officer of the Executive Branch."
The legal finding in this ruling is ripe for appeal. On its face, the ruling seems cowardly, silly, and bizarre; I think there's a fair possibility that history will show it to be brilliant.
That's an interesting take. I would love to fast forward to find out what happens. Since IANAL wonder also whether a broad interpretation was chosen for a reason and if so, what it was.
Have a read for yourself, see what you think.
Forgive me while I promote a place to post original documents.
Ooo. Cool! That's an interesting read (well, I skimmed over a lot of it). Really brings into focus the arguments and rationale for the court findings. Some gold nuggets in there.
I didn't really find the part about broad interpretation but I found the section on understanding what was meant by insurrection and by engagement quite interesting.
There seems to be a very solid basis for interpreting these terms as the court did (based on my years of experience not being a lawyer lol). And Trump's team sounds incompetent.
For example, they argued that the Jan 6 Committee was biased and the report shouldn't be considered trustworthy. But never offered evidence to counter any of its findings. Bruh. Wtaf.
Interesting that the "offices" to be disqualified by the 14th amendment are explicitly listed and exclude the president and vice president. And an earlier version did specifically include those two positions. Fucking hell. Thanks a lot, drafters of the 14th.
It's patently absurd to think that the drafters of this clause intended for it not to apply to President or Vice President -- because they explicitly state that someone who engaged in insurrection cannot be a member of the Electoral College. So ... it's not okay to play a teeny tiny role in selecting POTUS or VPOTUS, but let's make sure that it is okay to actually be POTUS or VPOTUS?
There is absolutely no way that that is the case. It's irrational and ludicrous.
Hopefully that is precisely what the appeal will determine.