125
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 29 Dec 2023
125 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13547 readers
843 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Before I assumed the supreme court will rule for Trump. I think I was entirely wrong. Recently I've noted commentators saying it's likely the court will avoid the hot potato and kick it over to congress. And that seems highly likely to me now.
I didn't read any articles on the details about how congress will deal with it. But if the house is involved - all these efforts are already DOA.
---
Ninja edit
Google is shity and the media is shittier. I scanned a couple articles on the theme of "Everything you need to know about Trump and the 14th Amendment". And they didn't answer my simple question: if the court sends it congress - what happens?
it wont go to congress. the highest court in the state made a ruling regarding a state law. for there to be a national disqualification, the justice department will have to file charges and he will be tried in a federal court. congress could spearhead this by investigating, but its up to the executive branch to file charges, and up to the judicial branch to reach a verdict. only if trump is a convicted insurrectionist can congress decide to disqualify him from running
The NYT disagrees and says it could.
They're just saying that the court could rule that the amendment by itself is inactionable until the legislature enacts laws to create a process to disqualify candidates. Similar to how Article III declared a judiciary branch, but it wasn't actually established until Congress passed the Judiciary Act, describing what kind of courts there would actually be, what their jurisdictions would be, how many justices would comprise the court, etc. etc.
But in this case, the amendment is clearly prohibiting an action. With a reasonable court, I can't imagine how they'd just allow somebody to continue violating the Constitution until Congress passed additional legislation to stop it. It's as ludicrous as saying that the executive branch can unreasonably search and seize anything they'd like until Congress explicitly spells out each and every action that's unreasonable and provides the exact remedy process to follow when the 4th amendment is violated.
I mean, it's a pretty moot point because the court has already shown that they're perfectly willing to create whatever calvinball rules they want. But of course good old liberal media has to get in there and grant an air of credibility to whatever flimsy justification they come up with that's even the slightest bit plausible sounding.
If the court wants to come out and say that they judge the President isn't an officer of the United States or that he wasn't personally engaged in an insurrection, then that's one thing. But kicking it over to Congress to legislate exactly what's prohibited by the Constitution and/or what the remedies are is just opening up a huge can of worms.
“congressional action is needed before courts can intervene” meaning that congress needs to investigate for insurrection in order to charge him for the crime. it would still eventually come back to the courts to decide on a verdict.
edit: my wording of “it wont go to congress” was clumsy. i meant that congress wont be the ultimate body making that decision. congress can decide to not disqualify even if hes found guilty, but thats if both houses pass a 2/3 vote