123
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a bid to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” saying it’s waiting for the US Supreme Court to rule on the issue.

The ruling comes after Colorado and Maine kicked Trump off the ballot, after judges and officials determined that his role in the January 6 insurrection renders him ineligible for office. However, those decisions have been paused to allow for appeals.

Trump has prevailed in other states, where courts dismissed lawsuits on procedural grounds and never grappled with the questions about January 6. He has beaten back challenges in Minnesota, Michigan, and Arizona – and California’s top election official recently decided to keep him on the ballot there as well.

The Oregon court did not rule on the merits of the challenge, specifically citing the ongoing litigation at the US Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the Colorado case on February 8.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

Yes, this is a big deal.

SCOTUS is going to create precedent no matter what. There are a few outcomes.

First, and easiest to understand, they could rule that Trump is disqualified from serving as President (or any office) per section 3 of the 14th amendment. Congress could remove the restriction, but that would be almost impossible given the current Congressional climate. In that situation, Trump is off the ballot entirely, and while he and his followers will violently thrash about for a while, he won't be President under any circumstances.

I don't think that's likely, but one can hope.

Second, the court could rule that Trump is not disqualified, either because Article 14 Section 3 doesn't apply to President (an incredibly stupid argument that ignores all evidence and rational thought) or because Trump didn't support an insurrection. Could be that they say it wasn't proven to be an insurrection (which isn't true, several participants have been convicted of seditious conspiracy) or that he didn't support it (which isn't true, he gave a speech at the rally and was tweeting his support, not to mention the eyewitnesses at the White House). Maybe the court finds he cannot be penalized because he hasn't been convicted yet, or because the impeachment vote went his way (also stupid arguments that ignore the wording of the amendment).

I think one of these is possible, because the court is a fraud and there is no justice. Any of these findings would require twisting the law and ignoring objective truth in favor of a political win, and these justices have already demonstrated that's something they are capable of.

Third, they could rule narrowly that the Colorado Court and/or the state of Maine can keep him off the ballot, but make no ruling regarding whether he is actually disqualified from holding office. This would be interesting, because they would basically be saying that it's up to each state to make their own determination for at least the primary. The issue could come back to the court later if he ends up with the nomination after being disqualified in some states, at which point they would have to rule on the issue.

I doubt they punt like that.

Last option is they narrowly find Colorado and Maine overstepped their authority, but make no ruling on the larger issue related to whether he is or is not disqualified by the 14th amendment. Could be any number of procedural issues. This split-the-baby attempt puts him back on the ballots everywhere and makes it harder for states to keep him off primary ballots. Like the previous possibility, this would likely end up back before the court assuming Trump is the nominee.

This one seems likely to me, because I can imagine a few of the justices are hoping that the electorate will take the heat by nominating someone else. If Trump loses to Haley, his supporters won't be angry with the Court, nobody can cry that their rights have been violated. And if he does receive the nomination, then they get a second bite at the apple to disqualify him should the justices' owners decide they don't want Trump to be President.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

That third option really flies in the face of states running their own elections.

They'll probably have to add an asterisk about how this decision can't be used as precedent. Like they did in 2000.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

The precedent that SCOTUS will decide elections for the republiQans? Yeah. They pooed the scrooch on that one.

[-] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the thorough write up on this.

[-] Bgugi@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I think one of the narrow rulings is most likely... "Trump did nothing wrong, but since you people opened up this can of worms...

[-] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the genuine answer. That said, maybe I'm being cynical but most of those outcomes only interest political junkies, myself included (excluding him being barred from running entirely, of course).

What upsets me is my mom watching it on the news wondering what's likely to happen, and the general public being told this is something serious when it really feels more like political theater since it isn't likely to keep us out of the camps anyway.

To be clearer, my frustration is with the apparent coverage on corporate news networks

this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
123 points (97.7% liked)

News

23268 readers
1906 users here now

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS