920
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

In a surprise move, an Illinois judge has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s so-called “insurrectionist ban.”

The decision is paused, giving Trump a short period of time to appeal.

Wednesday’s unexpected decision comes as a similar anti-Trump challenge from Colorado is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is widely expected to reject arguments that Trump is barred from office.

Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter heavily relied on the prior finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, calling Colorado’s “rationale compelling.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

I'm not so sure. SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low (18%). Even if Trump was re-elected I don't think there is more he can offer them. They already have the job. They need confidence back or the states are going to start ignoring them.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the "plebes" think of them for that to make any difference.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 13 points 9 months ago

You know for all our checks and balances the Supreme Court is surprisingly left out of them. Congress can supposedly tell them they can't hear a case but that's it. But it's fine cause the courts will never be able to change laws or enforce anything right? Right?

[-] BURN@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

The court was supposed to be the main arbitrator of the checks and balances, because it was initially believed that they weren’t corruptible. That’s obviously not the case, and we’re all screwed because of it

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago

Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the "plebes" think of them for that to make any difference.

Does the SC have any recourse if confidence from the public gets so low that states start ignoring them?

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Not really, and it's happened before. Heck one of the worst presidents we ever had famously stated, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him try to enforce it."

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

SCOTUS caused the civil war this way. You should remain vigilant.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

States are going to start ignoring them

Already happening, see Hawaii ruling.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago

SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low

Maybe, but the more important questions are "do they care", and also "does it improve their behavior"?

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Hey, they've got Ethics guidelines now, so they've solved whatever trust issues the public may have had, so they don't need to hear any of this malarkey anymore. It's full steam ahead for the Christo-nationalist fascist takeover.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Not only has he nothing more to offer them, but he has promised to be a dictator from day one, if reelected. A dictator threatens the power of judges in all courts. That's not something they should take lightly.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I hope you're right.

this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
920 points (98.1% liked)

News

23409 readers
2098 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