137
Hm. So I'm guessing they are going to say that disqualification can only happen at the federal level by a law defined by Congress. They don't seem too concerned about an insurrectionist becoming president, not surprisingly.
That's certainly a strange new precedent. I hope Congress gets to work quickly writing legislation for all the other amendments before a president realizes there aren't laws spelling out how freedom of speech is defined or how to enforce it, etc. etc.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Well, yeah, he's on team Naz...er Republican and can keep the tax breaks flowing to the top.
It should be a more fundamental question than that. The first issue with regard to any statutory authority regarding Section 3 must address whether the section itself is self executing.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Cool, then let's put Ariana Greenblatt on the ballot and make them make a law on how to disqualify children.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Is it worth listening to the conservative majority kiss Trump's ass?
You can tell they are pissed they even have to do this.
And you could practically see that Thomas popped a chubby when he was called Chief Justice by mistake.
Wait, Clarence Thomas said something? Maybe I should have listened to catch that rarity.
Hes said a couple things lol.
Also it seems they don't want to find him ineligible because that means they will have to do more work instead of vacations at billionaire retreats.
Isn't that the general gist of most of their decisions?
Pretty much. They keep circling back to "Well, he might have committed insurrection, but if we find him guilty, republican states said they will declare Biden committed insurrection and we will have to litigate that over and over." So they are scared of literally enforcing the law because of threats.
"If we seek justice, then the other side will lie, and we are corrupt, so while we don't want to uphold justice, we will try to uphold the lie."
load more comments
(2 replies)
His decade+ of silence ended years ago. Now he has a sugar daddy and he does what he's told.
It ended basically as soon as they had a conservative majority locked in. Now he doesn't need to nap anymore.
Trump's lawyer had to be repeatedly saved by the conservative justices. That was funny. Other than that it was pretty infuriating.
Oh God. They cut to a live reaction of Shit Head himself. What a fucking word salad extraordinaire.
Rambling nonsense about World War 3, Iraq is Iran, Iran was poor now rich, HezBOLlah (that sounds how it should be typed when Fuck Face says it) is strong now and was poor, Biden can't keep up with Putin and Chi, and we are being laughed at.
Just gross, man. Dude is a fucking mess.
I refuse to watch him anymore cause he makes my brain bleed.
I've never once heard him complete one cogent sentence without rambling off on some stupidity.
cause he makes my brain bleed.
Fuck I didn't realize his brain bleed was contagious.
load more comments
(1 replies)
SCotUS is about to throw out the 14th Amendment as written & stick a thumb in the eye of the men that wrote it.
The conservative argument boiled down to trump didn't do it.
If he did do it then the president isn't accountable to the Constitution.
And if the President is accountable then a single state can't disqualify him. (Even though they routinely do so for other job requirements.)
If states can disqualify him then they can't do it until he wins the election because Congress could maybe, in an alternate universe, vote by 3/4 to remove his bar to office.
So according to conservatives we have to let a traitor win the election and then have the moral fortitude to DQ him and re-run the election. Because that's not nightmare fuel that will instantly cause a civil war at all.
They also ran a parallel argument saying nobody can do anything until Congress passes a law about an enforcement regime for the amendment. A requirement not in place for any other Constitutional bar to the office and with no text in the 14th requiring it.
Why the fuck are we bending over backwards for this humanoid?
The US Supreme Court has some tough choices to make. On one hand you have a piece of the constitution that, at least to this layperson, would seem to clearly disqualify Trump - but absent any clarifying law from Congress it's really hard to figure out how to implement it. Do you let States do it? What if a Republican state official says Biden is an insurrectionist? How would Biden challenge that? What court would hear that challenge? If it's the state supreme courts, then what if one court disqualifies him and another doesn't? Do you allow for some states to disqualify candidates and others not, or does the Supreme Court have to take up these cases each election year? What's the threshold for insurrection? Should it require a criminal conviction? What if Trump were charged with insurrection and later acquitted - can he now run again?
Maybe they might punt it off to Congress and say that it's Congress' responsibility when counting electoral college votes to decide if a candidate is qualified or not, but now you've just given cover to Republicans to reject presidential election results they don't like if they happen to win enough seats in Congress.
Tl;dr - from my perspective they have to either ignore the constitution and invite the chaos of another possible Trump presidency, or acknowledge the constitution and invite (additional) chaos into the election system. If Congress functioned maybe a decent law could be written but fat chance of that.
Biden would go to court to challenge it. Just like Trump did. That's the answer. Not enforcing laws for fear of bad faith actors is appeasement and ends badly everytime.
Also states DQ people all the time. Not old enough, Not a citizen, etc...
but absent any clarifying law from Congress it's really hard to figure out how to implement it.
OK yeah but that's literally the supreme court's JOB.
But if they rule it as self executing (which it almost certainly is), we can expect a clusterfuck stateside for the foreseeable future from Republicans. Though, that may be a feature for them, not a bug.
Best case scenario, I guess, would be the SC deciding eligibility is a federal thing not a state thing, AND that trump is ineligible to run.
Though that'd make him a martyr... But allowing him to run after a coup attempt is a terrible precident as well...
I don't think we're winning no matter how this turns out, boys.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It absolutely is self-executing. From the text of the 14th Amendment:
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So it follows that Trump would be disqualified absent any action from Congress, since they can only vote to lift such a restriction, not on whether or not to impose it.
This person pays attention folks.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think Kagan summed up the concerns pretty well. I will also say that this probably suggests SCOTUS won't hear the immunity case though. If the 14A can only be enforced by the federal courts or congress then the president can't be immune to the federal courts as a matter of definition. I also won't be shocked if she writes the opinion, either.
For those who missed it (or didn't watch) the AP has a pretty concise page with what happened.
https://apnews.com/live/trump-supreme-court-arguments-updates
Good summary. Apparently even the Democratic judges are skeptical of upholding the Colorado Supreme Court decision.
When faced with murky or complex legal issues surrounding elections, I think the court pretty much always tries to come down on the side of letting voters decide. And I'm not sure that's a bad philosophy. This has been my expectation from day one, though I've tried to keep an optimistic view and challenge myself to look for reasons they might rule differently.
I'm not surprised in the least, but I'm glad we at least the challenge was made. I'm not sure if any country can withstand self-sabotage by a nearly 50% party. If we can't defeat Trump at the ballot it doesn't really matter whether we can keep him off on a legal issue because there are still all those folks he has won over. Authority in our nation comes from the people, and the people decide. I just wish so many of us weren't so fucking stupid and hateful.
“Let the voters decide” Just like in Bush v. Gore! Oh, wait…
And the 2nd Amendment!
The only hope America has is that Trump is convicted in one of his trials and receives jail time (hopefully a LOT of jail time). NAL but I'm pretty sure SCOTUS would back that scenario fully.
That would be wonderful. But it isn't the only hope. We can just defeat the fucker at the ballot box the old fashioned way. It isn't sexy and it doesn't stop conspiratorial thinking and it doesn't give the satisfaction of slapping him with consequences he has never faced in his life, but a mic drop is a mic drop. I would love to defeat him by an irrefutable margin. Might just be a pipe dream, though.
not 'fully'. not this scotus.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
States should keep him of the ballot regardless of what they say. If the SC won’t hold an insurrectionist accountable, the states should.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
137 points (97.9% liked)
News
23397 readers
2287 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