920
submitted 8 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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 134 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It is still crazy to me, he is responsible for an insurrection and still gets the option to run for President. Every time I've talked about it on twitter some right-winger will bring up it was mostly peaceful and some other event that has nothing to do with anything lol.

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 points 8 months ago

This is an important lesson in Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Trump is very much a narcissist). Narcissists use vague and ambiguous language, usually rapid fire, in order to confuse and disorient listeners. The term is called Narcissistic Word Salad. It means that he can rile people up to commit an insurrection while at the same time be legally protected because he never directly commanded January 6ers to do what they did with clear and pointed language. All of his communication is very obviously crafted to manipulate and obfuscate, and it's how he's managed to keep his crime empire afloat for decades.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

because at no time since this nation was founded was it considered possible for a president of this country to be under the thrall of a hostile foreign power and want to overthrow it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 58 points 8 months ago

I'm glad it's happening. However, I am almost sure SCOTUS will not allow it no matter what and will find some spurious reason that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump.

Also, I wish it wasn't a state that Trump was pretty much guaranteed to lose anyway. Oh well, I guess it's a start.

[-] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 26 points 8 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 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago

States are going to start ignoring them

Already happening, see Hawaii ruling.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 10 points 8 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"?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 8 months ago

SCOTUS knows that Haley polls better against Biden than Trump does. It's in the interest of their owners that they block him from running.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (33 replies)
[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Hoo boy. January 6th-21st 2025 is going to be harrowing in DC should Trump win.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago

I suspect it will be harrowing when he loses too. It was last time.

[-] seejur@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

At least this time he is not in charge, so it should be a lot harder to try pushing people around to subvert democracy

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] xenoclast@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Gonna be the least of your worries unless you live in DC. Look forward to armed take overs at every state capital and military deployments across the country (with help from our great friends in the Russian military), and murdered Democrats on every street corner should Trump win.

It will be worse than that probably

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] killpunchdeluxe@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

My boy's getting absolutely SWAMPED with legal action

I think he's at like $470,000 now for his fraud case

*edit LOL my b dudes $470 MILLION

[-] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 8 months ago

you're missing 3 zeroes in that number.

[-] killpunchdeluxe@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago

My third world mind literally couldn't comprehend that many zeros

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Do you really want him to be your boy?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 34 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Every single person in the country who has the power to make the decision to have the insurrectionist off the ballot , yet doesn't, is letting down The Constitution. Don't they have to take an oath, or is that only Federal positions?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] 3volver@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

Good, just in time for it to not matter. Glad they're being so quick about it. Great judicial system.

[-] maquise@ttrpg.network 14 points 8 months ago

How many states does that make total?

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 20 points 8 months ago

Up to 3 now. Which is funny because the central point the Supreme Court made during the hearing of the Colorado case was "why would a single state get to decide the election for the rest of the country?" Would be nice if a few other states stepped up to show it's not just a "single state."

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 16 points 8 months ago

That's so weird, I could have sworn in 2020 we were seriously about states' rights to conduct their elections as they please. But now states do not have rights to enforce laws for themselves? I must be misremembering because otherwise it would mean all Repubs are deceitful and without integrity.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago

...it would mean all Repubs are deceitful and without integrity.

Say it ain't so.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CouncilOfFriends@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

'Insurrectionist ban', also know as the law and order this jackass bloviates about.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
920 points (98.1% liked)

News

23287 readers
3483 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