this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
2044 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2304 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Colorado Supreme Court is removing former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot, saying he is ineligible to be president.

In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

“Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President (Mike) Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes.

“President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary.”

Ratified after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the wording is vague, it doesn’t explicitly mention the presidency, and has only been applied twice since 1919.

We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.

Chief Justice Brian Boatright, one of the three dissenters on the seven-member court, wrote that he believes Colorado election law “was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection,” and said he would have dismissed the challenge to Trump’s eligibility.

LINKS

AP: Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause | @negativenull@startrek.website

Washington Post: Donald Trump is barred from Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot, the state Supreme Court rules | @silence7@slrpnk.net

CNBC: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal | @return2ozma

NBC News: Colorado Supreme Court kicks Donald Trump off the state's 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution. | 18-24-61-B-17-17-4

CNN: Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot | A Phlaming Phoenix

CNN:Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’ | @Boddhisatva

New York Times: Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules | @silence7@slrpnk.net

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 198 points 11 months ago (9 children)

Surely this will be challenged, and I'm not optimistic about the federal Supreme Court maintaining the same decision, but, fuck, would that be nice.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 151 points 11 months ago (3 children)

SCOTUS could decline to take it up. Remember, they were not interested in entertaining Trump's election fraud claims.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 60 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

They also have typically demurred to "states' rights." ~~It was a violation of Colorado's Constitution~~, so I agree that it's less than likely they'll rule in his favor on appeal.

Edit: it was ruled as violating the US Constitution. But I still stand by what I said.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Weird assumption that the fedsoc SCOTUS will have any consistency in their rulings other than what's best for rich people

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah, I can't believe so many people are still fooled by their 'originalism' story. The originalists have just the most radical interpretations of the law that have no relation to the wording it intent of those that wrote it. Biggest example of that is how they interpret the second amendment.

And also the continual hollowing out of the fourth. The founders would be shocked to see what police can legally do these days (and if they do something illegal, there's still no consequences, because the people in charge of enforcing the law are apparently the only ones where ignorance of the law is an excuse).

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Well, I can tell you what's not best for rich people. So there's reasonable hope.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think the Colorado Supreme Court is citing that Trump violated the US Constitution, namely the 14th Amendment.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 11 points 11 months ago

Whoops, I misread. Got a little too excited.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

also, the feds don't decide who goes on the ballots- that's a state matter. They run the elections. It'll probably come before SCOTUS only if trump actually wins the regular election.

similar to how, a state can send a congressperson to congress that's ineligible, but they get kicked out on day one.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you honestly believe even two of the Tribunal of Six would actually do the right thing, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

is it the London or Brooklyn bridge? I had my eye on the London Bridge for the longest time.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

But it's always falling down.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Isn’t thst the point of arches? Always falling and nowhere to go, so they’re strong and can hold up heavy…. Uh… stuff?

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 11 points 11 months ago

They only care about "states' rights" if it suits them. They're completely happy to trample on the state's right to regulate other things they don't like.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Still a states rights issue as states control their own elections.

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago

They declined to hear about the Illinois AWB.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Some of the articles note that Trump wouldn't need Colorado to win (and didnt win in 2020) and while this sets a wonderful precedent, I'd wager that most would-be-Red-voting states simply wouldn't recognize this decision.

In that light, this seems a little bit of a hollow victory, but maybe I'm wrong and this is the precipice of something far better.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 52 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I suggested elsewhere in the thread that it opens the door to other challenges in other states and that his primary opponents are probably looking into the idea since it's the only chance they have. Maybe it wouldn't work in the redder states, but in purple states?

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fingers crossed. I'd love for this chapter of American history to end.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It won't end unfortunately, it'll only morph into something else. But who knows, maybe the fall of Trump coinciding with Boomers dying might ripple into a period of relative tranquility. I give it a 1% chance.

[–] match@pawb.social 8 points 11 months ago

those are shounen anime numbers 🕶️

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

True, but this removes him from the primary. If enough other states do this, you could have Nikki Haley or someone else winning that state. Then again, Colorado's primary takes place on Super Tuesday (March 5th). By the time, Haley is announced the winner, it would likely be too late to stop Trump. (Assuming nothing else stops him first.)

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 1 points 11 months ago

Sure, but those red states aren't going to make a difference no matter what, they're stocked with crazies. Where this is going to make an impact is purple states that might have enough liberal justices to support the ruling, but also have a sizeable enough population of MAGAts that Trump could win the state. Cutting those off from him should be enough to make the GOP drop him.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

It would be a perfect out for them, as long as they don't get Dictator B elected instead. Then they'd end up on the enemies list.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 44 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Current SCotUS is hella corrupt, but I don't see them denying that the individual States control their own elections.

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, was gonna say that if they rule against that then there’s going to be a fuck ton of challenges to everything they’ve ruled using state’s rights as the ruling.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

They'll have to be really careful if they take the case, because the wording of their decision is critical. They could inadvertently empower the Voting Rights Act.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

The year 2000 is calling.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The U.S. Supreme Court only has until January 4th to respond.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The Jan. 4th deadline isn't that meaningful. The ballots don't even exist yet, so striking him from the ballots on January 4th isn't actually possible.

The more interesting deadline is not Jan. 4 nor Mar. 5 (the primary election date), but February 12, 2024 because this is when mail-in ballots will be sent. No changes at that point.

[–] Chef@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Colorado deadline to submit primary candidates for the ballots is January 5th - one day after the deadline.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes and that might be important but I think the court could be persuaded to permit a candidate to be added if a higher court ruled that it was constitutionally required. That's why I think Feb. 12 is the real goal line.

[–] Chef@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ah I understand the logic now. The “practical” deadline is essentially when the ballots must be created and mailed. Got it.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Those ballots need to be created before they can be addressed/mailed. All that takes time, and thus the January 5th deadline. Once the process has started I don't think it's practical to scrap ballots and start over.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The real hard deadline is probably between the two, if a SCOTUS opinion dropped on February 11th, it's probably too late to correct, but if it came in January 6th, they'd probably make a good faith effort to correct it if necessary.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, in good faith I could see them doing it, but I think legally they could just say "to late".

[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

It’s not impossible. This court is extremely right wing and pro-Republican, but some justices are also fanatically religious. And a lot of religious conservatives are souring on the “Trump as orange Jesus” thing, especially educated ones.

If they rule on it fairly quickly, the GOP could still field a religious candidate that shares the justices’ beliefs.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It would lead to a lot of terror attacks in the US, a much larger insurrection attempt, and ruin the Republican Party

The Supreme Court would never put justice above their own interests

[–] walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz 3 points 11 months ago

Lol, oh wait yeah you're right. Had to read that last line twice...

[–] doctorcrimson 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is there much at stake? Biden was very highly likely to win CO to begin with.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It sets the precedent for other states to strike him.

If he ends up not being the candidate in enough states to deny him 270 votes, he's done.

[–] doctorcrimson 6 points 11 months ago

A win in Georgia would certainly rustle some jimmies.

[–] root_beer@midwest.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Which states would actually bar him though? I thought the same thing, that he’d have lost CO anyway, and I’m just not seeing this happening in states where he’s likely to win or where it’d actually be competitive.

I’m not trying to be a pessimist or anything, despite it being my usual inclination, I’d genuinely like to know whether other states might actually do the right thing, where it counts.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I worry we'd instead see Republicans trying to remove Biden from the ballot because the House "impeaches" him.

load more comments (3 replies)