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

politics

19107 readers
2883 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
[–] Jeanschyso@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Can the guy appeal? He's not gonna give up until he's sure 100% that he's definitely not allowed frfr

[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The article I read said they expect it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 11 months ago

I would be pretty shocked if the SC overturned this. The entire 2020 campaign to overturn the presidential results depended on the 'state right' to run their own elections and put forward their electors.

I imagine the GOP is furious, but not surprised or really discouraged with this ruling. Colorado is a solidly blue state, they basically don't campaign there anyway. I'm sure they'll appeal, and receive a ruling that's possibly too close for comfort but will ultimately be denied.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This decision is basically referring it to fed sc.

[–] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (5 children)

If the SCOTUS agrees with the ruling, is Trump banned from all state ballots or Colorado only?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (3 children)

They can decline to hear the case, in which case the ruling would stand in Colorado.

[–] Retrograde@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But they won't cause SCOTUS sucks

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Allowing T***p to become the dictator he promised to be would, by extension, reduce or eliminate the power of the Supreme Court.

They won't like that.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Fuck him. He doesn't deserve attention.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then don't talk about him 🤷‍♂️

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

Life is so short and death comes for us all too soon.

Yet you waste your precious time quibbling to me about my word choices.

[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You afraid of his name??? Censoring his name makes no sense. If anything, it implies giving into fear, which by extension gives that orange turd power of you...

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Above all else, he loves seeing his name in print. I'm sick of seeing it. I don't feel like adding to his ego boost.

[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Umm. You don't actually believe he will ever even see your post, do you?? If you don't want to draw other people's attention to him, then don't post about him in the first place.

Sorry, but it's like you actually are letting him live in your head rent free. Just...really weird.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

What a strange thing for you to care so much about.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

They'll hear it. And we all know what that means. But I'm still going to enjoy it while it lasts.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's a great question. I'm not sure we will really know what the precedent will be until it happens.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

As far as I can tell, the specifics of Colorado law aren't super important to the decision, so the three broad categories are:

  • They hear the case, and find that Trump isn't ineligible at this time
  • They hear the case, and concur with the Colorado Supreme Court
  • They decline to hear the case, and this ruling stands

I'm personally hoping for the third, since it seems very unlikely SCOTUS would find Trump ineligible today. If you haven't read the Colorado decision, the dissenting opinions are interesting in how diverse they are.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I can't see how option 3 happens. Different states have ruled in different ways; and this is a very important mattered. I can't imagine any Supreme Court declining to hear this case; let alone a Supreme Court that is as obsessed with judicial supremecy as this one is.

[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If enough of them believe that it's up to each state how they conduct elections it's certainly possible.

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

If you haven't read the Colorado decision, the dissenting opinions are interesting in how diverse they are.

I haven't had a chance to yet, but I plan on reading them this week.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago

I think it's likely they would affirm the state's right to run their own election, if not decline to hear it.

I'm not even sure by what logic they could disqualify him from the ticket in other states.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I don't think it would be automatic, he would have to be challenged and removed.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 3 points 11 months ago

A ruling by the Supreme Court would cover all states is my understanding.

[–] excitingburp@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Voters in other states could rely on the precedent if the SC specifically upholds the judgement. You can bet such lawsuits would happen, so it would indirectly result in the same thing happening in all states.

If the SC overturns the judgement then Biden could become Dark Brandon and just stay in power, ignoring a Republican victory.

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

This was the appeal. The next and final appeal is the US Supreme Court.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh...

So you're saying this isn't going to stick. That sucks.

I guess I had false hope.

Given that the Supreme Court is packed I don't expect this to last if they can make that decision.

:(

Edit: I'm trying to remain pessimistic because if there's anything I've learned over the last 6 years it's that any hope that this person isn't above the law is hope which will be betrayed.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court cannot make a ruling compelling Colorado to put Trump on the ballot. The federal government has no power to do that. They can rule if Trump is or is not ineligible under the 14th. If yes, then he would not be able to take office; if no, then states could still bar him bc they have the autonomy to conduct elections. The likely outcome is they rule its up to the states.

[–] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Agreed.

And CO has a law stating that their ballots close on Jan 5th, which is why they issued a self-stay through the 4th. That’s the last possible day.

So it seems to me that if the sc issues its own stay until it can review the case, they have to do the same thing - use the federal govt to force CO to violate their election law.

They get a constitutional two-fer which is extra fun because we’re only a short time from cases like Bush v Gore and the VRA slashing, which were decided by some of these same judges.

If they try it, I think we can all look forward to some amazing contortions in legal interpretation.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm waiting with baited breath for them to reference the Magna Carta from 1215 to support the right of the federal government to intervene in elections.

[–] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But then can we vacate Bush v Gore? Basically undo all possible actions from 2000-2008 and get four years with Al?

That’s an old white guy I wouldn’t mind.

They can declare it “fundamentally flawed.”

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's unclear that florida or any state has to follow bush v gore nor that the supreme court has authority to rule on the election process and its validity. That is a matter for the joint session of Congress in accepting the results from each state.

To that end, it would not be surprising that this is the path the Republican party will take. In close states, do as much as possible to make the results suspect to try and force the election to the weird vote in the house by state thing.

[–] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think I might have been unclear. I’m not saying any state needs to follow BvG. I’m saying that BvG is part of the set of cases saying that the feds have to defer to the states. So, the opposite.

I do agree there’s a likelihood they’ll try to overthrow the election again, though. I just don’t think there’s any actual legal argument they can make, and if it does go back to the courts, they’ll decide the same way.

I think the legal argument is closed and Trump will not appear on the ballot absent scotus making a reversal that would make Roe look like child’s play.

Note: That doesn’t mean that this is over. It means that the next steps are going to be very mask off.