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

politics

19107 readers
2999 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
[–] 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.