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

politics

19135 readers
2693 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
[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Trump violated the Consitution and disqualified himself. Biden hasn't done anything remotely close to disqualifying.

[–] AmberPrince@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That has not stopped Republicans in the past. See: Biden impeachment inquiry

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

That is more about retaliation, not law.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are not wrong, but the GOP doesn't care. A lot of the shitty Supreme Court decisions in the last few sessions didn't even have standing if this was real life, yet they don't care. If the GOP thinks it will get them power they will find a way to get it through the courts and I don't trust the Fedsoc six to save Democracy

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

If the SCOTUS return a verdict that is contrary to Consitutional law, the State would ignore it. SCOTUS has a real problem on their hands with this case and could forever harm the judicial power if they don't follow the law. A good example is Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) when SCOTUS , in a 8-1 ruling, forced all students to recite the pledge of allegence. It said that "national cohesion" was "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values," and that national unity was "the basis of national security." Religious expression, in other words, took a back seat to patriotism.

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled from school after they refused to salute the flag. But this time, the justices ruled 6-3 for the family’s right to freely express their religious beliefs.

“That’s a pretty dramatic reversal,” says Schultz. “The court issued what was an incredibly unpopular opinion during a war—that you can’t require people to salute the flag. But it was also one of the most beautifully written opinions I’ve ever read.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Robert Jackson wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Schultz wonders if the rapid about-face had something to do with the atrocities committed by Germany based on religious persecution. “Maybe that’s what shakes up the Court, the realization that we can’t be Nazi Germany.”

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I don't know that I follow the thread from your examples to the current case, but ignoring that for a second, I don't think the 14th amendment defines insurrection, so it is conceivable in my uneducated mind that the SC could just come up with an inane reading of insurrection and make it not apply to Trump.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You don't think Texas could find a MAGA Federal or State Judge willing to make a finding of fact that Biden is "directly formenting an insurrection" at the Southern Border?

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

Border crossing is not attempting to overthrow the government. They are fleeing other nations.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

When has reality stopped Republicans?