347
submitted 4 months ago by GiddyGap@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

Surprise!!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Izzgo@kbin.social 66 points 4 months ago

So that would mean insurrection would be legal in America. If Biden loses to Trump, I will feel empowered to riot in the same way. Time to get a gun I guess.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 103 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Anything resembling a more left leaning insurrection will get a very different response than the last one. You will be murdered by the state on the spot. The feds bombed a civilian neighborhood in the 80s for less than that.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago

The feds bombed a civilian neighborhood in the 80s

They didn't bomb a neighborhood...

They flattened an entire block.

[-] stown@sedd.it 22 points 4 months ago

This is why we take the "peaceful protest" straight to the supreme Court where the real seat of conservative political power lies.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

This is why we take the “peaceful protest” straight to the supreme Court where the real seat of conservative political power lies.

Better get on it or you will be out of time.

[-] stown@sedd.it 10 points 4 months ago

I think it's the judges who should be worried about "running out of time"

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

I mean, BLM had the space in front of the Supreme Court pretty much blocked off when they decided to march on it. When the patriot prayer event happened, that was 10k plus people descending on the Supreme Court.

I simply do not see that happening.

[-] stown@sedd.it 3 points 4 months ago

Let me spell it out for you - January 6th the supreme Court but actually get it done.

[-] fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago

Rules for thee

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Questions of Legality aren't being heard here. This is only about eligibility for being on a presidential ballot and the ability of an individual state to determine eligibility and remove the candidate from the ballot.

[-] winky9827b@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

No. The questions posed by the Supreme Court centered around whether there was merit in allowing any single state, which may have arbitrary criteria and or processes, to effectively eliminate a candidate from the ballot, and if so, under what constraints. Ours a valid question. Where is the line? If you allow this precedent, how might it be abused by others?

[-] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

States rights only matter when it oppresses women, not when it's constitutionally legal and valid!

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago

It's not allowing a single court to decide, the Supreme Court of the land is be reviewing that decision right now. They're not just going to do that on their own. It has to start somewhere.

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

It may mean that someone found guilty of insurrection may not be voted by state electors to be president.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You're now on a list.

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
347 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18080 readers
2658 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS