That Supreme Court decision will be the embarrassment of our generation. Even though the constitution says nothing about a conviction, they’ll say that without a conviction he won’t reach the threshold of “insurrection.” Or maybe they’ll conveniently redefine the word insurrection. Or maybe they’ll say he didn’t technically “engage.” The possibilities are endless if you decide the verdict first and work your way back creating a legal justification.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
339 points (97.2% liked)
News
23387 readers
3207 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Even though the constitution says nothing about a conviction
That's actually the easiest argument there to counter. None of the politicians & officers of the Confederacy were convicted for insurrection, yet they were still barred from office.
"None of the members of Congress that gave aid or comfort to the participants of the Nov 6th riots have been barred from holding office, so it must not have been an insurrection." - Justice Thomas probably
It's the fact that we haven't held any of our elected officials accountable for their actions and words that will bite us in the ass.
"We haven't held anyone to account for their crimes so we cannot hold someone to account for their crimes"
Yep. Stupid as fuck, but little pink houses for you and me
chippity chop
What would prevent them from arguing that was improper, and thus invalid?
The fact that they don't even have to argue. They don't have to justify their decisions to anyone, really, since there's no oversight.
The same thing that prevents the Executive Branch from ignoring their rulings.
If they are going to play Calvinball, Biden should take a page from Andrew Jackson ask them how they plan on enforcing any of that.
I think that would be terribly dangerous for Thomas' continued freedom, with all the light being shined upon the bribes he's taken. He's still a Federal Officer & beholden to those laws despite his recent mouth-noises to the contrary.
A bayonet in their face probably
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?507774-1/president-trump-video-statement-capitol-protesters
"We love you. You're very special."
Could still say he was not convicted of giving aid or comfort. Seems obvious he did, but without a trial not sure it would count. Although that would be an interesting trial as they track down the funding of these groups and how they are interconnected. Probably reveal some interesting players behind the scenes.
Conviction is not a prerequisite.
It doesn’t explicitly require one, but that’s what the Supreme Court could argue to strike it down. While you and I can say it’s obvious based on what happened, I’d rather have a conviction to take someone off the ballot, otherwise it would be exploitable.
There is precedent. Many Confederates were excluded from holding office, even removed from office, based on 14AS3, without convictions of any kind.
Didn’t know! Interesting many “were understood to be” disqualified. Most without trial, but they also didn’t attempt to run under that understanding.
It is only a relevant precedent if it was challenged and brought to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it is merely untested.
"The Founders never intended for a President to be barred from running again due to formenting insurrection via Social Media, because Social Media hadn't been invented yet."
Wild to think we don’t already have a dozen points of embarrassment of our generation
“I’ll take the shadow docket for $400, Alex”
This is why the Republicans have focused on controlling the courts as part of their schemes for the last few decades. Now that they control the Supreme Court, anything that gets appealed will eventually be overturned by their corrupt cronies.
If the 14th Amendment doesn't cover Trump's actions, then there is actually no such thing as Insurrection in the USA.
Sure there is. It only applies to people with insufficient money, power, and influence.