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

politics

19135 readers
2304 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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What I fear is other states doing similar things with slimmer pretense. II have no doubt purple states with red leadership (like Florida) would consider finding any pretense to yank the democrat off the ballot. but I'm nonetheless glad that a court finally decided the obvious: Trump engaged in insurrection.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (8 children)

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

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (8 children)

C'mon Minnesota, follow up with the 1-2 punch!

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] neptune@dmv.social 34 points 11 months ago (16 children)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Jeanschyso@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago (35 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
[–] Stern@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I'll take the W's where I can get them but Colorado has voted blue in the past 4 elections and I don't see that swinging back anytime soon, so ultimately not a game changer there.

Hoping it inspires some folks in other states to file cases though.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago

Fuck covfefe forever.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

Up Vote Party for our quick-to-the-trigger users! Post all links below and we will add them to the list!

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I love how even the minority opinion is like "we just think he should be convicted first."

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 29 points 11 months ago

Haha, that treasonous bitch

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Let’s go MI, GA, AZ, PA, WI! 🎺🎺🎺

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 25 points 11 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 24 points 11 months ago (8 children)

How does this work out, legally speaking, when it comes to state certification via electors of the President? If he did somehow win, would Colorado just not recognize him as President within their borders?

Has there ever been a case like this where a state didn't allow someone on the ballot for President and they still won, outside of going all the way back to Lincoln?

[–] Quaternions@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (7 children)

No, it just means that he won't be on the ballot. Which means that he'll unlikely win their electorate votes. He could still win the presidency without them. Hell, he could even win there as a write in candidate.

However, this could set a precedent for other states to do the same thing.

[–] devoiced@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

This ban would cover write-in votes as well

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] MisterNeon@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago (16 children)

So I wonder if Republican run states will use this as an excuse to throw Biden off the ballot.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think Biden will lose too much sleep about not being on the ballot in Mississippi and Utah.

On the other hand, if any of the other Republican presidential candidates ever had a chance, it would be starting now and they are probably looking very closely at this and considering making their own legal challenges to Trump being on the ballot in other states.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›