this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
307 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2318 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] neptune@dmv.social 167 points 8 months ago (16 children)

If Congress must act to re instate a candidate but almost must act to bar a candidate, why was the amendment written the way it was? Pretty stupid they want Congress to make the determination.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 91 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The dissenting opinion puts that into the spotlight. It really is dumb that they're saying even federal courts/administrative bodies can't make that determination.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world 58 points 8 months ago (13 children)

Unanimous. Something we are missing?

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 57 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

They were probably all afraid that banning Trump on the ballot would tear so violently at the fabric of the country that it could end in a civil war with armed members of Trump's base roaming the streets creating chaos.

This ruling is very unsurprising to me. I'd been very surprised if they had gone the other way.

The US is a very unhealthy country.

Edit: Spelling

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 34 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lol, no. They don't give a shit about the country or its citizens.

They knew their asses would be targeted by his cult if they did the right thing. Honesty, Trump probably fits the bill for a RICO case. Maybe the IRS can take him down like they did Capone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (8 children)

I just hope that by tossing the Republicans this bone, that they will end up not ruling that the president has absolute immunity in the next case.

Losing this one is not a big deal, because he only would have been removed from states that he was almost certain to lose anyway. Republicans love their insurrectionists, after all.

I think with a ruling like this where the intent was so crystal clear that it couldn't have possibly been misinterpreted by anybody yet the ruling was entirely backwards, that now is a good time for a constitutional convention and a total rewrite of the constitution. If it's not clear, let's make it clear.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So they’ve traded almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as a direct result of their decision, for…

checks notes

…almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as an indirect result of their decision, and also get a fascist government.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago

Unaminous, but the 3 Liberal judges wrote their own opinion saying while they agreed with the ruling, they feel it should have been narrower, and that the ruling cuts off some legitimate avenues for punishing insurrectionists.

[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago (11 children)

States aren't "invoking" anything.
Trump does not qualify as per the standards in the Constitution.

Same as any 34 year old.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 15 points 8 months ago

Stupid states following the words in the Constitution!

Shuffling this to congress means nobody will ever be excluded for insurrection, because obstructing any laws that would enforce the clause are easier to kill than pass.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ma11en@lemmy.world 55 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Nice new yacht for a certain member of the court?

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 16 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Maybe Mr Oliver should offer a bigger one.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 50 points 8 months ago (1 children)

When do we decide the social contract has been broken?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fcSolar@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Oh look another illegal power grab by the supreme dipshits. 14th amendment section 3 states only Congress may remove an insurrectionist's inability to hold office, not SCOTUS.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Unfortunately not a new power grab, they’ve long held that their judicial review is sacrosanct, and they get to pick and choose not just the cases they hear, but also what issues within that case they feel like ~~legislating~~ reviewing. Same again here, the RNC asked three questions and they left most of it wellll alone:

The Questions Presented are:

  1. Whether the President falls within the list of officials subject to the disqualification provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment?
  2. Whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing to the extent of allowing states to remove candidates from the ballot in the absence of any Congressional action authorizing such process?
  3. Whether the denial to a political party of its ability to choose the candidate of its choice in a presidential primary and general election violates that party's First Amendment Right of Association?

#1 & 3 were completely ignored because they’re only willing to craft big ~~legislation~~ opinions on conservative/originalist topics, but “show respect for the lower courts” when it’s convenient for SCotUS

They focused in on the state w/o congress aspect of #2, because it’s the weakest part of the Colorado case unfortunately, and allowed this fig-leaf opt out on disqualification being kicked back to Congress

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 45 points 8 months ago

SCOTUS rules the Constitution unconstitutional.

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 41 points 8 months ago

Trump is never held accountable for his own actions and things will only get worse.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 41 points 8 months ago

These.Mother.Fuckers...

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago

amazing how quickly those states rights arguments evaporate when its not to the republicans benefits, huh

[–] theluckyone@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago (2 children)

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” the chief justice, John Roberts, said during oral argument. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/04/trump-scotus-colorado-ruling)

Damn inconsistent of them, being concerned about consequences after the current court's previous rulings.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 43 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"If we do the right thing now, Republicans will act in bad faith to do the wrong thing later" is such a bullshit cop-out but it happens all the fucking time.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

Democracy is already broken, the popular vote winner doesn't get to be president if they are Democrat, unless the margin is very large.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 11 points 8 months ago

It comes down to just a handful of states anyway

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 38 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Where them "states' rights" advocates at?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Atyno@dmv.social 33 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

They won't, but Colorado should still keep him off the ballot. The ruling was clearly made in fear of chaos instead of what was correct, so they deserve chaos irregardless.

Or at least make a show about it, like all those states did when Texas was told to let the fed agents cut the razor wire.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

The supreme court is anything but. They are traitors to the USA.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

This should be a surprise to nobody; the courts have been largely bending over backwards to accommodate Trump.

The supreme court just ruled that either the 14th amendment requires an act of Congress, despite no such requirement listed in the constitution.

Then you have Cannon, who has gone out of her way to rule in Trump's favor, up to and including the implication that Trump actually is above the law, and has shown she is hellbent on continuing to do so.

The supreme Court is also throwing Trump another bone by delaying his dc trial by 2 months, essentially giving Trump the win by running out the clock instead of ruling on presidential immunity.

The stormy Daniels case is of little legal and even less political consequence, as the case is weak already and Trump is not considered at significant risk.

The GA case is likely to get derailed because Willis couldn't keep her personal and professional life separate, and her handling of the affair puts her credibility in doubt.

At least we have the civil judgement. At least, until Trump finds another judge willing to throw that out too.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The supreme court just ruled that either the 14th amendment somehow doesn’t apply to presidents, trump didn’t engage in insurrection, and/or Trump is just simply above the law.

That's quite literally not what they argued, even if you try to read it that way. You really should read the opinion before you tell people what it says.

edit: LOL! OP deleted the stupid argument and replaced it with one that sounds less stupid. My quote was lifted verbatim, and the stealth edit speaks volumes.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It was unanimous. Against constitutional precedent from the people who wrote the Amendment, btw.

So much for Originalism.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xploit@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Next obvious steps for Colorado should be;
Do nothing
Point finger at Texas

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The Roberts court is illegitimate.

More proof.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

All signs point to President Trump at the end of 2024. It was nice knowing ya.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Just the latest reminder that the 3rd Clause of the 14th Amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Edit: Important from the Court's three liberal justices:

"The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an 'insurrection [and] rebellion' to defend slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment."

load more comments
view more: next ›