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.
Does anyone, that's actually somewhat informed, care about this?
He'll only ever be removed from states that he never would've won, right? Like, granted it's noteworthy, but who cares if he's removed from the ballot in every blue state? It would make zero difference to the outcome.
It feels like when there were 20,000 Democrats running for president, confusing voters, while every one paying attention said from the beginning it would obviously be between, Biden or Bernie, and Trump.
Yes, this is a big deal.
SCOTUS is going to create precedent no matter what. There are a few outcomes.
First, and easiest to understand, they could rule that Trump is disqualified from serving as President (or any office) per section 3 of the 14th amendment. Congress could remove the restriction, but that would be almost impossible given the current Congressional climate. In that situation, Trump is off the ballot entirely, and while he and his followers will violently thrash about for a while, he won't be President under any circumstances.
I don't think that's likely, but one can hope.
Second, the court could rule that Trump is not disqualified, either because Article 14 Section 3 doesn't apply to President (an incredibly stupid argument that ignores all evidence and rational thought) or because Trump didn't support an insurrection. Could be that they say it wasn't proven to be an insurrection (which isn't true, several participants have been convicted of seditious conspiracy) or that he didn't support it (which isn't true, he gave a speech at the rally and was tweeting his support, not to mention the eyewitnesses at the White House). Maybe the court finds he cannot be penalized because he hasn't been convicted yet, or because the impeachment vote went his way (also stupid arguments that ignore the wording of the amendment).
I think one of these is possible, because the court is a fraud and there is no justice. Any of these findings would require twisting the law and ignoring objective truth in favor of a political win, and these justices have already demonstrated that's something they are capable of.
Third, they could rule narrowly that the Colorado Court and/or the state of Maine can keep him off the ballot, but make no ruling regarding whether he is actually disqualified from holding office. This would be interesting, because they would basically be saying that it's up to each state to make their own determination for at least the primary. The issue could come back to the court later if he ends up with the nomination after being disqualified in some states, at which point they would have to rule on the issue.
I doubt they punt like that.
Last option is they narrowly find Colorado and Maine overstepped their authority, but make no ruling on the larger issue related to whether he is or is not disqualified by the 14th amendment. Could be any number of procedural issues. This split-the-baby attempt puts him back on the ballots everywhere and makes it harder for states to keep him off primary ballots. Like the previous possibility, this would likely end up back before the court assuming Trump is the nominee.
This one seems likely to me, because I can imagine a few of the justices are hoping that the electorate will take the heat by nominating someone else. If Trump loses to Haley, his supporters won't be angry with the Court, nobody can cry that their rights have been violated. And if he does receive the nomination, then they get a second bite at the apple to disqualify him should the justices' owners decide they don't want Trump to be President.
That third option really flies in the face of states running their own elections.
They'll probably have to add an asterisk about how this decision can't be used as precedent. Like they did in 2000.
The precedent that SCOTUS will decide elections for the republiQans? Yeah. They pooed the scrooch on that one.
Thanks for the thorough write up on this.
I think one of the narrow rulings is most likely... "Trump did nothing wrong, but since you people opened up this can of worms...
Thanks for the genuine answer. That said, maybe I'm being cynical but most of those outcomes only interest political junkies, myself included (excluding him being barred from running entirely, of course).
What upsets me is my mom watching it on the news wondering what's likely to happen, and the general public being told this is something serious when it really feels more like political theater since it isn't likely to keep us out of the camps anyway.
To be clearer, my frustration is with the apparent coverage on corporate news networks
I suppose there's still a chance (however so slight) that the SCOTUS decision makes Trump ineligible for federal office, which would then apply to all states.
Maine and Colorado removed him from the primary ballot, these are states and delegates he can not win. So blue states actually matter because if he doesn't win the nomination, he won't be the Republican candidate. If enough states do it, it's possible that another candidate could slide in.
I'm concerned too that if another more "moderate" candidate is placed on the gop side in enough states, people lukewarm on Biden could be persuaded to vote red when they would have voted for Biden in a Trump matchup. I'm sure that there are political types doing this math. I'm not sure Biden has the pull to get the win.
When my options are mediocre lib, slightly fascist con and ultra fascist con, I am comfortable with taking the risk with the slightly fascist con to never risk the ultra fascist con winning.
He’ll only ever be removed from states that he never would’ve won, right?
Maine splits their electoral votes unlike most states. In 2020 Trump won one electoral vote there. Not enough to swing the election by any means tho.
Even if he's only removed from the ballots in blue states, it'll have an effect on an downballot elections in those states. The base of the Republican party is still very deep into trumpism; and they're more likely to vote at all if their guy is on the ballot. If he's not, they may refuse to participate at all, which could potentially swing local races or otherwise make them competitive rather than safe positions.
On the national scale, if a congressional district is already competitive and those otherwise reliable Republican voters don't show up, it could give the democratic nominees for those districts an edge- assuming "keep Trump from getting back into the White House" isn't the only motivation energizing the Democratic party's base.
The Republican party's majority was already thin after the midterms, and the gap has been narrowing due to party infighting; on top of that, they barely won back the house during a midterm election without securing the Senate during the election cycle that is most advantageous to the minority party (since a ton of voters only vote during presidential elections).
The more states that ban Trump from the ballot, the more likely it is that the discouragement felt by the Republican party's base- particularly the Trumpist faction- leads to a number of them no longer feeling energized to vote, which may lead to progressive and centrist Democratic wins in competitive districts up and down the ballots, which may affect local or state politics enough to affect policy in a way that less more toward the progressive side of things- again, provided that the Democratic party doesn't rely too heavily on "we're not Trumpists" and find themselves going against Haley instead of Trump without a cohesive plan.
Tl;dr: Trump missing from the ballot in only blue states could still significantly affect downballot elections and initiatives, and give the Democratic party an edge in their efforts to take back the house and solidify their hold on the Senate- provided the Dems work on their messaging, energize their base, and win over independents.
Has a presidential candidate ever been removed from the ballot at the State level before historically?