this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024

87 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19096 readers

3268 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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

[email protected]

What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in the Trump Section 3 Case (www.lawfaremedia.org)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Trump deserved to lose on all these points, and the Colorado Supreme Court correctly rejected his arguments on them. But I think he did have a plausible argument on the issue of whether his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack was extensive enough to qualify as “engaging” in insurrection. At the very least, he had a better argument there than on self-execution. The Court’s resolution of the latter issue is based on badly flawed reasoning and relies heavily on dubious policy arguments invoking the overblown danger of a “patchwork” of conflicting state resolutions of Section 3 issues. The Court’s venture into policy was also indefensibly one-sided, failing to consider the practical dangers of effectively neutering Section 3 with respect to candidates for federal office and holders of such positions.

all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 32 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It was a terrible decision. Elena Kagan's fears about a "patchwork" were so stupid. Presidential elections were deliberately setup as a patchwork.

The parties are free to run candidates that unarguably haven't been involved in an insurrection.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago

The court didn't mind abortion rights being a patchwork.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago

Our elections are a patchwork by design. The requirements to get on the ballot are different for every state.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

But who defines an insurrection? Republicans accuse Biden of insurrection because immigrants exist. They'd use that to justify removing him from the ballot. Without definitive language, Republicans will always act in a dishonest manner.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

The Republicans could accuse Biden of being under 35. They'd have a hard time convincing anyone, but some corrupt judge in Alabama might toss him anyway.

The SC has already said states can decide that question.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Traditionally, the winning side

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

~~Without definitive language,~~ Republicans will always act in a dishonest manner.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

They took the revolutionary position of words meaning completely different things.

[+] [email protected] -16 points 8 months ago (4 children)

People don't seem to understand the SCOTUS cannot be wrong. They are the definitive verdict, what they say is the way that must be considered correct.

You might not like it, it might be unethical and immoral, but it is the law in the US now.

The only solution is working within the new framework. And ..... wondering how you ended up in a situation where a group of 9 unelected old farts can sit there .. for life.. and just invalidate any and every law that actually elected representatives come up with. Even if the Dems end up winning both houses and the presidency, SCOTUS will just NOPE everything the R's don't like.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean this statement is complete bullshit.
They overturned roe. That alone proves you're full of it. If roe "cannot be wrong" then this scotus which said it is is illegitimate.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Only SCOTUS can. Scotus is not bound by their own precedent.

We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not true, common legislation can change the law and even abrogate the Court's jurisdiction over matters.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

But would this not only work up to the point where the laws conflict with something SCOTUS can warp the Constitution around to get their way?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Like everything in law, it depends.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Most definitely. I'd hope for Americans and especially American women, they find a way to assure full access to reproductive healthcare across the US. And a way to abolish corporate personhood, cause these things seem to really wreak havoc on the US and the world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Corporate “personhood” is actually really important to a modern society. It’s largely misunderstood.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why? There's plenty modern countries without it, and they seem to do fine.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, there aren’t. Any place that conducts business in a form recognizable from the 1600s onward has the legal and economic framework for an incorporated entity to hold property, seek legal redress for perceived harms, engage in contractual relationships, be held liable for malfeasance, and all the other privileges and responsibilities which accompany what has commonly come to be referred to as “legal personhood” in online discourse. You literally cannot form a business, local activist organization, or even just a partnership without these concepts established into law.

I see you are posting from a Dutch instance; the Netherlands, for example, has at least six different types of corporate structures which establish a legal personality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Aha, just reading up there's a myriad of rules. I was addressing the citizens united ruling of 2010 giving corporations the right to unlimited political spending because they are legally a 'person'.

That's que uniquely American imho, and not really worth spreading to legislature elsewhere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that’s the problem, people don’t fully understand the issue and feel the need to weigh in on it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Tbh I conflated that car with the concept of corporate personhood as that was the first time I heard of the concept.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I think most people understand why it exists, but in practice it is used as a way to shield the people making the decisions from consequences.

And the way it allows companies to influence politics in the US is pretty darn detrimental.

The fact that we now learn that many people controlling some of the larges companies in the world knew they where actively destroying the planet, hurting peoples health, poisoning people and kept quiet.. for decades... meaning there is no recourse for us (the collective us) while some individuals get rich.

The fact that shipping companies create individual llcs for ships so they can cut the loss in case of a disaster and leave us holding the bag for the consequences cannot be what we want for our planet and future.

If corporate personhood can/needs to stay that's fine, as long as we adress these issues then.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, 100% what you said.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

See, you're making a strictly legal argument and nobody cares. A Court that abused it's power isn't a court at all in our eyes

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

People are downvoting because they don't like this, but you are correct. That's why this capture of the Supreme Court is so dangerous. They don't have ethics rules, they can overturn laws, they know they can do whatever the fuck they want.