Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
The SCOTUS and other institutions will not save democracy.
This bears repeating. The SCOTUS and other institutions will not save democracy.
Institutions are corruptible. SCOTUS has been corrupted. That is where the US is.
Only citizen action can safeguard democracy.
Yeah. People don't seem to understand that once the fascists have stacked the highest court, it's game over for the justice system and any semblance of due process. The rule of law is dead. They succeeded in killing it.
Once the fascists have seized control of all 3 branches of government? No amount of voting, protesting, or peaceful demonstration is likely to improve the situation — at that point the only way to restore democracy is through armed revolution and civil war.
Or wait for the dictator to die like Salazar in Portugal. But 1) that would really suck and I don’t want to live thru all those oppressive years, and 2) Salazar was actually competent and could achieve beneficial things for his country.
I read recently a comment that said "The only people who think favorably about SCOTUS are people who remember the Warren Court."
Now I'm not that old, but I think there's a lot of truth in that. SCOTUS got a lot of goodwill from the Warren Court for making progressive, popular, and legally sound rulings. Now people are surprised that under Roberts, the Court has returned to its more-often-than-not pro-business, pro-Christofascist, anti-everything-that-isn't-rich-white-men leanings.
Exactly. We had a momentary bubble of peace.
Safeguard? It's over if you ask me. We might as well start planning out our revolution already.
Worse: the SCOTUS started the civil war and later legitimized segregation.
the Roberts court is the Bribery and Treason Court. It may also earn the honor of being the Last Court.
Don't be absurd, fascists love courts.
it'll be The Wall all over again
Oh they'll build something else to take its place, but there's no way SCotUS will survive the Trump takeover. Too long a tradition of people who can tell him "no" and he can't do anything about it. They'll be wiped and replaced illegally.
The era of the Great Society is over. We are now entering the era of the Federalist Society.
Bring a flashlight, it will get dark.
Yeah, dangerous thing to pass though.
If a state can choose disqualify, Texas, Florida and PA can choose to disqualify the democratic candidates on trumped up unqualified charges
Need to be super careful with this one, it cuts both ways.
It’s not a new law, it’s in the constitution. He cannot hold office, and there’s no need for a conviction. He participated.
You are absolutely correct. However, we cannot trust republicans to not abuse precedent where one exists.
Only if you equate an openly obvious case of Insurrection and attempting to overthrow an election to the GOP going 'lol ban Dems' with no actual charges.
I don't equate it but do you think for a second that Florida wouldn't?
I think they'll do that regardless of what we do so we might as well do what the law says.
You don't though, because the case will still rise to the Supreme Court and be shot down for being bullshit. If they get on board with disqualifying candidates for trumped up charges, then we have a constitutional crisis, but just because one state court's opinion is validated doesn't mean other courts just get the ability to disqualify at will.
If disqualifying candidates based on false pretences is a "constitutional crisis", why isn't THIS inverse — restoring an insurrectionist to the ballot — a "constitutional crisis"?
At this point "constitutional crisis" just sounds like another fantasy guard rail "check" or "balance" that people view as a turning point or line in the sand, but in reality everyone will just accept the fascist takeover and act like things aren't bad enough to do anything about it yet...
I swear, if they shit all over our freedoms 13 or 14 more times, they're gonna regret the numerous times they shat all over us and we did nothing!
the states all already have disparate requirements regarding how to get on the ballot: filing deadlines, petition signatures, write in eligibility… How is “verifying against constitutional requirements” any different?
By the logic of that decision, states must allow young candidates to run on the ballot, even if they would not be 35 by the inauguration date, because that is a constitutional requirement that can only be enforced at the federal level.
And foreign-born candidates. In fact, if "shall" means "must be enforced by congress," you don't even have to be a US citizen at all.
Obviously such a candidate could be disqualified by congress, but states apparently have no right to disqualify such a candidate themselves.
If they have legal reason to- they’re welcome to try it. Don’t make this out that they can remove innocent people from the ballots.
if Trump gets back in they're going to Navalny their opponents.
You know, I was under the impression that refusing to do the right thing because you're scared of the consequences was the definition of cowardice.
The fact that SCOTUS decided that letting a literal insurrectionist stay in the ballot, rather than make the legally and morally correct decision, only because it would mean they'd have to smack down Texas, Florida, et al, later, makes them cowards.
> I was under the impression that refusing to do the right thing because you’re scared of the consequences was the definition of cowardice.
gonna have to remember this one
You don't need to be any more careful than when enforcing the rules on place of birth, age, or term limits.
The states have always had that choice, with due process, to disqualify candidates. Colorado disqualified a candidate in 2012, and Gorsuch was one of the judges that ruled in favor of Colorado.
Hassan v Colorado, 2012
as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. See generallyMunro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193-95 (1986); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant’s motion for publication is denied.
Entered for the Court
Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge
I agree, but if they expicitly stated it was on the grounds of insurrection I think it would have set a good precedent.
They voted that the states aren't allowed to execute it. It needs to come from Congress. He should be off the ballot everywhere.
Which is why this was dumb. My statement was saying it could have been a good thing. But we live in the timeline where Wonka doesn't make fucken Wonka bars and everything is shit so the traitor stays on the ballot.
You seem to gloss over that CO was fully justified. Further SCOTUS did not invalidate the finding that Trump participated in an insurrection.
they could have easily put road blocks on it such as "must be under federal prosecution for or convicted of specific crimes or actively battling federal troops under lawful orders."
Another twinge in the gears is that even if Biden pardoned Trump, Trump should still be unable to run for president under the constitution.
Like I said it needs to be very carefully implemented.
....a retired lawyer has a strong opinion. Shocking.
The title makes it sound like the judge was in favour of trump, while it's the opposite
Does it tho
No. It might sound like that to someone with zero context tho.
who isn't in favour of dangerous betrayal though, seriously
Yes, without further context to me it sounds like it's saying that supreme court betrayed democracy by disqualifying trump
The further context of one of the most published Court decisions in a decade that you could read about in the article of you were still out of the loop?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig issued a searing rebuke of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that Colorado could not disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban, preserving his ability to seek a second term.
Voters and advocacy groups had filed dozens of challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility in states across the country, claiming his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack triggered his disqualification.
The high court sided with Trump by ruling Congress has exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates.
Luttig, who had been vocal in support of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar Trump from the ballot, described Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as the Constitution’s “safety net for America’s democracy, promising to automatically disqualify from public office all oath-breaking insurrectionists against the Constitution, deeming them too dangerous to entrust with power unless supermajorities of both houses of Congress formally remove their disability.”
The Supreme Court has now rendered that safety net a dead letter, effectively rescinding it as if it had never been enacted,” Luttig wrote.
He continued, “That the disqualification clause has not previously been invoked to keep traitors against the Constitution from having a second opportunity to fracture the framework of our republic reflects not its declining relevance but its success at deterring the most dangerous assaults on our government until now.”
The original article contains 462 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!