- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m proud of the state I live in.
Very proud. I’m desperately hoping none of my neighbors end up with new signs in the near future
Conservatives on Reddit are saying they have to do the same to Biden. In their mind, it’s pure tribalism…
They’re trying to impeach Biden for literally nothing. They said they’ll figure it out as they go. It’s a literal witch hunt. They’re trying to make impeachments mean nothing so that twice-impeached Trump can shrug his off.
it is ironic that trump continually used the term witch hunt but it actually applies with biden being there is no real basis for their investigation. Trump literally told a foreign leader he would not release aid without quid pro quo which again ironically was to get false info to go after biden. Its just crazy to think about (as pretty much everything with trump is)
it is ironic that trump continually used the term witch hunt but it actually applies with biden being there is no real basis for their investigation. Trump literally told a foreign leader he would not release aid without quid pro quo which again ironically was to get false info to go after biden. Its just crazy to think about (as pretty much everything with trump is)
SCOTUS is going to have to weigh in real quick if they don’t just stay out of the whole thing.
They already declined Jack Smith’s request to take this question up early. They clearly don’t want to touch it. Unsure if appeals will cause these removals to be stopped or allowed to continue or not. If an appeal stops his removal, I’d bet that would be their goal.
We could call them the Buchanan Court.
Shout out to my fellow history nerds for getting that reference
Ask Pat
Very likely they will overturn the CO decision…most of the states declining to remove him are because the party has the say on the primary ballot…its a different story on the general election though. This is what the MI court basically said. They left the challenge open for the general election qualifications.
Also SCOTUS declined to expedite the “immunity” ruling because they likely don’t want to take it. The appeals will very likely say “the president is not a fucking King” and the SCOTUS will decline to hear the case and say “what they said.”
This is what the MI court basically said. They left the challenge open for the general election qualifications.
I honestly think they were right on this. Ultimately the primary is an election for a private organization to decide who they are going to back as candidates for various offices. There’s no legal basis for forcing them to choose candidates who actually qualify for those offices.
Now the general election is an entirely different boat.
Yeah, my reading of Article 14 sec 3 is simply put he cant hold office. Doesn’t mention anything about elections or what to do if he wins an election (unless congress votes 2/3 to allow him to hold office). Up until that point it is likely a state matter for how they handle their elections, especially when it does not involve the general/federal elections.
I’d say it likely falls under whatever “Obama wasn’t born in America, he can’t be president” if that statement were ever actually true. I don’t know the legal precedence though for people running for office that aren’t legally qualified to hold the office.
I’m sure if he actually wins the primary for the GOP ticket, it will end up at the supreme court. Honestly this is a golden opportunity for the GOP to rid themselves of the burden that is Trump, and they would fully get to blame the Supreme Court and democrats, and scream about it til the end of time for their electorate; many of them hate having to cow-tow to Trump, and even regret missing the opportunity to impeach him and be done with him. Y’all get a second chance, and this time very little backlash for yourselves, unlike if you’d voted to impeach after Jan 6th.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Maine’s top election official has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, in a surprising decision based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
The decision makes Maine the second state to disqualify Trump from office, after the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its own stunning ruling that removed him from the ballot earlier this month.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, issued the decision Thursday after presiding over an administrative hearing earlier this month about Trump’s eligibility for office.
“Democracy is sacred … I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws … is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek,” she said.
Explaining her reasoning, Bellows wrote that the challengers presented compelling evidence that the January 6 insurrection “occurred at the behest of” Trump – and that the US Constitution “does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government.”
Saved 60% of original text.
Innnnnnput!
Johnny5…alive?
Time for the dominoes to fall.
Agreed.
And I feel like the biggest thing the people are seeing at this point is how different each states voting practices are.
I remember getting perplexed by the concept of a caucus when my state just had 2 parallel primary elections.
Maine has a dude who can just decide that?
They’re the secretary of state. Every state has one. Their primary job is administering elections in the state. This includes applying rules for eligibility of candidates. For instance if you were 30 and applied to be put on the ballet for president, it would be the secretary of state who says no, you must be at least 35, we’re not putting you on. Of course their decisions about various things can be challenged in court and often are.
In the Colorado case the decision first came from a judge, because there the secretary of state declined to take him off the ballot. Colorado voters sued their secretary of state for neglect or breach of duty for allowing Trump on the ballot in violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Here’s the ruling from that case where you can see it was technically the secretary of state for Colorado who was sued:
In Maine no one had to sue the secretary of state first, the secretary of state just said straight up, hey trump you’re not eligible, 14th amendment applies, just like they would have if he didn’t meet other qualifications like being a natural born citizen or being at least the age of 35. Now likely Trump will sue the secretary of state in Maine to try and get the courts to put him back on. They also became involved in the litigation in Colorado after it started, since he had an interest in the case.
Haw haw!
Does anyone seriously think this will pass Supreme Court scrutiny? I expect an 8-1 decision that will stop this silliness. As much as you hate Trump, surely you can think forward enough to see what an awful precedent would be set which would come back to bite you later?
No, the precedent is needed. When you lead an insurrection against the USA, you shouldn’t be allowed to run for ANY office.
Just don’t do an insurrection and you won’t be barred from office based on the insurrection clause. I get some conspiracy theorists will try to paint everything as an insurrection now but if were at the point where that shit would fly I’m not sure whats stopping them from doing it already.
We’ve been begging the dems to stop playing fucking nice with these idiots for years. I’m all for consequences for actions. Jan 6 was definitely an attempt at subverting our elections. Trump definitely participated in it and encouraged it. To not enforce the constitution would open the doors for worse.
Do you think people will just accuse candidates of insurrection willy nilly? I mean I bet Republicans would since they’re trying to impeach Biden for literally nothing. But I don’t think those will pass scrutiny. But Trump absolutely committed actions that could be considered aiding insurrection. Hense the 14th amendment cases.
The precedent of following US Constitution? That would be indeed a horrible thing.
an awful precedent would be set
The precedent was already set by the 40th United States Congress.
how so? I see from your link that such an entity did exist.
They passed the 14th amendment and used it to bar a number of senior Confederates from office after the civil war
Thank you. I see it in section 3. I was vaguely aware something like that happened after the civil war but did not realize it was part of an amendment. Its blows my mind to think the republican party did all this back then.
Ah, the old ‘60s/‘70s repub-demo switcharoo!
The irony here is that Trump and the Republicans worked really hard to stack the SCOTUS with originalists, because that tends to play well with a conservative Republican agenda.
But it also upholds the Insurrection Act. Remember that SCOTUS may be conservative, but they’re not all Republican lackeys. In order to decree this unconstitutional, SCOTUS would have to make a majority decision that what Trump did doesn’t fall under insurrection. I can see them wanting to stay out of THAT one completely, refusing to make a finding that would create SCOTUS precedent; that means they would leave these decisions in place in order to preserve future flexibility.
In order to decree this unconstitutional, SCOTUS would have to make a majority decision that what Trump did doesn’t fall under insurrection.
No, they wouldn’t. They would just have to accept a due process argument, essentially that the opinion of a CO state judge is not the appropriate venue or process for determining if someone is an insurrectionist. Probably calling for either Congress or criminal courts to establish that.
This is notably different than the CSA, as CSA officers were openly and publicly members of an organization that openly and publicly waged a war against the US.
This is notably different than the CSA, as CSA officers were openly and publicly members of an organization that openly and publicly waged a war against the US.
What do you call storming an election certification and killing a cop?
I’m not arguing that Jan 6 isn’t an insurrection. I’m arguing that Trump was too much of a pussy to openly and publicly lead it himself.
His speech at the rally that came before the march that came before the attack almost certainly is 1A protected speech and not incitement in part because the bar for incitement in the US is extremely high. Virtually anything short of “Hey you, go do this crime right now!” fails to be incitement.
He beat feet before the next part happened though. You can’t point to him openly and publicly leading the insurrection, because he didn’t - he probably organized and arranged it but not in a way that there is no question of fact. There’s a whole chain of steps necessary to get from random in the Capitol on Jan 6 to Trump, and most of those intermediate steps are not in the open.
There was no question of fact with the CSA officers blocked from holding office though - they were public officials in an organization engaged in open war against the union.
