An Illinois state judge on Wednesday barred Donald Trump from appearing on the Illinois’ Republican presidential primary ballot because of his role in the attack at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but she delayed her ruling from taking effect in light of an expected appeal by the former U.S president.

  • CarrierLost@infosec.pub
    1·
    10 months ago

    I’m just saying that before he’s removed there needs to be something official. A legal finding that he did indeed participate in insurrection.

    Once that’s officially and legally established, then and only then, 14-3 should be invoked.

    That’s already happened. There was a finding of fact that Trump participated in insurrection by state of Colorado.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

    That’s in part why this is the case the USSC has taken up. It is now established legal fact that Trump participated in insurrection, but 14-3 isn’t super clear that it pertains to POTUS, unlike the clarity for Senators and Representatives.

    So there’s no question of guilt. That’s established. It’s now a question of applicability.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

      My point was that I feel it should be decided at the federal level, not the state level. The ruling of a Colorado court as to what happened in an area completely outside their jurisdiction shouldn’t really matter.

      The SCOTUS ruling will be that decision, and while I’m not optimistic that they’ll rule to disqualify Trump through 14-3, at least there will be an answer.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

      There’s still room for the USSC to also declare that the state courts finding of fact is incorrect. If I recall the legal analysis, I think that was the consensus as the likely outcome, that the state’s finding is not substantiated. There seemed to be doubt that the “doesn’t apply” argument will hold, but that will be moot if they say that the Colorado state court can’t unilaterally make that finding.