Trump is challenging a groundbreaking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said he is disqualified from being president again and ineligible for the state’s primary.
That’s more or less what I read into the questioning. They’re not going to rule he didn’t do an insurrection, or that he can’t be disqualified for that, they’re going to rule a single state can’t make the decision.
And I’m sure they’ll prescribe who does have that authority. They won’t just leave it open, so that the next time it happens (if our democracy lives long enough) the challenge will find its way back to them, effectively giving themselves the power.
Sadly, the ‘right thing’ in this case actually is to rule against Colorado. It will be an utter shit-show with each state deciding which candidates can or can’t run in their state if this is upheld.
It’s based on a legal theory from the constitution. There’s no grey area on this one, just what brand of feelings people use to justify their position.
There is actually good reason to keep someone off a ballot who attempts a coup, and tries to take power by undemocratic means. And it’s not really that hard to see where the reasoning comes in.
I kinda get what you mean, but this is a candidate who tried to overthrow the government. There’s legal and logical basis for excluding them from being a candidate.
Oh, they should absolutely be excluded. I’m just saying it should be done at the federal level. You’d see Texas, Missouri, and a bunch of other states removing Biden if the ruling didn’t come down as it did.
Meh, elections are already a shit-show. The popular vote is disregarded, and the candidate with fewer votes can win…this is a undemocratic. Democracy is fundamentally broken already.
Bullshit. Colorado already decides which candidates can or can’t run un their state. They did in 2012 when they disqualified a presidential candidate. The case went to court, and justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion that yes of course Colorado has that right.
But it’s not a flaw SCOTUS has any business fixing. It needs to be done via Congress, and probably a constitutional amendment.
America’s entire federal voting system is…not done federally. Each state is left to decide how it wants to run its elections themselves, with the states drawing electoral boundaries, deciding rules for who’s eligible to vote, how the physical act of voting is done, etc. This is an utterly insane way to run a national election. States can set their own rules for state elections, maybe, but federal elections should be consistent nation-wide.
Until Congress fixes this incredibly fundamental flaw in the US electoral system, states have the right to do shit like this whether for good (and hopefully we can all agree that anything that keeps Trump out of office is good) or ill (because you just know Republicans will twist it in states they control).
Realistically they’re going to look at precedent, how it was used in the past. The cases where it’s been used in the past fall into two groups - public officials of the Confederacy and people convicted in criminal court of an appropriate charge (which includes one case of someone being convicted of a Jan 6 related charge and before that the last application was a case in 1919 of someone convicted under the Espionage Act).
I fully expect them to say that barring holding a public position in a group whose purpose violates 14A that they would require a criminal conviction. Because that’s the only thing that fits precedent.
The alternative that people seem to be hoping for is that a candidate should be able to be barred from the ballot if a state judge feels it’s likely enough they violated 14A, where “likely enough” isn’t clearly defined (and doesn’t require any particular due process) but is definitely enough to bar Trump. I just don’t think that’s going to happen.
I really hope they do the right thing and yet I have the awful feeling they won’t.
It’s ok Biden will just have trump killed if they decide presidents have immunity.
They would release that ruling Feb 2025
But who knows, maybe it gets leaked by a judge well before then.
This is the case about keeping him off the primary ballot.
They pushed the “presidential immunity” case out to April.
Well, the Christofascist regime has paid good money for those judges. If they bar him from the ballot I’ll most likely go into shock.
Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were the three main authors of the U.S. Constitution and The Federalist Papers.
Many of these right-wing, theocratic judges belong to The Federalist Society.
Go figure; there are so many f**king contradictions at this point that it’s hard to keep track of them all.
Haha, you’re silly. That was just houses and exotic vacations and stuff. And we talk about the issues they preside over. Just normal BFF stuff!
3 members of SCOTUS were appointed by Trump. The other GOP nominated members are terrible people.
They will just make something up and make Colorado keep him on the ballot.
That’s more or less what I read into the questioning. They’re not going to rule he didn’t do an insurrection, or that he can’t be disqualified for that, they’re going to rule a single state can’t make the decision.
And I’m sure they’ll prescribe who does have that authority. They won’t just leave it open, so that the next time it happens (if our democracy lives long enough) the challenge will find its way back to them, effectively giving themselves the power.
Honestly, I doubt it. The questioning seemed to me to suggest they hated the idea of having to ever decide this, so they’ll kick it to Congress.
Yep, you called that.
They won’t. The conservative majority are evil people, who are loyal to Trump. If Trump is in trouble, they’ll help him.
They aren’t loyal to Trump, they’re loyal to their checking accounts, so the question becomes who do their owners want for the Republican nominee.
Sadly, the ‘right thing’ in this case actually is to rule against Colorado. It will be an utter shit-show with each state deciding which candidates can or can’t run in their state if this is upheld.
It’s based on a legal theory from the constitution. There’s no grey area on this one, just what brand of feelings people use to justify their position.
There is actually good reason to keep someone off a ballot who attempts a coup, and tries to take power by undemocratic means. And it’s not really that hard to see where the reasoning comes in.
And this should be done at the federal level, not the state level.
When the constitution was written, the federal government didn’t have really any power.
That’s why they gave this to states and not federal.
States are in charge of their own voting shit.
States already do that with minimums on signatures for third parties and other ballot requirements.
This just happens to affect one of the two big parties.
I kinda get what you mean, but this is a candidate who tried to overthrow the government. There’s legal and logical basis for excluding them from being a candidate.
Oh, they should absolutely be excluded. I’m just saying it should be done at the federal level. You’d see Texas, Missouri, and a bunch of other states removing Biden if the ruling didn’t come down as it did.
Meh, elections are already a shit-show. The popular vote is disregarded, and the candidate with fewer votes can win…this is a undemocratic. Democracy is fundamentally broken already.
Bullshit. Colorado already decides which candidates can or can’t run un their state. They did in 2012 when they disqualified a presidential candidate. The case went to court, and justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion that yes of course Colorado has that right.
I’m not aware of that… who did they disqualify and for what cause?
Go read the Constitution before you spout nonsense. Each state has always had the right to decide which candidates can or can’t run.
I agree with you in general.
But it’s not a flaw SCOTUS has any business fixing. It needs to be done via Congress, and probably a constitutional amendment.
America’s entire federal voting system is…not done federally. Each state is left to decide how it wants to run its elections themselves, with the states drawing electoral boundaries, deciding rules for who’s eligible to vote, how the physical act of voting is done, etc. This is an utterly insane way to run a national election. States can set their own rules for state elections, maybe, but federal elections should be consistent nation-wide.
Until Congress fixes this incredibly fundamental flaw in the US electoral system, states have the right to do shit like this whether for good (and hopefully we can all agree that anything that keeps Trump out of office is good) or ill (because you just know Republicans will twist it in states they control).
How do the states not do that already?
deleted by creator
Realistically they’re going to look at precedent, how it was used in the past. The cases where it’s been used in the past fall into two groups - public officials of the Confederacy and people convicted in criminal court of an appropriate charge (which includes one case of someone being convicted of a Jan 6 related charge and before that the last application was a case in 1919 of someone convicted under the Espionage Act).
I fully expect them to say that barring holding a public position in a group whose purpose violates 14A that they would require a criminal conviction. Because that’s the only thing that fits precedent.
The alternative that people seem to be hoping for is that a candidate should be able to be barred from the ballot if a state judge feels it’s likely enough they violated 14A, where “likely enough” isn’t clearly defined (and doesn’t require any particular due process) but is definitely enough to bar Trump. I just don’t think that’s going to happen.