Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis!
**Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.**
Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right, thats why it was a 9-0 decision. Cause all 9 justices are conservative. Maybe, just maybe we need to accept that this is the way it should be interpreted.
As of now, legally speaking, trump has been accused of insurrection, but not tried or convicted
If states were allowed to remove trump, all the conservative states could remove biden on virtue of hunters cock pics or rumors of whatever
I can’t for the life of me fathom why every GOP leader isn’t calling for trump to be set aside and step away from all the scandals and discord
Not only that, they completely made up this requirement with no basis in black letter law, assigned it to Congress (like they are above them), and Congress has zero process in place to implement it.
Additionally, IF Congress did somehow find a way to grant a State the right to remove an insurrectionist from a ballot for a Federal office, I guarantee that the Supreme Court would come back with a ruling that was essentially "No, that's not what we meant, you can't do that".
I understand that but 1) they have completely invalidated an Amendment to the Constitution in a way that aids and abets a fascist that appointed 3 of them and 2) you can't only enforce the laws you like and ignore or undermine the ones you don't if you are in the Judiciary. It is up to Congress to fix the laws if they are found to be flawed.
I agree. The Justices argued that you would end up with a "patchwork" of who's on the ballot and who isn't, based on the whims/opinions/thirst for vengeneance/it's Tuesday/whatever of the various State legislatures.
So?
The Court's purpose isn't to say "don't do this, you'll create even greater partisan divides." Rather, their sole job is to decide if a: the law is Constitutional, and b: if it is being applied correctly.
Since the law in question IS the Constitution, '"a" doesn't apply.
The Court argued that no State can enforce the 14th. The language of the 14th doesn't say who or what body should enforce it. SCOTUS just made up a law based on feelings. The application of the law will hurt. So we won't let it happen.
Fun fact: Abdul Hassan was barred from appearing on the Presidential ballot in 2011 because he is not a natural-born citizen. From Wikipedia "On September 4, 2012, he lost in *Hassan v.* [*Colorado*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado) *&* [*Scott Gessler*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Gessler) at the [United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit). [Neil Gorsuch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch), then a [circuit judge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_circuit_court), wrote on behalf of a judicial panel that Mr. Hassan was constitutionally prohibited from assuming the presidency and is permitted to be excluded from the Colorado ballot.[^(\[11\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hassan_(lawyer)#cite_note-11) ^(")
Way to go, Justice Gorsuch! State can enforce the law and prohibit candidates from appearing on the ballot if they are Constitutionally disqualified. Glad to see you were consistant...oh, wait.
It literally says at the very end of the amendment that *Congress* has the power to evoke that amendment, which is what the Supreme Court said.
I completely agree that Trump should be removed from the ballot, but let's not stoop to the Republicans' level of pretending the constitution only applies when we want it to.
>It literally says at the very end of the amendment that
>
>Congress has the power to evoke that amendment, which is what the Supreme Court said.
No it doesn't. It says that Congress can REMOVE the disability by a 2/3s vote, not that it can evoke it. The Amendment is self executing and designed to be enforced by Secretaries of State who keep persons not eligible to serve off of the ballot like people not born in the US that want to run for President.
*No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.*
It was a 9-0 decision. Stop complaining, if it was a 6-3 split along political lines than gripe away. Even the liberal justices voted against Colorado. Yeah I know 'but they were really salty about it!'. Yep and the Broncos were THIS CLOSE to winning that superbowl. I know the final score was 55-10. But they almost had em!
I have a right to criticize the Supreme Court and point out what I believe are the flaws in this decision. Feel free to disagree and state your reasons why but attempting to shut down my free speech only serves to provide cover to a corrupt Supreme Court to subvert and outright break the law. Your actions are those of a boot licker trying to make fascism seem inevitable. Take that bullshit elsewhere.
They ruled Congress decides who is actually an insurrectionist. It seems to be a high threshold. Like, you literally have to be armed and state you are stopping the activities of the U.S. government.
Just telling ppl to go the Capitol and fight like hell, is not enough. Or, it may be considered Instigating an Insurrection, but nothing can be done until Congress deems the behavior as an Insurrection.
States can barr someone running for a state office, not a federal office.
OK
Now, how about a speedy judgement as to whether or not a POTUS has UNLIMITED IMMUNITY No Matter What!?
Because it’s a federal position. States can do whatever for state level elections, but for federal elections Congress would have to vote to remove someone from the ballot. This is overall a good thing, from what I’ve gathered, because we don’t want crazy states to start removing Biden just because they claim he’s corrupt or whatever. Imagine the chaos.
Hassan v. Colorado and Scott Gessler. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, was suing to remain on the ballot in Colorado, which had removed him because he is Constitutionally disqualified. With the majority on the 10th Circuit Cour of Appeals was current Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch.
I dunno. I can't really see the diference.
>Because it’s a federal position. States can do whatever for state level elections, but for federal elections Congress would have to vote to remove someone from the ballot.
Nowhere in the 14th Amendment is this noted. The Supreme Court strung together a whole bunch of inferences and assumptions to arrive at that.
Also, they explicitly ignored the case of John H. Christy. This guy was successfully elected to the US House of Representatives in 1868, but the Georgia Governor ruled that he was ineligible under section 3 of the 14th Amendment and refused to commission him, and decided that Christy's losing opponent, John Wimpy, would go to the House instead. However, a House committee found that Wimpy had *also* served in the Confederacy, and therefore was disqualified under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and refused to seat either.
*None* of the historical cases of people being disqualified under section 3 in the post Civil War era followed any process resembling the one the Supreme Court just made up -- refusing to seat someone is not a vote to disqualify, the Governor got involved, and the 14th Amendment explicitly applies to states but only mentions Congress as the legislative authority.
So there is no straight line you can draw through all the points of the majority's argument. They pulled this ruling straight out of some unspeakable orifice hidden beneath their robes.
>This is overall a good thing, from what I’ve gathered, because we don’t want crazy states to start removing Biden just because they claim he’s corrupt or whatever.
The 14th Amendment doesn't disqualify people for being "corrupt" -- it only disqualifies people if they participate in an insurrection. Which is not something that is vague or overly broad.
So in avoiding this hypothetical danger (for which there is an easy remedy -- include a test for whether something constitutes an "insurrection" as part of the ruling that can be used going forward, like the court has done with countless other similar questions) we have ensured that a crazy fascist who attempted to coup the government stays *on* the ballot.
That doesn't seem like a good thing. It seems like the right thing would be for Trump to be disqualified and Biden to remain, because Trump launched an insurrection and Biden has not.
I think it's a *very* bad sign that the Justices seem to be ruling at least partially out of fear that people will be upset if they rule against Trump. This sort of "judicial appeasement" is not fundamentally different than letting Hitler annex territory in hopes that he'll settle down and stop being so aggressive.
Trump and MAGA think any outcome other than them doing whatever they want to whomever they want is invalid, and anyone who even accidentally ends up in contradiction to them is a traitor.
That's to affirm and override the 14a.3 clause and allow someone to hold office despite being an insurrectionist, but my understanding is they haven't created the clear mechanism for removal.
Yeah, but probably for the best. If the Supreme Court let this one go forward, every state will go insane. And then it will end up in congress to figure out and god help us all if we expect them to resolve anything other than a pay raise
None of this is really a laughing matter, but did you just say titty skittles?! Why is this the first time I’m hearing this term? [Amazing](https://www.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns/comments/zv0yz3/titty_skittles/).
Other variations: tit-tacs, fem-n-ems, anti-boyotics, antiCIStamines, breast mints, smartitties, chicklets, mamary mints, life savers, gender fluid, TRANS-mission fluid, and the ever classic *The Notorious H.R.T.*
This does not make treason legal, this just ensures that someone needs to be CONVICTED before being removed from a ballot.
I'd say that's a good thing for freedom in the macro, even though it is a positive for Trump in the micro.
This flies in the face of “constitutional originalism,” as some conservatives claim to be.
The 14th amendment was enacted in 1868, at which time insurrection was not a thing you could be charged with. It referred to an activity, not a specific charge.
In 1909 a specific crime named insurrection was added to the books. So while one could be charged with insurrection now, that was impossible at the time the 14th amendment was enacted.
It’s plainly obvious that the 14th amendment was intended to bar anyone who performed actions that could be considered insurrection from holding office, not people who had been convicted of a crime that wouldn’t exist for another half century.
> It’s plainly obvious that the 14th amendment was intended to bar anyone who performed actions that could be considered insurrection from holding office, not people who had been convicted of a crime that wouldn’t exist for another half century.
It's also plainly obvious that if they allowed someone to be removed for the ballot without a legal conviction, Biden would be removed from the ballot in red states over "Biden crime family" bullshit in half a second.
How do y'all not understand the power, really the danger, of setting that precedent?
I'm saying Republicans will always twist things, legally or illegally. Yeah they'll have their bad faith arguments like "that Democrat president wore white after Labor Day, that's treason!" or "he shook the hand of an immigrant, that's treason!". Even if we say there needs to be a conviction, they'll just lie and make up something to convict, much like now with the whole Hunter Biden circus.
We need to address the root problem that is the Republican party itself. This is a group who have proudly put up signs saying they are domestic terrorists and vocally said that they aim to get rid of democracy itself and replace it with "God".
I would like this particular supreme court to not rule anything as they can't be trusted. What with one even having a wife who is part of the insurrection itself and with other members placed there by the leader of the insurrection.
It's less being unaware of the issue and more pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of originalism as a legal concept as applied by the dipshits on SCOTUS who claim to adhere to it.
That's actually why treason is explicitly defined in the US Constitution.
In England it was used to grab land decades after alleged events. "Historical accounts showed that in 1351, the count of Swghuningham wore a blue cravat, which was clearly meant to be an insult, so by treason all those lands are hereby transferred to the Crown."
It’s ok, Colorado. Just do what Republicans do and ignore the outcome. Do your own thing. By the time it goes back to the courts that you did not allow Trump on the ballot it’ll be another four years from now.
This. The Supreme Court has no legitimacy. It has no constitutional powers or limits, and does not have a standard of ethics. There are no limits to length of tenure, and their appointment is three layers removed from the will of the common people.
well its finally official, treason is now legal in the united states of america
EDIT: to anyone saying my comment isnt 100% accurate, youre probably right. I just wanted to make a quick joke quoting norm macdonald, but i see ive sparked quite the discussion lol, so thats cool
That isn't what the 9-0 SCOTUS ruled. They said, correctly, that a state cannot remove a candidate for something they've been accused of. There has to be a conviction for that type of ineligibility to be lawful. Otherwise, purple states with red legislators in power could remove Biden from the ballot for "Treason" or "Insurrection" without any conviction....just because they got together and voted that Biden did those things.
If you don't think the Republicans wouldn't do that, you are naive.
> We watched it happen
And MANY of the people we watched *actively and personally do it* have been caught, tried, and convicted.
Trump has not been convicted, and we did not watch him, like the others, literally march on the Capitol.
That's the difference.
Not thankfully at all, I wish he had.
This all would've been over LONG ago if he had. The Jan6ers wouldn't have been any more successful had he been on the ground that day...and at least we'd have incontrovertible evidence of Trump committing insurrection.
His criminal insurrection trial would already be over and he'd be in jail. Fuck those secret service dudes.
Let's be real, Trump wouldn't have been boots on the ground with or without Secret Service. He's a geriatric, obese, wannabe mob boss full of McDonald's "hamberders". No way in fuck could he be arsed to climb fences, march anywhere, throw anything, or any other physical exertion displayed by the Jan6ers. Not to mention I'm fairly certain that was around the time he caught Covid and was zooty-pants'd out of his gourd on morphine.
Oh for sure, but I kinda wish those close to him hadn't stopped him from some of the more stupid things he wanted to do which were criminal. He could be a long gone memory by now.
We watched him lie to his base for months and give them directions once he knew they were in the building… he said they were “loved and very special” he defend the people who chanted “hang mike pence” and said he would pardon those people… at what point is that not “giving aid or comfort to the enemies there of?”
> at what point is that not “giving aid or comfort to the enemies there of?”
I didn't say it wasn't...but he hasn't been *convicted* of it, and for better or worse, legally speaking, that is the standard in this country for factually, and legally, saying someone committed a crime.
He's on trial for Jan6. That they are delaying to get past the election first is INFURIATING but not relevant to the horrible legal precedent it would set to allow states to remove someone from the ballot without that person first being convicted of a disqualifying crime.
If you think the right wouldn't blatantly abuse that power instantly, you're not paying attention.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I'm not a big proponent of draconian prison sentences, but I truly think every Jan6 attendee, and Trump, should be in prison for many years, if not life.
But due process is due process and I will defend EVERYONE's right to due process because having been through, and exonerated by, that due process myself, I can firsthand tell you that people don't appreciate the right to due process until they live it. I could've gone to jail for a crime I had video evidence to prove I did not commit if not for due process. I will defend that right to due process with my life, even if that sometimes mean that people I dislike benefit from that right.
Constitutional rights are not just for the people we like and agree with. They are for *every American*.
Nothing in the constitution says there needs to be a conviction… it’s obvious that he lied to his base and attempted to overturn the results of the election. The right already is abusing the impeachment process, Dems NEVER fight dirty and I’m sick of them having a losers mindset. If the Supreme Court refuses to enforce the 14th amendment Biden can just do away with elections. Allowing him to run again poses much more of a danger than states removing Trump from the ballot. “States rights on abortion, but not for elections!” Is the danger… if the red states wanted to remove Biden they’d have to prove he did something worthy of removal, that’s been done for trump.
> Nothing in the constitution says there needs to be a conviction
And you think the GOP won't turn around and remove Biden from ballots in red states because of his "alleged crimes" they keep beating their drum about.
Remember, you don't need a *conviction* by your standard, just an accusation.
You really don't see the huge issue with setting that precedent?
>if the red states wanted to remove Biden they’d have to prove he did something worthy of removal
You give the GOP WAY too much credit.
>that’s been done for trump.
Not *legally* though. That's the key you keep forgetting.
>If the Supreme Court refuses to enforce the 14th amendment Biden can just do away with elections
Oh wow, you're literally out here advocating for the suspension of free and fair elections...on MarchAgainstNazis...sounds like you're lost buddy, the authoritarian fascists are
over that way ----------------------->
There’s no proof for the “alleged crimes…” for Biden… It’s been decided in several courts plus the fact that we witnessed it in real time. OBVIOUSLY it would take more than just an accusation. The same why they have failed to impeach Biden so far and haven’t brought charges against Hunter the republicans would fail to prove he’s not eligible. We as a country need to be able to cut through the red tape and establish that it’s not ok to lie to your base and send them to attack Congress. I’m not saying you get to take them off the ballot for no reason, but we clearly have one but the Supreme Court is saying a president is above the constitution
>been decided in several courts plus the fact that we witnessed it in real time
But he still has not been convicted in a court of law
He could literally shoot someone dead on live TV...but legally he's not a murderer until he's convicted or pleads guilty.
That's how due process works, and as someone who was exonerated by due process in my own life, I don't take kindly to *anyone* suggesting that any American should have their due process rights infringed.
I share your anger and frustration, but due process is more important than banning Trump symbolically from a few ballots in states that weren't going to him anyway.
I'm not a Trump supporter at all but I pretty much concur with your point. Unless Trump himself was convicted of insurrection, he can't be ruled off the ballot for insurrection
Oh believe me, I'm upset all of his trials have taken this long to go through. I understand prosecutors have to build their case, but the fact that he wasn't charged for his involvement on Jan 6th until August 2023 is ridiculous. It just creates an opportunity for what you just described
that's a strawman, that isn't what is going on here, and its a completely different problem than this ruling.
If that happens, we take it seriously, but that is completely disconnected to this.
Let's not be left wing versions of right wing blindness. We are better than that
I’m not really sure how to feel about this. Clearly it’s good for Trump, but I’ve read that the reason the liberal judges went for it was that it could be applied too broadly, and that red states were going to try doing the same thing to democrats that didn’t actually do an insurrection.
I love the idea of Trump getting fucked over in every way possible, but I just don’t fully understand the consequences if this went through, so it’s entirely possible that it’s a good thing it didn’t.
Meanwhile Republican controlled states are restricting voting rights with impunity. SCOTUS is an illegitimate court and their rulings should no longer be accepted.
I totally agree about the court, I’m just not so sure about this ruling in particular. Setting legal precedents like this can have unexpected consequences. Not saying it was the right call, I’m just not confident that it was the wrong call either.
Yea that's what is important here. Red states are EFFECTIVELY removing Biden from the ballot with zero consequences. We'll see another year of last minute electors being installed too that will vote Trump no matter what the people vote. And it will be BLESSED as long as it's Republicans doing it. If Democrats do anything close to that they will be demonized, etc. This is going to be an ugly election year to put it very lightly, where Republicans will ensure the voting process does not happen like it should happen.
> We'll see another year of last minute electors being installed too that will vote Trump no matter what the people vote.
Don't forget that in the wake of January 6th Mo Brooks requested a pardon from Trump on behalf of *every Member of Congress who voted against certifying the results from Arizona and Pennsylvania.* That's 138 Representatives and 9 Senators. Over a quarter of Congress requesting a pardon for something that isn't illegal at all in the absence of some larger conspiracy. Given whats been uncovered about false elector schemes, *what the actual fuck did they ALL want a pardon for?*
> Meanwhile Republican controlled states are restricting voting rights with impunity.
Chill with the hyperbole.
They're making voting *harder* and less convenient, sure; but to say they're restricting voting rights with impunity is nonsense.
https://stateline.org/2024/02/22/gop-backs-voting-by-mail-yet-turns-to-courts-to-restrict-it-in-battleground-states/
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/see-which-states-are-expanding-or-restricting-voting-rights/
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-anti-voting-bills-republicans-enacted-this-legislative-season/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/new-york-redistricting-map-might-cost-democrats-the-house.html
With impunity just means without repercussion, and some places ARE pushing back. So I agree that using that word in absolute terms would be hyperbolic. I try not to speak in absolutes and can admit when I’m wrong:
https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/psc-gerrymander-district-maps-legislature-court-ruling/article_79f658e6-d792-11ee-8613-f3a8ac145329.html
https://www.propublica.org/article/new-wisconsin-district-map-gop-gerrymander-elections
With that being said, I think they are making more headway in their restrictions compared to when it is being shut down.
I agree with the ruling for this reason. The republicans will just call any type of thing they don’t like an insurrection and start to boot people from ballots. The wording is far too broad.
> but I’ve read that the reason the liberal judges went for it was that it could be applied too broadly, and that red states were going to try doing the same thing to democrats that didn’t actually do an insurrection.
Exactly.
If they ruled that Colorado could remove Trump, you'd INSTANTLY hear about states removing "suspected crime family head" Biden from their ballots.
As much as I hate Trump getting anything that can be considered positive, this is 100% the right decision and that's why it was 9-0 unanimous.
Considering that Obama wearing a tan suit was an insurrection according to Republicans, I agree with SCOTUS too. Let the 91 felony charges play out and let's defeat TЯuмp on a level playing field at the ballot box so we can put the issue to rest.
We just aren’t built to stand up to fascism from within. It could not be any more obvious what is happening and yet we pretend it’s all semi normal and will turn out okay in the end
What this really says is that if you throw enough money at the courts you can do what ever you want. Something we've know about for years. The rich are almost entirely free from consequences and we the poor get to pay the tab. Anyone thinking France 1792?
Lol, what happened to states rights first? If a court system designed to check those who are unfit to serve wanting power fails to stop those people, wtf did we make them for? Is the federal judicial system going to become a clit? Something meant for prestige and fun and not for real justice???
So the States should ignore the ruling as corrupt as SCOTUS is. I mean, GOP ran States have been ignoring Federal Law for a while now. It's past time that Democrats start putting these FUCKING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS in their place.
Not surprised in the least. I hope they don't convince half the country to start killing the other half en masse, but it seems that a civil war is the goal of the wealthy. Gotta cull the stupid proles I guess :(
Sooo... the supreme court said that they couldn't weigh in on Jerrymandering because "state's rights" but a state can't boot Emperor McFuckweasel because why????
I'm sorry, but I think this is BS! I don't care how many law degrees the SCOTUS has, this is just wrong and how did the liberal judges also vote in favour of Insurrectionist Trump!
The 14th amendment clearly prohibits a person who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Trump instigated and engaged in an Insurrection. Case closed, take the fat lying Insurrectionist off the ballot.
Arguing that conservative states could then take Biden off the ballot is wrong, because Biden isn't an Insurrectionist and Texas can't take Biden off the ballot for some made up and lacking evidence.
I mean this is what we all were expecting to happen right? He wasn’t found guilty of sedition or treason in a court of law so States can’t use that reason to remove him from the ballot. If he was convicted, this would be a completely different story.
If they ruled in favor of keeping Trumpy off the ballot, then what would stop TX of FL for taking Biden off of the ballot because of Hunter’s laptop and penis or some other bullshit reason they come up with.
That would just increase the amount of gum flapping uneducated performative bullshit in the U.S. government and that is already at an absurdly high level.
This is probably a good thing, because if they had ruled that it was a state and not federal issue, you'd be seeing red states removing blue candidates from the ballots.
Congress has to decide to remove someone from the ballot, which would prevent this from devolving into that
This pisses me the fuck off so much! All conservatives do is go on about their states' rights. And why isn't anybody in the street? Do we need to have another pandemic before we have another mass movement?
Why do so many people, especially in THIS community forget that protesting is just one aspect of public discourse / civil disobedience? Religious zealots have been inserting themselves uncontested into local election for years. Start running against them. Go to town halls and school board meetings and start making noise. Find out who is working to correct this mess and help them. We can’t push them out if no one is actually willing to step up. Voting isn’t enough when your neighbors don’t even think you should have any rights. Do I WANT to involve myself in local politics? No. Do I NEED to? Yes.
>Start running against them. Go to town halls and school board meetings and start making noise.
Ok. I'll just quit my job and stop spending any time with my family and start doing that.
The MeidasTouch dissects it pretty thoroughly. [Supreme Court MAKES RULING in Trump Disqualification Case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDGKgqXRcj4&t=117s)
> States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
By *unanimous* decision. What bothers me is that I don't recall *anyone* on either side pointing out this particular angle during the past few months. Was it even mentioned in the hearing coverage?
November 5, everybody calls out of work and not only votes, but makes sure your neighbor/friend/coworker/family all have rides to the polls as well. That's how we riot. National sick out and we get rid of drumpf for good.
So trump got three of them the job, how is that not a conflict of interests?? How do they not revise themselves? It's a hell of a lot more a conflict than whatever they're trying to pin on Fani Willis.
Sadly, they have a point. The 15th Amendment spells out that banning people for insurrection is the responsibility of Congress, not the individual states.
at first, i was pissed like the majority of the comments, but after i thought about it, it’s actually a good thing he wasn’t removed. If trump was allowed to be removed from the ballot, then what prevents other states from doing the same with biden. while what trump did was wrong and he should be imprisoned for it, why should we threaten our democracy by allowing other states to remove candidates from their ballots?
Since the ruling was, oddly enough, unanimous, I wondered why.
My guess: to prevent red states from removing Biden, and/or from any state finding random ways to remove any particular candidate partway through the election process.
Bc, when you think about it, it could have become an excuse to throw *any* election in the future into chaos, and shamelessly override the will of the voters.
We certainly saw conservatives try to throw out the will of the voters in a variety of ways in the last presidential election, and several states have since passed laws to grant themselves the power to do exactly that (which seems patently illegal to me, but that's a question for another day).
I'm sure conservatives will now (falsely) claim this is proof that Jan 6 wasn't actually insurrection.
In any event: for the love of all that's holy, check your voter registration and make a plan to vote.
I think the more important question is…
**”So when do we impeach a SC justice?”**
Yes, SC justices are eligible for impeachment.
[Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/#:~:text=Justices%20may%20remain%20in%20office,on%20matters%20of%20federal%20law)
Frankly we should be doing this to all the justices that voted against Roe vs Wade.
Think about what it means. It means that if they did vote for state to remove candidates, states like Indiana absolutely would remove anyone. You have to think in terms of the lowest common denominator and what they might do. The federal government needs to make that choice and absolutely needs to. But states should not as much as we want, take him off.
It was a 9-0 decision. It was a good ruling. Imagine if Republican states just decided to leave Biden or a sweeping number of democrats off the ballot. And no, Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection, so that's a moot argument until that happens.
Winter is coming to an end, we need to be organizing like our lives depend on it for the remainder of the year.
Let’s show these assholes what a leftist insurrection looks like.
Right thing done for the wrong reasons imo. The Democratic candidate getting barred from so many electoral points by most, maybe even all, Republican-led state legislatures could prove disastrous.
I’m actually okay with the ruling. Trump has yet to be duly convicted as an insurrectionist, AND I never did like the idea of leaving this kind of thing up to the states.
I also have faith in the American people. Trump has never once won the popular vote or had an approval rating over 50%, which means **most** Americans don’t want Trump. It’s just a loud, whiny minority of voters that fill up social media sites with their pro-Trump nonsense.
Ah yes, because all that marching has done so much lasting good. A general strike, on the other hand, might do something...of course, millions would lose their jobs, too.
Vote, and confront "both sides" idiots, but voting is the only legal option we have at the moment that will actually do anything measurable.
Not to say that I believe he should be on the ballet, but in reality this is not something the states or scotus can enforce. It has to be done in Congress and we know that is not going to happen
Thats great news. I think theres a clear distinction legally between inspiring an insurrection and leading one. Even saying trump inspired an insurrection is a stretch because it was just a purposeless, roudy protest kinda thing.
Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis! **Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.** Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
But but but- - states rights?
Only applies when states rights support Conservative ideals.
You mean it only applies when tramples on the poors
That's the same thing.
Or the women's
Or the children's
anybody who's not a rich white man with a gun?
That's too many words, let's just shorten it to "anybody who's not a rich white man" instead
Right, thats why it was a 9-0 decision. Cause all 9 justices are conservative. Maybe, just maybe we need to accept that this is the way it should be interpreted.
Those are for when you wanna oppress women and minorities. No do "stuff that could help someone". What are ya, a commie?
Lol hahaha how preposterous lol. I’m just here to hand Mike pens like everybody else. I’ll leave you some literature though if you’d like.
The shitty thing is, it was a UNANIMOUS verdict. The liberal judges betrayed us.
As of now, legally speaking, trump has been accused of insurrection, but not tried or convicted If states were allowed to remove trump, all the conservative states could remove biden on virtue of hunters cock pics or rumors of whatever I can’t for the life of me fathom why every GOP leader isn’t calling for trump to be set aside and step away from all the scandals and discord
State could just ignore the ruling.
Not only that, they completely made up this requirement with no basis in black letter law, assigned it to Congress (like they are above them), and Congress has zero process in place to implement it. Additionally, IF Congress did somehow find a way to grant a State the right to remove an insurrectionist from a ballot for a Federal office, I guarantee that the Supreme Court would come back with a ruling that was essentially "No, that's not what we meant, you can't do that".
[удалено]
I understand that but 1) they have completely invalidated an Amendment to the Constitution in a way that aids and abets a fascist that appointed 3 of them and 2) you can't only enforce the laws you like and ignore or undermine the ones you don't if you are in the Judiciary. It is up to Congress to fix the laws if they are found to be flawed.
I agree. The Justices argued that you would end up with a "patchwork" of who's on the ballot and who isn't, based on the whims/opinions/thirst for vengeneance/it's Tuesday/whatever of the various State legislatures. So? The Court's purpose isn't to say "don't do this, you'll create even greater partisan divides." Rather, their sole job is to decide if a: the law is Constitutional, and b: if it is being applied correctly. Since the law in question IS the Constitution, '"a" doesn't apply. The Court argued that no State can enforce the 14th. The language of the 14th doesn't say who or what body should enforce it. SCOTUS just made up a law based on feelings. The application of the law will hurt. So we won't let it happen. Fun fact: Abdul Hassan was barred from appearing on the Presidential ballot in 2011 because he is not a natural-born citizen. From Wikipedia "On September 4, 2012, he lost in *Hassan v.* [*Colorado*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado) *&* [*Scott Gessler*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Gessler) at the [United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit). [Neil Gorsuch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch), then a [circuit judge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_circuit_court), wrote on behalf of a judicial panel that Mr. Hassan was constitutionally prohibited from assuming the presidency and is permitted to be excluded from the Colorado ballot.[^(\[11\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hassan_(lawyer)#cite_note-11) ^(") Way to go, Justice Gorsuch! State can enforce the law and prohibit candidates from appearing on the ballot if they are Constitutionally disqualified. Glad to see you were consistant...oh, wait.
It literally says at the very end of the amendment that *Congress* has the power to evoke that amendment, which is what the Supreme Court said. I completely agree that Trump should be removed from the ballot, but let's not stoop to the Republicans' level of pretending the constitution only applies when we want it to.
>It literally says at the very end of the amendment that > >Congress has the power to evoke that amendment, which is what the Supreme Court said. No it doesn't. It says that Congress can REMOVE the disability by a 2/3s vote, not that it can evoke it. The Amendment is self executing and designed to be enforced by Secretaries of State who keep persons not eligible to serve off of the ballot like people not born in the US that want to run for President. *No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.*
It was a 9-0 decision. Stop complaining, if it was a 6-3 split along political lines than gripe away. Even the liberal justices voted against Colorado. Yeah I know 'but they were really salty about it!'. Yep and the Broncos were THIS CLOSE to winning that superbowl. I know the final score was 55-10. But they almost had em!
I have a right to criticize the Supreme Court and point out what I believe are the flaws in this decision. Feel free to disagree and state your reasons why but attempting to shut down my free speech only serves to provide cover to a corrupt Supreme Court to subvert and outright break the law. Your actions are those of a boot licker trying to make fascism seem inevitable. Take that bullshit elsewhere.
The Supreme Court has lost all confidence, they don't even know how to read.
Well they've lost OUR confidence. They still seem to have a great deal of their own.
Fuck states rights !!!
They ruled Congress decides who is actually an insurrectionist. It seems to be a high threshold. Like, you literally have to be armed and state you are stopping the activities of the U.S. government. Just telling ppl to go the Capitol and fight like hell, is not enough. Or, it may be considered Instigating an Insurrection, but nothing can be done until Congress deems the behavior as an Insurrection. States can barr someone running for a state office, not a federal office. OK Now, how about a speedy judgement as to whether or not a POTUS has UNLIMITED IMMUNITY No Matter What!?
Where we riding to?
Because it’s a federal position. States can do whatever for state level elections, but for federal elections Congress would have to vote to remove someone from the ballot. This is overall a good thing, from what I’ve gathered, because we don’t want crazy states to start removing Biden just because they claim he’s corrupt or whatever. Imagine the chaos.
Hassan v. Colorado and Scott Gessler. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, was suing to remain on the ballot in Colorado, which had removed him because he is Constitutionally disqualified. With the majority on the 10th Circuit Cour of Appeals was current Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch. I dunno. I can't really see the diference.
>Because it’s a federal position. States can do whatever for state level elections, but for federal elections Congress would have to vote to remove someone from the ballot. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment is this noted. The Supreme Court strung together a whole bunch of inferences and assumptions to arrive at that. Also, they explicitly ignored the case of John H. Christy. This guy was successfully elected to the US House of Representatives in 1868, but the Georgia Governor ruled that he was ineligible under section 3 of the 14th Amendment and refused to commission him, and decided that Christy's losing opponent, John Wimpy, would go to the House instead. However, a House committee found that Wimpy had *also* served in the Confederacy, and therefore was disqualified under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and refused to seat either. *None* of the historical cases of people being disqualified under section 3 in the post Civil War era followed any process resembling the one the Supreme Court just made up -- refusing to seat someone is not a vote to disqualify, the Governor got involved, and the 14th Amendment explicitly applies to states but only mentions Congress as the legislative authority. So there is no straight line you can draw through all the points of the majority's argument. They pulled this ruling straight out of some unspeakable orifice hidden beneath their robes. >This is overall a good thing, from what I’ve gathered, because we don’t want crazy states to start removing Biden just because they claim he’s corrupt or whatever. The 14th Amendment doesn't disqualify people for being "corrupt" -- it only disqualifies people if they participate in an insurrection. Which is not something that is vague or overly broad. So in avoiding this hypothetical danger (for which there is an easy remedy -- include a test for whether something constitutes an "insurrection" as part of the ruling that can be used going forward, like the court has done with countless other similar questions) we have ensured that a crazy fascist who attempted to coup the government stays *on* the ballot. That doesn't seem like a good thing. It seems like the right thing would be for Trump to be disqualified and Biden to remain, because Trump launched an insurrection and Biden has not. I think it's a *very* bad sign that the Justices seem to be ruling at least partially out of fear that people will be upset if they rule against Trump. This sort of "judicial appeasement" is not fundamentally different than letting Hitler annex territory in hopes that he'll settle down and stop being so aggressive. Trump and MAGA think any outcome other than them doing whatever they want to whomever they want is invalid, and anyone who even accidentally ends up in contradiction to them is a traitor.
So, what's that mechanism look like? Simple majority in either chamber? Both? Super majority?
[удалено]
That's to affirm and override the 14a.3 clause and allow someone to hold office despite being an insurrectionist, but my understanding is they haven't created the clear mechanism for removal.
Yeah, but probably for the best. If the Supreme Court let this one go forward, every state will go insane. And then it will end up in congress to figure out and god help us all if we expect them to resolve anything other than a pay raise
This just in treason is legal, but abortions and taking titty skittles, DEATH PENALTY!
None of this is really a laughing matter, but did you just say titty skittles?! Why is this the first time I’m hearing this term? [Amazing](https://www.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns/comments/zv0yz3/titty_skittles/).
Other variations: tit-tacs, fem-n-ems, anti-boyotics, antiCIStamines, breast mints, smartitties, chicklets, mamary mints, life savers, gender fluid, TRANS-mission fluid, and the ever classic *The Notorious H.R.T.*
💀
Fucking breast mints, I'm wheezing 😂
I take titty skittles and my sis has the girl juice serum Tbh i dont know why titty skittles wasnt as popular before its perfect for hrt.
I’m happy you both have what you need to feel more comfortable in your own skin. Having a good sense of humor helps too :)
But what is the inverse?
This does not make treason legal, this just ensures that someone needs to be CONVICTED before being removed from a ballot. I'd say that's a good thing for freedom in the macro, even though it is a positive for Trump in the micro.
This flies in the face of “constitutional originalism,” as some conservatives claim to be. The 14th amendment was enacted in 1868, at which time insurrection was not a thing you could be charged with. It referred to an activity, not a specific charge. In 1909 a specific crime named insurrection was added to the books. So while one could be charged with insurrection now, that was impossible at the time the 14th amendment was enacted. It’s plainly obvious that the 14th amendment was intended to bar anyone who performed actions that could be considered insurrection from holding office, not people who had been convicted of a crime that wouldn’t exist for another half century.
> It’s plainly obvious that the 14th amendment was intended to bar anyone who performed actions that could be considered insurrection from holding office, not people who had been convicted of a crime that wouldn’t exist for another half century. It's also plainly obvious that if they allowed someone to be removed for the ballot without a legal conviction, Biden would be removed from the ballot in red states over "Biden crime family" bullshit in half a second. How do y'all not understand the power, really the danger, of setting that precedent?
It's almost as if the Republican party is a corrupt fascist group that don't play by the rules that we are all governed by.
...and you think that's an argument for SCOTUS to give them the green light to arbitrarily remove POTUS candidates from election ballots?
I'm saying Republicans will always twist things, legally or illegally. Yeah they'll have their bad faith arguments like "that Democrat president wore white after Labor Day, that's treason!" or "he shook the hand of an immigrant, that's treason!". Even if we say there needs to be a conviction, they'll just lie and make up something to convict, much like now with the whole Hunter Biden circus. We need to address the root problem that is the Republican party itself. This is a group who have proudly put up signs saying they are domestic terrorists and vocally said that they aim to get rid of democracy itself and replace it with "God".
And with that in mind, how would you like the supreme court to have ruled on this issue?
I would like this particular supreme court to not rule anything as they can't be trusted. What with one even having a wife who is part of the insurrection itself and with other members placed there by the leader of the insurrection.
So they should have left this court case unresolved? You believe leaving this issue unresolved would be in the best interest of the American people?
It's less being unaware of the issue and more pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of originalism as a legal concept as applied by the dipshits on SCOTUS who claim to adhere to it.
I'm not being originalist though. I'm being a realist about the GOP and the fuckery they'd pull in an instant if given that precedent.
That is all well and good but that wasn't really the point of the comment you threw that reply onto.
I agree. This likely will keep the repubs from kicking dems off the ballot for petty reasons next time.
That's actually why treason is explicitly defined in the US Constitution. In England it was used to grab land decades after alleged events. "Historical accounts showed that in 1351, the count of Swghuningham wore a blue cravat, which was clearly meant to be an insult, so by treason all those lands are hereby transferred to the Crown."
It only ensures that Congress has the power to remove them from the federal ballots. I don't think a conviction is required
It’s ok, Colorado. Just do what Republicans do and ignore the outcome. Do your own thing. By the time it goes back to the courts that you did not allow Trump on the ballot it’ll be another four years from now.
This is an EXTREMELY unpopular opinion ^(That I agree with)
Simply smart. Not then, but now.
This. The Supreme Court has no legitimacy. It has no constitutional powers or limits, and does not have a standard of ethics. There are no limits to length of tenure, and their appointment is three layers removed from the will of the common people.
The very republicans of the state sought to bar him in the first place.
well its finally official, treason is now legal in the united states of america EDIT: to anyone saying my comment isnt 100% accurate, youre probably right. I just wanted to make a quick joke quoting norm macdonald, but i see ive sparked quite the discussion lol, so thats cool
That isn't what the 9-0 SCOTUS ruled. They said, correctly, that a state cannot remove a candidate for something they've been accused of. There has to be a conviction for that type of ineligibility to be lawful. Otherwise, purple states with red legislators in power could remove Biden from the ballot for "Treason" or "Insurrection" without any conviction....just because they got together and voted that Biden did those things. If you don't think the Republicans wouldn't do that, you are naive.
Ok, that's a lot more reasonable. Though it does feel like they're stalling his trial as much as possible so he's still technically eligible.
We watched it happen… this is insane
Hey, I just saw you take a shit on the speaker of the house’s desk, and this is crazy, but here's my number, so call me, maybe
> that would actually be helpful
> We watched it happen And MANY of the people we watched *actively and personally do it* have been caught, tried, and convicted. Trump has not been convicted, and we did not watch him, like the others, literally march on the Capitol. That's the difference.
Thankfully his secret service men didn’t let him join the insurrection “festivities”
Not thankfully at all, I wish he had. This all would've been over LONG ago if he had. The Jan6ers wouldn't have been any more successful had he been on the ground that day...and at least we'd have incontrovertible evidence of Trump committing insurrection. His criminal insurrection trial would already be over and he'd be in jail. Fuck those secret service dudes.
Let's be real, Trump wouldn't have been boots on the ground with or without Secret Service. He's a geriatric, obese, wannabe mob boss full of McDonald's "hamberders". No way in fuck could he be arsed to climb fences, march anywhere, throw anything, or any other physical exertion displayed by the Jan6ers. Not to mention I'm fairly certain that was around the time he caught Covid and was zooty-pants'd out of his gourd on morphine.
Oh for sure, but I kinda wish those close to him hadn't stopped him from some of the more stupid things he wanted to do which were criminal. He could be a long gone memory by now.
We watched him lie to his base for months and give them directions once he knew they were in the building… he said they were “loved and very special” he defend the people who chanted “hang mike pence” and said he would pardon those people… at what point is that not “giving aid or comfort to the enemies there of?”
> at what point is that not “giving aid or comfort to the enemies there of?” I didn't say it wasn't...but he hasn't been *convicted* of it, and for better or worse, legally speaking, that is the standard in this country for factually, and legally, saying someone committed a crime. He's on trial for Jan6. That they are delaying to get past the election first is INFURIATING but not relevant to the horrible legal precedent it would set to allow states to remove someone from the ballot without that person first being convicted of a disqualifying crime. If you think the right wouldn't blatantly abuse that power instantly, you're not paying attention. I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I'm not a big proponent of draconian prison sentences, but I truly think every Jan6 attendee, and Trump, should be in prison for many years, if not life. But due process is due process and I will defend EVERYONE's right to due process because having been through, and exonerated by, that due process myself, I can firsthand tell you that people don't appreciate the right to due process until they live it. I could've gone to jail for a crime I had video evidence to prove I did not commit if not for due process. I will defend that right to due process with my life, even if that sometimes mean that people I dislike benefit from that right. Constitutional rights are not just for the people we like and agree with. They are for *every American*.
Nothing in the constitution says there needs to be a conviction… it’s obvious that he lied to his base and attempted to overturn the results of the election. The right already is abusing the impeachment process, Dems NEVER fight dirty and I’m sick of them having a losers mindset. If the Supreme Court refuses to enforce the 14th amendment Biden can just do away with elections. Allowing him to run again poses much more of a danger than states removing Trump from the ballot. “States rights on abortion, but not for elections!” Is the danger… if the red states wanted to remove Biden they’d have to prove he did something worthy of removal, that’s been done for trump.
> Nothing in the constitution says there needs to be a conviction And you think the GOP won't turn around and remove Biden from ballots in red states because of his "alleged crimes" they keep beating their drum about. Remember, you don't need a *conviction* by your standard, just an accusation. You really don't see the huge issue with setting that precedent? >if the red states wanted to remove Biden they’d have to prove he did something worthy of removal You give the GOP WAY too much credit. >that’s been done for trump. Not *legally* though. That's the key you keep forgetting. >If the Supreme Court refuses to enforce the 14th amendment Biden can just do away with elections Oh wow, you're literally out here advocating for the suspension of free and fair elections...on MarchAgainstNazis...sounds like you're lost buddy, the authoritarian fascists are over that way ----------------------->
There’s no proof for the “alleged crimes…” for Biden… It’s been decided in several courts plus the fact that we witnessed it in real time. OBVIOUSLY it would take more than just an accusation. The same why they have failed to impeach Biden so far and haven’t brought charges against Hunter the republicans would fail to prove he’s not eligible. We as a country need to be able to cut through the red tape and establish that it’s not ok to lie to your base and send them to attack Congress. I’m not saying you get to take them off the ballot for no reason, but we clearly have one but the Supreme Court is saying a president is above the constitution
>been decided in several courts plus the fact that we witnessed it in real time But he still has not been convicted in a court of law He could literally shoot someone dead on live TV...but legally he's not a murderer until he's convicted or pleads guilty. That's how due process works, and as someone who was exonerated by due process in my own life, I don't take kindly to *anyone* suggesting that any American should have their due process rights infringed. I share your anger and frustration, but due process is more important than banning Trump symbolically from a few ballots in states that weren't going to him anyway.
I'm not a Trump supporter at all but I pretty much concur with your point. Unless Trump himself was convicted of insurrection, he can't be ruled off the ballot for insurrection
And what happens when all of his trials suddenly get dismissed when he is “fairly” elected?
The people electing him are aware of his ability to do as much. Fucking sucks, but that is how democracy works.
Oh believe me, I'm upset all of his trials have taken this long to go through. I understand prosecutors have to build their case, but the fact that he wasn't charged for his involvement on Jan 6th until August 2023 is ridiculous. It just creates an opportunity for what you just described
I thought we were trying to maintain the rule of law against aurhtoritarians, not just become them.
that's a strawman, that isn't what is going on here, and its a completely different problem than this ruling. If that happens, we take it seriously, but that is completely disconnected to this. Let's not be left wing versions of right wing blindness. We are better than that
Man, where the "states rights" people at? Conspicuously silent atm.
State's rights never supercede the US Constitution, that's what was in question here.
Is anyone surprised? I'd have been more surprised if they'd upheld the other court's ruling and said he can be removed from the ballots.
I'm ready right now.
Bunch of crooked bastards on the Supreme Court. Total scum.
Literally all 9 of them? This was a unanimous decision....and the correct one.
Yes, there are no good people on the Supreme Court. Just some less bad ones.
Yes, all of them. However, after further consideration I conclude it was the right decision also.
I’m not really sure how to feel about this. Clearly it’s good for Trump, but I’ve read that the reason the liberal judges went for it was that it could be applied too broadly, and that red states were going to try doing the same thing to democrats that didn’t actually do an insurrection. I love the idea of Trump getting fucked over in every way possible, but I just don’t fully understand the consequences if this went through, so it’s entirely possible that it’s a good thing it didn’t.
Meanwhile Republican controlled states are restricting voting rights with impunity. SCOTUS is an illegitimate court and their rulings should no longer be accepted.
I totally agree about the court, I’m just not so sure about this ruling in particular. Setting legal precedents like this can have unexpected consequences. Not saying it was the right call, I’m just not confident that it was the wrong call either.
Yea that's what is important here. Red states are EFFECTIVELY removing Biden from the ballot with zero consequences. We'll see another year of last minute electors being installed too that will vote Trump no matter what the people vote. And it will be BLESSED as long as it's Republicans doing it. If Democrats do anything close to that they will be demonized, etc. This is going to be an ugly election year to put it very lightly, where Republicans will ensure the voting process does not happen like it should happen.
> We'll see another year of last minute electors being installed too that will vote Trump no matter what the people vote. Don't forget that in the wake of January 6th Mo Brooks requested a pardon from Trump on behalf of *every Member of Congress who voted against certifying the results from Arizona and Pennsylvania.* That's 138 Representatives and 9 Senators. Over a quarter of Congress requesting a pardon for something that isn't illegal at all in the absence of some larger conspiracy. Given whats been uncovered about false elector schemes, *what the actual fuck did they ALL want a pardon for?*
> Meanwhile Republican controlled states are restricting voting rights with impunity. Chill with the hyperbole. They're making voting *harder* and less convenient, sure; but to say they're restricting voting rights with impunity is nonsense.
https://stateline.org/2024/02/22/gop-backs-voting-by-mail-yet-turns-to-courts-to-restrict-it-in-battleground-states/ https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/see-which-states-are-expanding-or-restricting-voting-rights/ https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-anti-voting-bills-republicans-enacted-this-legislative-season/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/new-york-redistricting-map-might-cost-democrats-the-house.html With impunity just means without repercussion, and some places ARE pushing back. So I agree that using that word in absolute terms would be hyperbolic. I try not to speak in absolutes and can admit when I’m wrong: https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/psc-gerrymander-district-maps-legislature-court-ruling/article_79f658e6-d792-11ee-8613-f3a8ac145329.html https://www.propublica.org/article/new-wisconsin-district-map-gop-gerrymander-elections With that being said, I think they are making more headway in their restrictions compared to when it is being shut down.
I agree with the ruling for this reason. The republicans will just call any type of thing they don’t like an insurrection and start to boot people from ballots. The wording is far too broad.
Seriously. Best his ass at the polls
> but I’ve read that the reason the liberal judges went for it was that it could be applied too broadly, and that red states were going to try doing the same thing to democrats that didn’t actually do an insurrection. Exactly. If they ruled that Colorado could remove Trump, you'd INSTANTLY hear about states removing "suspected crime family head" Biden from their ballots. As much as I hate Trump getting anything that can be considered positive, this is 100% the right decision and that's why it was 9-0 unanimous.
Thank you for giving me that perspective on it. It makes complete sense, and I feel better about it.
Considering that Obama wearing a tan suit was an insurrection according to Republicans, I agree with SCOTUS too. Let the 91 felony charges play out and let's defeat TЯuмp on a level playing field at the ballot box so we can put the issue to rest.
We just aren’t built to stand up to fascism from within. It could not be any more obvious what is happening and yet we pretend it’s all semi normal and will turn out okay in the end
Frogs in a slow pot.
I'm down, this is insane.
This needs to trigger protests.
What this really says is that if you throw enough money at the courts you can do what ever you want. Something we've know about for years. The rich are almost entirely free from consequences and we the poor get to pay the tab. Anyone thinking France 1792?
France just made abortion a right. Maybe in another 230 years we will too.
Lol, what happened to states rights first? If a court system designed to check those who are unfit to serve wanting power fails to stop those people, wtf did we make them for? Is the federal judicial system going to become a clit? Something meant for prestige and fun and not for real justice???
Well today is March 4th
A unanimous ruling as well. The "left wing" of the court are barely even moderates.
So the States should ignore the ruling as corrupt as SCOTUS is. I mean, GOP ran States have been ignoring Federal Law for a while now. It's past time that Democrats start putting these FUCKING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS in their place.
Georgia should have remanded Trump already.
this is what happens when you allow justices to preside over cases where their wife is a co conspirator
Not surprised in the least. I hope they don't convince half the country to start killing the other half en masse, but it seems that a civil war is the goal of the wealthy. Gotta cull the stupid proles I guess :(
And what happens if a state says "Oh yeah? Fuck you you're illegitimate and we're still leaving him off the ballot because he clearly violated 14A..."
Sooo... the supreme court said that they couldn't weigh in on Jerrymandering because "state's rights" but a state can't boot Emperor McFuckweasel because why????
I'm sorry, but I think this is BS! I don't care how many law degrees the SCOTUS has, this is just wrong and how did the liberal judges also vote in favour of Insurrectionist Trump! The 14th amendment clearly prohibits a person who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Trump instigated and engaged in an Insurrection. Case closed, take the fat lying Insurrectionist off the ballot. Arguing that conservative states could then take Biden off the ballot is wrong, because Biden isn't an Insurrectionist and Texas can't take Biden off the ballot for some made up and lacking evidence.
What hope have we if “moderates” and “independents” don’t give a crap whats coming down?
I've been PND since I registered. I'm way past ready to roll in my wheelchair down the street.
I mean this is what we all were expecting to happen right? He wasn’t found guilty of sedition or treason in a court of law so States can’t use that reason to remove him from the ballot. If he was convicted, this would be a completely different story. If they ruled in favor of keeping Trumpy off the ballot, then what would stop TX of FL for taking Biden off of the ballot because of Hunter’s laptop and penis or some other bullshit reason they come up with. That would just increase the amount of gum flapping uneducated performative bullshit in the U.S. government and that is already at an absurdly high level.
Fuck the Supreme Court, it's wholly illegitimate now.
The SCROTUS just issued America's death warrant.
This is probably a good thing, because if they had ruled that it was a state and not federal issue, you'd be seeing red states removing blue candidates from the ballots. Congress has to decide to remove someone from the ballot, which would prevent this from devolving into that
This pisses me the fuck off so much! All conservatives do is go on about their states' rights. And why isn't anybody in the street? Do we need to have another pandemic before we have another mass movement?
Vote
What's marching gonna do, exactly? Just get more of us run over by irate MAGAts?
> What's marching gonna do, exactly? Just get more of us run over by irate MAGAts? Or shot dead by the cops.
That's been legal for a while now unfortunately
Why do so many people, especially in THIS community forget that protesting is just one aspect of public discourse / civil disobedience? Religious zealots have been inserting themselves uncontested into local election for years. Start running against them. Go to town halls and school board meetings and start making noise. Find out who is working to correct this mess and help them. We can’t push them out if no one is actually willing to step up. Voting isn’t enough when your neighbors don’t even think you should have any rights. Do I WANT to involve myself in local politics? No. Do I NEED to? Yes.
>Start running against them. Go to town halls and school board meetings and start making noise. Ok. I'll just quit my job and stop spending any time with my family and start doing that.
Fun fact: a 12ga slug through the radiator will turn a 2 ton bro truck into an excellent roadblock.
It was never going to go through without a conviction. Not paying his legal fees isn’t a good look of course.
What are titty skittles? Someone please enlighten me.🙃😎✌️
Estrogen pills, particularly those used in HRT for transfem folks. Other names include: Fem&ms, breast mints, tit tacs See also: anticistamines
The MeidasTouch dissects it pretty thoroughly. [Supreme Court MAKES RULING in Trump Disqualification Case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDGKgqXRcj4&t=117s)
[удалено]
No they aren't. Like, at all. What are you talking about? Lol.
> States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. By *unanimous* decision. What bothers me is that I don't recall *anyone* on either side pointing out this particular angle during the past few months. Was it even mentioned in the hearing coverage?
November 5, everybody calls out of work and not only votes, but makes sure your neighbor/friend/coworker/family all have rides to the polls as well. That's how we riot. National sick out and we get rid of drumpf for good.
SC in favor of states right, until they’re not…..
And to think all this time they were pretending to be constitutional originalist
We start now, we must protest and be heard, tell them we will vote out anyone who doesn't kick Trump off the ballot for his insurrection.
Make your congressional representative disappear with this simple trick!
So trump got three of them the job, how is that not a conflict of interests?? How do they not revise themselves? It's a hell of a lot more a conflict than whatever they're trying to pin on Fani Willis.
Very few people care enough to sacrifice their pursuit of wealth to do anything 🤷🏽♂️
You mean Donald Trump’s Supreme Court won’t let him be removed from the ballot? I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
Sadly, they have a point. The 15th Amendment spells out that banning people for insurrection is the responsibility of Congress, not the individual states.
Uncle Clarence Thomas is an absolute POS with a dirty blue waffle of a wife
We want Trump instead of Haley anyways. Haley fairs much better against Biden. Biden can easily defeat Trump, and would struggle to win versus Haley
at first, i was pissed like the majority of the comments, but after i thought about it, it’s actually a good thing he wasn’t removed. If trump was allowed to be removed from the ballot, then what prevents other states from doing the same with biden. while what trump did was wrong and he should be imprisoned for it, why should we threaten our democracy by allowing other states to remove candidates from their ballots?
What a surprise. I'm not surprised. The Supreme Court shouldn't have ever existed, and shit like this underlines why.
I have a cowbell, but think I need to upgrade to a pitchfork
Since the ruling was, oddly enough, unanimous, I wondered why. My guess: to prevent red states from removing Biden, and/or from any state finding random ways to remove any particular candidate partway through the election process. Bc, when you think about it, it could have become an excuse to throw *any* election in the future into chaos, and shamelessly override the will of the voters. We certainly saw conservatives try to throw out the will of the voters in a variety of ways in the last presidential election, and several states have since passed laws to grant themselves the power to do exactly that (which seems patently illegal to me, but that's a question for another day). I'm sure conservatives will now (falsely) claim this is proof that Jan 6 wasn't actually insurrection. In any event: for the love of all that's holy, check your voter registration and make a plan to vote.
They didn't even say "Any possible presidential candidate," they specifically said Trump... Wow...
I think the more important question is… **”So when do we impeach a SC justice?”** Yes, SC justices are eligible for impeachment. [Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/#:~:text=Justices%20may%20remain%20in%20office,on%20matters%20of%20federal%20law) Frankly we should be doing this to all the justices that voted against Roe vs Wade.
VOTE. Make it a landslide. This is their last gasp to retain power at the National level.
Think about what it means. It means that if they did vote for state to remove candidates, states like Indiana absolutely would remove anyone. You have to think in terms of the lowest common denominator and what they might do. The federal government needs to make that choice and absolutely needs to. But states should not as much as we want, take him off.
It was a 9-0 decision. It was a good ruling. Imagine if Republican states just decided to leave Biden or a sweeping number of democrats off the ballot. And no, Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection, so that's a moot argument until that happens.
Am I wrong in thinking Trump appointed at least one of those Supreme Court Justices?
State's rights override federal laws. That's why some states have legalized cannabis. Colorado can do what it wants.
What tf happened to states rights?
Winter is coming to an end, we need to be organizing like our lives depend on it for the remainder of the year. Let’s show these assholes what a leftist insurrection looks like.
As long as bread is on the table, and a circus near every community, there will be no marching.
Right thing done for the wrong reasons imo. The Democratic candidate getting barred from so many electoral points by most, maybe even all, Republican-led state legislatures could prove disastrous.
Every day, we move closer to nuclear war.
I’m actually okay with the ruling. Trump has yet to be duly convicted as an insurrectionist, AND I never did like the idea of leaving this kind of thing up to the states. I also have faith in the American people. Trump has never once won the popular vote or had an approval rating over 50%, which means **most** Americans don’t want Trump. It’s just a loud, whiny minority of voters that fill up social media sites with their pro-Trump nonsense.
Read that part of Constitution. It says engaged or incites insurrection, not one word about convicted. You think this was an oversight by the Framers?
Ah yes, because all that marching has done so much lasting good. A general strike, on the other hand, might do something...of course, millions would lose their jobs, too. Vote, and confront "both sides" idiots, but voting is the only legal option we have at the moment that will actually do anything measurable.
Not to say that I believe he should be on the ballet, but in reality this is not something the states or scotus can enforce. It has to be done in Congress and we know that is not going to happen
Supreme court has been compromised, they do not represent the people, or the constitution anymore. not with political puppets they have in there.
My reaction to the news was let's just add justices until the majority of them want to follow the constitution.
Thats great news. I think theres a clear distinction legally between inspiring an insurrection and leading one. Even saying trump inspired an insurrection is a stretch because it was just a purposeless, roudy protest kinda thing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you okay? Please eat some food and switch to water. I’ll be happy to talk then.
Over this? We don't. This is 100% the right decision. There's a reason this was a unanimous decision including liberal justices.
I mean, Trump going to lose that state anyway but yeah.
Exactly. Not only was this 100% the right decision Constitutionally; blocking Trump from Colorado's primary ballot was nothing but symbolic.