- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
You must log in or register to comment.
Zero info about the rationale of why states can’t remove him from the ballot, you’d think they’d speak to that in the official ruling
Edit: AP reports that the official ruling is that it’s a matter for Congress, not the states. That makes things interesting.
The Republicans basically said that congress has to pass laws detailing how candidates get disqualified in order for it to happen at all. This of course can’t happen because Republicans control thr house.
The Democrats said they don’t want different rules in different places.
(Its in two different updates in the article)
Yes the ruling was “per curiam.” My understanding is the main ruling doesn’t technically have one author and is supposed to be from the entire court. Individual justices have written concurring opinions though with more thoughts or where they might differ on some points from the others.
At least the dumb “doesn’t apply to the president argument” is dead.
“President Trump asks us to hold,” the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion, “that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3."
Supposed to, but there’s also a dissenting opinion, and it’s not actually signed. Hmmmm
I did a quick read on the NYT. And it sounds like the Court is saying that states are free to use that clause to disqualify candidates for State office, but cannot use it to disqualify candidates for national office. Only the Federal government has that power. So the place to enforce this would be in the counting of EC votes, for instance. Or, with Congress passing a law to that effect. It looks like the “self-executing” argument went nowhere.
The 3 Liberal justices agreed with the ruling but it looks like they thought it should be narrower.
Which is bullshit cuz states have always run their own elections and decided who can be on the ballot on a per state basis.
And Colorado did it in 2012 because Gorsuch said they could.
Their rationale is they are corrupt as fuck.
Come on Colorado… ignore the ruling! Let’s invalidate this fucking court.
So much for states’ rights
I have always felt like they needed to wait for an official ruling on the insurrection before he is taken off the ballot for it. Guilty before proven innocent.
The Colorado Supreme Court, in its fact-finding for this case, found that Trump had engaged in insurrection. This finding is ‘the facts’ insofar as law speak goes. (Of note, the 14th amendment says ‘engaged’ in insurrection, not convicted of insurrection.)
The U.S. Supreme Court did not overturn that part of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. So it still stands, and under the 14th he should be disqualified - but laws are only as good as the folks who are able and willing to enforce them.It’s possible, if someone other than the legislature can claim jurisdiction at the federal level, that they’ll invoke it and DQ Trump - which will get appealed, the DQ will get likely stayed, and the legal case won’t be resolved until it’s ’too close’ to (or after) the election regardless of the ruling. And if the legislature does assert jurisdiction, then it will undoubtedly a circus of gridlocked bills and resolutions until the election.
Feels like a slippery slope with the engaged vs convicted. What happens when Florida or Georgia says Hunter and Joe conspiref together and that counts as insurrection.
That’s how the 14th amendment was written when they penned those provision 150+ years ago.
I think the wording is fine, “found to have” carries a lot of water there in terms of ensuring there’s at least some standard of evidence, rather than baseless accusations or political mud-slinging.Based on my cursory read, It seems the SC ruling on the matter is fairly clear in that it determined it is not up to individual states to disqualify a candidate from federal elections. Either one of the opinions given in the ruling or the opinion of an author whose article I read over the decision, stated that ruling only the fed has jurisdiction over determining 14th amendment violations would prevent just the type of scenario you described.
The example you gave seems like a long-shot, anyway. A court would require proof of a conspiracy, followed by establishing whatever Joe Biden is accused of means that he engaged in insurrection. Certainly they could have tried (if the SC ruling didn’t just bar them from trying), but then any action to remove him from the ballot would have been appealed, most likely stayed, then run up the court system, which I don’t think would have ended up in GA or FL’s favor.
