this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
640 points (99.5% liked)

politics

18894 readers
2953 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Cmon now, there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”

This is like arguing that we can’t punish a murderer with jail time because people will start trying to punish people they disagree with, with jail time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Problem being is that the federal system has shied away from declaring him an insurrectionist, and it's kind of weird to proceed without the backing of a federal ruling toward the end of enforcing a federal amendment.

It's a bit disheartening that the justice system spent 4 years with the most obvious evidence on the planet and did not proceed for fear of looking 'too political'. But as a consequence, I think the states deciding to act on that amendment are lacking the substance to justify their move.

It's maddening because everyone knows he worked to subvert the free and fair election (the insurrection in my mind is superseded by the whole fake electors/attempted election tampering). But the courts in a position to credibly do something directly on the issue have drug their feet too long.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

A convicted murderer, sure we can.

Someone accused of murder? Even if it's by millions of people? Without a conviction, don't touch them.

there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”

I agree.

But without any official legal declaration of the latter, it's no more substantial than the former...and I'll give you one guess as to which side of the American political system is more willing to abuse that.

I'm not saying Trump should be guaranteed to appear on ballots no matter what...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.

And for what it's worth, IMHO, at that point it should be invoked nationwide. As soon as that ruling comes down, Trump is, as a function of that ruling, prevented from appearing on any ballot for any national office, in all states, effective immediately. Any write-in votes for the ineligible candidate are also discarded.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The other side of that coin is judges deliberately dragging their feet on the matter to make sure he is able to be on the ballot.

We just had the Supreme Court say “yeah, maybe he does have presidential immunity” and delay the proceedings by 90 days instead of taking it up immediately, or just refusing to hear the case.

So our choices are “ignore the insurrection and let him be on the general ballot” and “hold him accountable at the state level.”

Basically, fucked if we do, and fucked if we don’t. But at least this way they are upholding the constitution.