this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
119 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3972 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
119
The Supreme Court can’t punt on Trump’s disqualification without threatening the Constitution (thehill.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When the Supreme Court reviews Colorado’s decision to exclude President Trump from the state’s ballot, it will be delving into wholly uncharted territory.

The Supreme Court has never interpreted the constitutional provision prohibiting former office-holding insurrectionists from holding future office. Several leading constitutional scholars argue that, in part for this reason, the constitutional ban cannot be enforced without prior congressional enactment of guiding directives. The high court may consider this option to provide a welcome off-ramp.

But the position that the constitutional ban on insurrectionist office holders is not activated absent congressional legislation is not only incorrect, it also threatens the very foundations of America’s constitutional system.

all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago

I think their off-ramp is going to be to just say Trump didn’t engage in insurrection for some B.S. reason. He clearly did but Alito (like most other FedSoc judges) have no problem with ignoring the actual facts of a case and then rule on some story they made up using the people involved as characters. I could easily imagine a decision that says Trump didn’t engage in insurrection because he tried to use lawyers and a rally to pressure Congress and so his intent wasn’t insurrection against the constitutional order.

And then they’ll probably say the people who did storm the Capital can be considered insurrectionists because they’re just tawdry, regular folks who would never be invited to Bohemian Grove. People in fancy suits planning and directing the coup will be presented as the naïve ones who NEVER expected violence to break out.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

14A S3 clearly describes disqualification as a "disability," one which can be removed by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. SCOTUS can avoid looking absolutely foolish by upholding the Colorado ruling, while pointing to Congress as the body ultimately responsible for removing that disability, if they so choose.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

scotus is about to vaporize chevron doctrine bringing more power to themselves. it's just as likely they will let trump be on the ballot removing power from another branch of government and give more to themselves.

if scotus wants to maintain any of the little credibility they do have, they aren't going to ignore what is even for this era of language and the definition of words, plain language text saying that people who were involved in insurrecion against the united states are ineligible to hold office unless 2/3 OF each house of congress waives the provision. and one of the things that john roberts really cares about is how his court is seen by history. I can see 4 votes right now to allow the ruling to stand but I can't see of the rest of the unelected lords who provides vote 5.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

@MicroWave yeah but the supreme court can easily threaten the constitution. That's what 2/3rds of them were appointed to do in the first place.🤷‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Meh, SCOTUS didn't save Trump last time and I'm really doubtful they're going to do it now either.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

The wild thing is that it was two very conservative Federalist lawyers who wrote the initial article (based on originalism) putting out the theory that Trump should be disqualified.

Further, the amendment specifically lays out Congress's role: they can, with 2/3rds vote, remove the imposed disqualification disability.

Ezra Klein had a great podcast on this awhile back.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They will rule he wasn't given due process (not convicted of insurrection) and therefore can be on the ballot. It is the most straightforward path.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

But that's clearly not how the 14th Amendment is worded, none of the officers or politicians in the Confederacy were convicted of Insurrection & claiming that the 14th Amendment wasn't supposed to cover that group would be some serious mental acrobatics.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I suspect that the SCOTUS will say the 14th Amendment is unclear and then fall back on the concept of due process. I don't like it, but I do think that is what will happen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

And that will lay bare their partisanship. The 14th Amendment contains some of the plainest language in the entire Constitution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Kinda... It is clear that an insurrectionist can't hold office. But what defines an insurrectionist? Is it a matter of inflammatory speech? Or is it a conviction of insurrection as a crime? Somewhere in the middle? That is where I think they will be hung up - and err on the side of conviction or due process being required to label someone an insurrectionist.

Again, I want to say I am not in agreement with this likely approach. I just think this is how it will play out.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 9 months ago

I highly doubt the supreme court will care about breaking apart the way we think the legal system works. They'll just take another case that would have its handling changed, and declare that 'this particular instance works the old way, but that other one works the new way, (stick fingers in their ears) la la la la'

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They'll probably "punt" it on principal then. We've seen how much they care about the constitution.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Brett Kavanaugh: "Hey, you, hold my beer!"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

beer(s)