this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
578 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2627 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
 

The justices hear arguments next month on whether Trump can be barred from office for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results that culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Colorado voters who say former President Donald Trump should be barred from holding federal office because of his role in the events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol urged the Supreme Court on Friday to kick him off their state's Republican primary ballot.

Trump "intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him," lawyers for the voters said in a new brief.

"By spearheading this attack, Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution," the lawyers wrote.

The case addresses whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars those who have "engaged in insurrection" from holding federal office, applies to Trump.

The court is hearing oral arguments on Feb. 8.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 135 points 10 months ago (6 children)

That only two states disqualified him from being on the ballot is a disgrace. Don't these officials from the other states swear to uphold The Constitution?

[–] BillDaCatt@lemmy.world 53 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Unfortunately, as we have already seen within the Republican party, threats work! If you are a secretary of state right now, you have two choices:

A) upholding Article 14 sec 3 because Trump engaged in an insurrection and is disqualified from ever holding elected office. But by doing so you, your coworkers, and your friends and family will be having to endure constant protests, verbal abuse, and death threats for the foreseeable future
or
B) Not doing that, hoping that he loses again (as he should), and the crazy people mostly leave you alone.

Which one would you pick? The real answer is probably not as easy as simply following the law.
I know which one I hope I would choose, but I can't say for sure I would do it.

edited: because I was not paying enough attention and wrote the wrong job title. (oops)

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 20 points 10 months ago

The only people these hateful Nazi fucks will leave alone are the dead left in unmarked graves.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

It is that simple, because with b), they will never truly leave you alone. With a) there is at least a chance it will get better. The consequences with a) however also include punishing all those people that propped him up and helped, as there are other laws and articles that have been broken and not prosecuted

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

How can you be this ignorant? Different states have different laws, you absolute buffoon. Note that the processes by which Colorado and Maine banned Trump from the ballot were wildly different - and neither one involved the state attorney general. Where the hell did you get the idea that some process involving attorneys general banning people from the ballot was legal in every state?

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 32 points 10 months ago

A lot of them are just waiting for the Supreme Court to do its thing.

[–] Shalaska@programming.dev 23 points 10 months ago

While I agree with you in principle, in practice I feel everyone agreed it really only had to be one state. There was never a chance this didn’t go to the Supreme Court and rather then duplicating the effort everywhere, it will be decided there.

Now if the Supreme Court decides this is in fact up to the states, I would then expect significantly more states to take the steps to remove him knowing their ruling will stand.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Many states like Oregon are waiting for a decision to be made at the federal level for this case so that the country can try to interpret Amendment 14 Section 3 in a uniform way.

On this map, Red is successful case against Trump, turquoise is case pending, light blue is case withdrawn by plaintiff, dark blue is appeal pending, green is case dismissed. 32 states had cases against Trump, all of them going to the Supreme Court for similar reasons would be a big waste of time.

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 7 points 10 months ago

Note that in Minnesota the State Supreme Court specifically stated their ruling applies only to the primary.

Depending on SCOTUS it is entirely possible Trump could be removed from the general election ballot via another lawsuit filed after SCOTUS rules.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 7 points 10 months ago

Primaries are run by the political parties and very few states have a law requiring/allowing their Sec of State to get involved.

[–] Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes, but while I don't think he belongs on a ballot, I can also see the hesitation in hasty action. Whatever precedent is set here will affect generations of political fuckery. It's important to get this right and leave nothing to chance that someone gives him an out. Unfortunately that means long legal investigations and legal proceedings.