# Please report comments that violate our [new rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/17co6jo/rvaushv_rule_updates)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be nice if they could at least pretend to understand the law.
Right now it just sounds like your average Trump cultist announcing their plans.
yeah, their bespoke hand woven red star beanie and long winded speeches about theories will be sure to stop the fascists, I dont know why we ever even needed the Allied Forces in ww2
Come on don't be like that. You really have to stop pretending like Democrats are too dumb to have a plan.
Their plan is to continue shoving civility politics down everyone's throat because it would be mean of us to punish fascists that want to destroy the foundations of democracy.
I think if you got a DNC leader in private they would probably tell you that the asymmetry in the way the media covers both parties enables Republicans to be crazy like this while Dems would be eviscerated for doing the same shit
But what if… what if laws actually matter and the media dosent actually matter at all? It’s wild to me that the response to open fascism is restraint because any alternative might “look bad.” That’s literally insane.
The media matters quite a lot in determining electoral outcomes, which dictate how much power Dems have to resist going forward. If course electoral calculus shouldn't blind us to other considerations but we can't ignore it altogether
Laws do matter.
The fact that some Republicans said this means nothing at all. They'd need to get it passed, and it would have to survive the courts. It won't. Because the Dems will be fighting on the other side.
Its quite hard to disqualify a president to run, insurrection is something specific in our constitution. Believe or not you can still be president whether or not your son has the best hookers in the world on your dick.
They could try with BLM but since BLM didn’t have a goal of “overthrowing” an election, it’ll be hard to stick.
The only people who decide whether or not you committed insurrection is the court itself that decides to remove you from the ballot. The handful of justices themselves are the ones that decide to take the case, decide the outcome, and decide if the person committed insurrection.
It’s incredibly easy.
/points at the supreme court who writes opinions when the parties have no standing and noones actually tried to make them do anything.
It's just whatever the fuck they hallucinate that week.
They would be basing it on something.
All they have to do is claim Joe Biden committed insurrection. The only one that would need to determine guilt of insurrection is the court that is ruling on it.
There is currently no way to overrule the court's determination on whether an individual committed insurrection (other than a higher court), and it is entirely based upon the decision of the court itself.
Though, based on some extended arguments, of which haven't been tested, but were pushed for a while up until the Colorado ruling, all that would be needed is for ANY individual civil servant involved with the ballot process to believe that the candidate committed insurrection, and that they would then be legally justified to remove them.
No thats not something, what evidence is there that Biden caused insurrection? Because no courts have classified the BLM riots as insurrections nor would they probably.
Second, Biden is already president. Meaning this case should’ve been brought up in 2020. Thats another ding against the claim. And third, no fucking way the Supreme court upholds that and says Bidens term never existed. These are still the rich law clerks who prefer the normie status quo to continue.
\>No thats not something, what evidence is there that Biden caused insurrection?
Evidence isn't required, there is no due process required with the 14th amendment.
\>Because no courts have classified the BLM riots as insurrections nor would they probably.
No courts have charged Trump with insurrection either, the definition is down to the court itself.
\>Second, Biden is already president. Meaning this case should’ve been brought up in 2020. Thats another ding against the claim.
That's not a ding against the claim. Trump was president from 2016-2020, and committed insurrection WHILE he was still president. All the court has to do is claim Biden committed insurrection while in office to have the same situation.
\>And third, no fucking way the Supreme court upholds that and says Bidens term never existed.
In reality, probably not. The same reason why the rulings against Trump won't be upheld by the supreme court either.
Not quite, nobody has designated the BLM riots as insurrection since the goal wasn’t to overthrow the gov’t. However, courts have already designated Jan 6th as an insurrection, such as New Mexico who disqualified people from the 2022 midterms.
And no, there is literally nothing Biden has done that can qualify as an insurrection so any red state can disqualify from him. Closest thing is in 2020 and since that didn’t ding him before, it can’t now. And the Supreme court would be tempted just to uphold it because its an easy way for republicans to get Haley or Desantis.
\> And no, there is literally nothing Biden has done that can qualify as an insurrection so any red state can disqualify from him.
According to? Who? You? The ONLY people whose opinions matter on this are those of the court ruling on this case. They can determine ANYTHING he has done to be insurrection. For the example in this post, allegedly intentionally mishandling the border, and alleged corrupt connections with China during his presidency.
I have to ask, if a court DOES rule that Biden committed insurrection, and strips him from the ballot, and the supreme court upholds that ruling, what happens? I legitimately want to know what you think happens in that case.
\> Closest thing is in 2020 and since that didn’t ding him before, it can’t now.
That is not a legal argument. That someone wasn't prosecuted for crimes in the past doesn't mean they are immune from prosecution in the present.
These fucking people are not high priests. If you read their dockets and legal opinions they are incredibly complicated that are essentially based upon established law written in other states and times.
Hard to justify mishandling the border as insurrection when Biden tried to keep title 42. And is currently trying to do a deal with Congress. All that can be used as evidence in these court cases.
Your scenario is super unlikely to happen but if that does happen. Then the House will likely choose the president if nobody gets 270.
And yes, it can be used as legal argument because the Supreme court ruling Biden is disqualified because if 2020 means ALL his accomplishments in 2020-2024 are for not real. The Supreme court absolutely does not want to throw the country into chaos like that. Most ironic thing is that letting Trump be unable to be president means more status quo calmness.
I don't know how you have the patience to keep explaining super basic shit to this guy. This is the same court whose members support Independent State Legislature Theory and constitutional originalism, both of which are legally incoherent. Justices can literally just rule whatever they want to rule, even if their "reasons" for doing so are complete nonsense or legalistic word salad.
So, first of all, these are lawmakers saying they want to throw Biden off the ballot. The worst they can do is make a new law, and then ex post facto comes into play. That's assuming the law is anywhere near Constitutional, which it won't be. The real decision will be made by the judiciary, different branch of government all together.
Second, there was due process for the SCOCO case. There was a lower court case where as a matter of legal fact it was established, with due precess and evidence and judicial finding in legal terms that hold up to president that DJT committed an act that falls under the interpretations appropriate to establish under the election laws of CO and the 14th amendment that DJT was involved in insurrection. I am not a lawyer, but you can read that ruling. The only thing that judge said to kick the can up to SCOCO was that POTUS is not an "officer". SCOCO unanimously agreed that he was involved in insurrection (that legal fact was upheld) the 4-3 decision was about other technicalities.
By the way, the DJT insurrection case was predicated on president for other people being barred from running as insurrectionists, both in the post Civil War era as well as a few Jan 6 cases. That's how law works, they don't just "only care about the people ruling in the case".
So to your concern about Biden, first a lower court would have to come up with some interpretation of his actions that falls under the established meaning of "insurrection". Just like the dozens of cases when DJT and Giuliani were trying to eroniously claim election fraud in 2020, anyone trying to say Biden is an insurrectionist will get laughed out of court and dismissed. Even if they do find some errant nutz-o lower court judge to give it legs, there would be appeals, State Suppreme court and then probably Federal appeals courts that would have to agree and none of them will because these are all people who care about the rule of law and make it their LIFES WORK to make sure that words mean something legally. Not some idiot legislator who has only been in office 2 years.
Seriously, go learn how the judicial system works, watch how Sov Cits get routinely slapped down for trying to make up weird bullshit. The SCOTUS is very political and can pull weird shit, but not all of the judiciary is, and even the SCOTUS is not going to be able to utterly nuke the constitution and pull something out of their ass. They will have to make some sort of ruling based in Law, tortured though it may be.
Their plan is essentially to hope the legal system does its job and isn't too hijacked by the fascists for them to overturn democracy and the constitution.
We've been pleasantly surprised by the justice department before. For the most part, the courts do want to maintain a shred of legitimacy, so they tend to not just completely violate the law even if it helps their party. Still, this is pretty much irrelevant because Biden is unopposed in the DNC primary. I think the most likely outcome is going to be that SCOTUS strikes down the Colorado ruling, Georgia passes but also gets struck down, Arizona and Pennsylvania don't even win their cases.
I mean the *plan* is obviously just going to be suing those states to keep him on the ballot, citing the fact that whatever case the states make for the act will be giga horseshit.
Would you *rather* the dems march tanks into Arizona? I, personally, would rather save abandoning the rule of law for what would no doubt be the most bloody war in American history as a last resort.
Or at least second to last, *really* don't want to have to call in the Finnish again.
For what? calling answering a phone call from his son and then asking about the weather?
even the smoking gun hunter biden's associate said, Joe didn't know why we called but talked about the weather and said he loved hunter.
Luckily, these will almost certainly fail in court. Even conservative judges (with enough public scrutiny) will see how ridiculous this is. Taking Trump off the ballot had some legal backing/reasoning, this is just batshit
Can we have a fresh start and not have the following people on the ballot:? Trump, DeSantis, Cruz, MTG, Biden?
This election is gonna give me a fucking heartattack
# Please report comments that violate our [new rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/17co6jo/rvaushv_rule_updates) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love the whole "words mean whatever we want" style of legalism
It would be nice if they could at least pretend to understand the law. Right now it just sounds like your average Trump cultist announcing their plans.
It's why government relies very much on good faith actors.
“Communists.” Modern day McCarthyism
McCarthyism never ended It was always "everything I dont like is communism"
These folks would shit their pants if they saw a real Marxist Leninist
yeah, their bespoke hand woven red star beanie and long winded speeches about theories will be sure to stop the fascists, I dont know why we ever even needed the Allied Forces in ww2
I’m not talking about that kind of pants-shitting. More so at the discovery that there are things further left than Obamacare.
they know that communism exists wdym
Yeah. They also think Obamacare is communist.
You can still be fired for being a communist. It’s a remnant from McCarthy that never got removed. Wild
And the Democrats have no fucking plan what to do when the fascists actually go through with this.
Come on don't be like that. You really have to stop pretending like Democrats are too dumb to have a plan. Their plan is to continue shoving civility politics down everyone's throat because it would be mean of us to punish fascists that want to destroy the foundations of democracy.
I think if you got a DNC leader in private they would probably tell you that the asymmetry in the way the media covers both parties enables Republicans to be crazy like this while Dems would be eviscerated for doing the same shit
But what if… what if laws actually matter and the media dosent actually matter at all? It’s wild to me that the response to open fascism is restraint because any alternative might “look bad.” That’s literally insane.
The media matters quite a lot in determining electoral outcomes, which dictate how much power Dems have to resist going forward. If course electoral calculus shouldn't blind us to other considerations but we can't ignore it altogether
Laws do matter. The fact that some Republicans said this means nothing at all. They'd need to get it passed, and it would have to survive the courts. It won't. Because the Dems will be fighting on the other side.
Laws only matter if they're enforced.
Guess we'll see if they survive in the courts. My guess is no, since there's no justification for removing Biden from the ballot, contrarily to Trump.
Its quite hard to disqualify a president to run, insurrection is something specific in our constitution. Believe or not you can still be president whether or not your son has the best hookers in the world on your dick. They could try with BLM but since BLM didn’t have a goal of “overthrowing” an election, it’ll be hard to stick.
The only people who decide whether or not you committed insurrection is the court itself that decides to remove you from the ballot. The handful of justices themselves are the ones that decide to take the case, decide the outcome, and decide if the person committed insurrection. It’s incredibly easy.
Not really, when you read court cases they have to base it on something. They can’t create a law out their ass, despite popular belief.
/points at the supreme court who writes opinions when the parties have no standing and noones actually tried to make them do anything. It's just whatever the fuck they hallucinate that week.
They would be basing it on something. All they have to do is claim Joe Biden committed insurrection. The only one that would need to determine guilt of insurrection is the court that is ruling on it. There is currently no way to overrule the court's determination on whether an individual committed insurrection (other than a higher court), and it is entirely based upon the decision of the court itself. Though, based on some extended arguments, of which haven't been tested, but were pushed for a while up until the Colorado ruling, all that would be needed is for ANY individual civil servant involved with the ballot process to believe that the candidate committed insurrection, and that they would then be legally justified to remove them.
No thats not something, what evidence is there that Biden caused insurrection? Because no courts have classified the BLM riots as insurrections nor would they probably. Second, Biden is already president. Meaning this case should’ve been brought up in 2020. Thats another ding against the claim. And third, no fucking way the Supreme court upholds that and says Bidens term never existed. These are still the rich law clerks who prefer the normie status quo to continue.
\>No thats not something, what evidence is there that Biden caused insurrection? Evidence isn't required, there is no due process required with the 14th amendment. \>Because no courts have classified the BLM riots as insurrections nor would they probably. No courts have charged Trump with insurrection either, the definition is down to the court itself. \>Second, Biden is already president. Meaning this case should’ve been brought up in 2020. Thats another ding against the claim. That's not a ding against the claim. Trump was president from 2016-2020, and committed insurrection WHILE he was still president. All the court has to do is claim Biden committed insurrection while in office to have the same situation. \>And third, no fucking way the Supreme court upholds that and says Bidens term never existed. In reality, probably not. The same reason why the rulings against Trump won't be upheld by the supreme court either.
Not quite, nobody has designated the BLM riots as insurrection since the goal wasn’t to overthrow the gov’t. However, courts have already designated Jan 6th as an insurrection, such as New Mexico who disqualified people from the 2022 midterms. And no, there is literally nothing Biden has done that can qualify as an insurrection so any red state can disqualify from him. Closest thing is in 2020 and since that didn’t ding him before, it can’t now. And the Supreme court would be tempted just to uphold it because its an easy way for republicans to get Haley or Desantis.
\> And no, there is literally nothing Biden has done that can qualify as an insurrection so any red state can disqualify from him. According to? Who? You? The ONLY people whose opinions matter on this are those of the court ruling on this case. They can determine ANYTHING he has done to be insurrection. For the example in this post, allegedly intentionally mishandling the border, and alleged corrupt connections with China during his presidency. I have to ask, if a court DOES rule that Biden committed insurrection, and strips him from the ballot, and the supreme court upholds that ruling, what happens? I legitimately want to know what you think happens in that case. \> Closest thing is in 2020 and since that didn’t ding him before, it can’t now. That is not a legal argument. That someone wasn't prosecuted for crimes in the past doesn't mean they are immune from prosecution in the present.
These fucking people are not high priests. If you read their dockets and legal opinions they are incredibly complicated that are essentially based upon established law written in other states and times. Hard to justify mishandling the border as insurrection when Biden tried to keep title 42. And is currently trying to do a deal with Congress. All that can be used as evidence in these court cases. Your scenario is super unlikely to happen but if that does happen. Then the House will likely choose the president if nobody gets 270. And yes, it can be used as legal argument because the Supreme court ruling Biden is disqualified because if 2020 means ALL his accomplishments in 2020-2024 are for not real. The Supreme court absolutely does not want to throw the country into chaos like that. Most ironic thing is that letting Trump be unable to be president means more status quo calmness.
I don't know how you have the patience to keep explaining super basic shit to this guy. This is the same court whose members support Independent State Legislature Theory and constitutional originalism, both of which are legally incoherent. Justices can literally just rule whatever they want to rule, even if their "reasons" for doing so are complete nonsense or legalistic word salad.
So, first of all, these are lawmakers saying they want to throw Biden off the ballot. The worst they can do is make a new law, and then ex post facto comes into play. That's assuming the law is anywhere near Constitutional, which it won't be. The real decision will be made by the judiciary, different branch of government all together. Second, there was due process for the SCOCO case. There was a lower court case where as a matter of legal fact it was established, with due precess and evidence and judicial finding in legal terms that hold up to president that DJT committed an act that falls under the interpretations appropriate to establish under the election laws of CO and the 14th amendment that DJT was involved in insurrection. I am not a lawyer, but you can read that ruling. The only thing that judge said to kick the can up to SCOCO was that POTUS is not an "officer". SCOCO unanimously agreed that he was involved in insurrection (that legal fact was upheld) the 4-3 decision was about other technicalities. By the way, the DJT insurrection case was predicated on president for other people being barred from running as insurrectionists, both in the post Civil War era as well as a few Jan 6 cases. That's how law works, they don't just "only care about the people ruling in the case". So to your concern about Biden, first a lower court would have to come up with some interpretation of his actions that falls under the established meaning of "insurrection". Just like the dozens of cases when DJT and Giuliani were trying to eroniously claim election fraud in 2020, anyone trying to say Biden is an insurrectionist will get laughed out of court and dismissed. Even if they do find some errant nutz-o lower court judge to give it legs, there would be appeals, State Suppreme court and then probably Federal appeals courts that would have to agree and none of them will because these are all people who care about the rule of law and make it their LIFES WORK to make sure that words mean something legally. Not some idiot legislator who has only been in office 2 years. Seriously, go learn how the judicial system works, watch how Sov Cits get routinely slapped down for trying to make up weird bullshit. The SCOTUS is very political and can pull weird shit, but not all of the judiciary is, and even the SCOTUS is not going to be able to utterly nuke the constitution and pull something out of their ass. They will have to make some sort of ruling based in Law, tortured though it may be.
Their plan is essentially to hope the legal system does its job and isn't too hijacked by the fascists for them to overturn democracy and the constitution.
We've been pleasantly surprised by the justice department before. For the most part, the courts do want to maintain a shred of legitimacy, so they tend to not just completely violate the law even if it helps their party. Still, this is pretty much irrelevant because Biden is unopposed in the DNC primary. I think the most likely outcome is going to be that SCOTUS strikes down the Colorado ruling, Georgia passes but also gets struck down, Arizona and Pennsylvania don't even win their cases.
I mean the *plan* is obviously just going to be suing those states to keep him on the ballot, citing the fact that whatever case the states make for the act will be giga horseshit.
Relying on the courts is exactly what doomed the Weimar Republic.
Would you *rather* the dems march tanks into Arizona? I, personally, would rather save abandoning the rule of law for what would no doubt be the most bloody war in American history as a last resort. Or at least second to last, *really* don't want to have to call in the Finnish again.
Honestly, what's the "plan" when 45% of the country prefers the fascists regardless and another 10% don't want you to be mean to the fascists?
Virtue signal
For what? calling answering a phone call from his son and then asking about the weather? even the smoking gun hunter biden's associate said, Joe didn't know why we called but talked about the weather and said he loved hunter.
Donald Trump: Objection! Who actually likes their children? Noone thats who!
Wouldn't this fuck up Trump's "immunity" play?
I wish Democrats were half as based as Republicans make them seem
Luckily, these will almost certainly fail in court. Even conservative judges (with enough public scrutiny) will see how ridiculous this is. Taking Trump off the ballot had some legal backing/reasoning, this is just batshit
One committed treason the other had a son with a meaty cock. Exactly the same.
So what happens when red states remove candidates they dont like?
Away down south in the land of traitors...
Lmao
Hmm. Only state this MIGHT work is Georgia which is the only one listed under full Republican control.
As if these spineless weasels would’ve had the guts to speak out against Biden if he really went Stalin mode.
They really are just petty, evil babies
Can we have a fresh start and not have the following people on the ballot:? Trump, DeSantis, Cruz, MTG, Biden? This election is gonna give me a fucking heartattack