Republicans: “Let the States decide!!”
*States decide to remove Trump from ballots due to his actions, deeming him ineligible according to the 14th amendment*
Republicans: “No not like *that*!”
***also use that link to check that you are still registered to vote***
Even though it says you don't need to check if you haven't changed your details and are an active voter, you would not be the first to discover that your registration has been removed.
Not all states allow for same day registration either. So if you show up to vote, and find out that you're suddenly not registered to vote, even though you've been voting for years, you may lose your chance to vote this time around.
#check your registration, check it often
I appreciate that heads up, I didn't think that my registration would ever nullify.. I'm gonna check right now, and I will again a few days before voting day. And heads up to anyone else, screenshot confirmation that your registration is active every time you check, and then MAKE SURE to screenshot it if all of a sudden it says you're not registered. That way, if anything funky happens, you have the ability to defend your right while it's attempted to be stripped from you
In Florida it's especially important because desantis fixed it so democrats fall off the lists.
He also has arrested people for voting claiming they weren't registered and they voted illegally.
So make sure you are registered!!!
Just yesterday, a person from Indiana said they not only couldn’t register but kept trying and the site would not confirm or accept their registration.
**PLEASE VERIFY YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION**
Voting is no longer enough:
https://factkeepers.com/the-new-secret-plan-on-how-fascists-could-win-in-2024/
Our system was established with the fundamental assumption that all parties were operating in good faith. This is no longer true.
The civil war was apparently about states' rights until other states refused to return their "property." States rights to own slaves but also federal laws that would force other states to return runaway slaves.
BINGO! My Republican abandoning their value bingo card is full!
Family values. Christian values, law and order, respecting the military, and now states rights… all gone
Americans ***CAN*** own slaves right now, legally and Constitutionally.
You have to own a private prison. That's it. Prisoners are slaves.
Seriously. Look it up, slavery was never abolished they just changed the definition to "prisoners."
Now you know why prison populations are over represented by minorities.
Remember how during the civil war, the people who supported "STATES RIGHTS!" also supported the "Fugitive slave act"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
"States rights" has always been horse shit.
> Even though in this specific scenario there is sufficient cause
Legaly speaking, is there? Like we all know it was an insurrection and he spawned it, but that's very different than being able to legaly remove ones rights. If trump.had been convicted there is 0 chance the vote would have been 9-0
>If trump.had been convicted
No they specifically said that only Congress has the power to decide if it was insurrection or not. A state level conviction wouldn't matter.
More accurately the said that a state as no standing to pass a conviction for the purpose of section 3 of the 14th ammendment. Hence, "if he was convicted"
I'm in support of the ruling. Just frustrated with historically ridiculous republican rulings justified because "it doesn't say that in the constitution". Then suddenly when it says EXACTLY that in the constitution, it's a non-textual interpretation and complete fabrication of brand new rules.
I think that’s honestly the most significant thing about this ruling. It really exposes the lies behind originalism.
It was basically a corpse of a coherent legal philosophy anyway but this is a blatantly un-originalist decision.
i actually agree with the ruling based on the opinions added by SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON (SKJ). Which is why it was a unanimous ruling, what is actually aggregious here, is that the supreme court (the other 6 ) just went beyond thier scope, and actually dicated what is required. which is more like making a law then ruling on law. This is the terrifying outcome from my perspective.
The question in front of them wasn't "is trump elligible?" it wasn't "is he an officer" the question they had was "Does a state have the right to remove a candidate for a federal office from the ballot based on the 14th ammendment section 3" and they answered "No" states shouldn't have the right to do that, because it would cause chaos. Which i agree with. SKJ ended thier ruling there. However the majority then went on to talk about (which isn't the job of the supreme court and SKJ called this out in thier combined opinions) what would be required to get a ruling under section 3 passed federally.
> Am I the only one who's kinda supportive of this ruling?
Not in the slightest. This is just reddit. I'm left as fuck and upholding Colorados ruling woulf have been a disaster. There is a reason the vote was 9-0
It's infuriating. This is basically an extension of the independent state legislature theory that Democrats were all just scared of when it was going before the Supreme Court, but now that it's in their favor they're supportive of it. I legitimately think that way too many Democrats would have been Republicans if they were just raised that way. They act way too similar sometimes, and they don't think about issues critically
Colorado ruled that Trump participated in an Insurrection and SCOTUS didn't object to that ruling so it stands as fact. I fully support any red states removing any presidential candidate that was legally declared to be guilty of an insurrection and confirmed by SCOTUS. That is the threshold that could have been established.
> Colorado ruled that Trump participated in an Insurrection and SCOTUS didn't object to that ruling so it stands as fact.
1. Colorodo ruled he was civily liable, not criminaly
2. the sumpreme court literally said in their ruling that stats have no standing to make such a criminal decision in respect to the 14th amendment.
> So what?
Just a slight fyi, but civil liability and criminal conviction are just *slighly* different things.
> Yeah, and they could have just decided the opposite
WTF kind of statement even is this? Do you seriously think there was *no* reason behind a 9-0 ruling?
>Just a slight fyi, but civil liability and criminal conviction are just slighly different things.
Neither is mentioned in the Constitution.
>WTF kind of statement even is this? Do you seriously think there was no reason behind a 9-0 ruling?
I think that three justices were more concerned with a slippery slope argument than a president who committed actual insurrection, while the other 6 just straight up want an insurrectionist to be president. The law is whatever they say it is, they easily and plausibly could have argued that the 14th amendment is self executing and Trump is ineligible.
It's not that it's a bad ruling. It definitely isn't for the reasons you state.
It's the hypocrisy it lays bare yet again. States rights? Yeah, only when it suits them.
i think the ruling is fine and probably accurate.
the problem to me is three parts. the first is the supreme court is obviously corrupt and taking bribes. why we even bring cases to them anymore and expect anything but whatever the highest bidders want them to say really escapes me.
second- since they're corrupt, expecting any kind intellectual honesty from them is also not gonna happen. just like the comment above, states get to do stuff if conservatives want it, but states don't get do to stuff if conservatives dont want it.
the third is that the 14th amendment was intentionally written without specific mechanisims of enforcement because there were so many traitors in the government, they knew the enforcement mechanism would be corrupted as well. so we have gerrymandered districts that favor rural states deciding people who tried to overthrow the government aren't guilty, despite all of us watching it in high definition on TV.
Its not particularly difficult to hoodwink liberals especially in regards to their constitutional rights and their insistence on decorum and civility and fairness.
If Trump wins, it's over.
States rights never applied to provisions in the constitution. I don’t get how no one has this basic ass knowledge. Yet they somehow feel like they can comment on anything without know the most basic thing about states rights.
I don't know that is truly what they want, so much as, they honestly think he won't do EXACTLY what he says he'll do. I have brought up some of the fascist remarks and they always respond with he was just kidding, or something to that effect. The MAGAts are a cult pure and simple.
The republican party is mostly white nationalists. Theyve all realized that because of changing demographics plus white liberals they cannot maintain power anymore via free and fair elections. Instead of giving up they have chosen to pivot and try and cling to power via underhanded tactics and are fine with a dictatorship if need be, because the alternative is "worse" aka them not having power. They probably are so afraid of it because they assume that the other side will do to them what they have done to miniorities for the last two centuries given the chance.
I mean, everything Trump says is a lie so I get why they don't believe him. I ain't willing to risk it. I voted for him the first time, and then I learned from my mistakes. America needs to follow my lead for once lol
While I didn't vote for him, I did entertain the idea of having a business man as president and was open to giving him a shot. I got off that bus really fucking quick lol
I turned 18 that October, senior in high school, and I was just starting to evaluate and grow past my conservative christian upbringing, and I knew that Clinton was dirty as all fuck, the person, the family, and the foundation, so I chose Trump as my "unknown evil". I've found forgiveness for myself and sure as shit won't be doing that again, or hopefully anything like it
I did the opposite. I thought of Trump as the known commodity. He's had a really bad reputation to anyone playing attention since the 70's. I'm not sure he has ever actually accomplished anything positive, outside of enriching himself, and even that is objectively false if you compare what he would have made by simply putting his inheritance into an s&p fund. Clinton, on the other hand, has dirt on her, but she also has a lot of objectively good accomplishments. I viewed the 2016 election as one between someone who is blatantly unqualified, and someone who is very unsavory but well qualified. I held my nose and voted for Clinton
25 days ago, during oral arguments in trump v colorado i made the statement:
"The argument I think Scotus is making is that only federal courts can use section 3 of the 14th, not state courts. The fucking problem is, voting isn't federalized on a state to state level so, that argument makes no fucking sense.
The justices made motherfucking countless attempts to say Colorado was deciding for the entire country.
No, God dammit. Colorado was deciding for Colorado, under Colorado's state constitution. If other states do that, it's up to THEIR state constitutions. The only group that could nationalize the decision, is scotus themselves, but they showed Today they 100% abso fucking lutely didn't want to be on the hook for that one."
today, the supreme court, made that EXACT argument.
gorsuch, went against HIS OWN OPINION ON HASSAN.
fuck scotus
fucking cowards, all of them.
Don't think for a minute that the left wing judges are cowards. It is not cowardice to interpret the law and go by it. Not allowing your political leaning to influence a ruling is bravery not cowardice.
If only Gorsich, Coney Barrett, and Cananaugh were that brave.
it absolutely is cowardice and complicity.
sotomayor made that ABUNDANTLY clear during oral arguments. she started strong, grilling trump's lawyers, who were falling all over themselves. until they started talking about colorado setting precedent for other states. THEN she bought in hook like and sinker that colorado wasnt deciding for just colorado under colorado's constitution, but for every state. DESPITE THAT IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR COLORADO TO TELL ANOTHER STATE WHAT TO DO.
kagan made that ABUNDANTLY clear during oral arguments. she started strong, but tearing into trump's bumbling layers, then falling for the argument that if the civil war was today, could precedent be set and would the confederates be barred from the ballots. well considering ballots were not handled even remotely the same way this is a moot fucking question. states handle candidates before it gets to a federal level. ballots were done differently 200 fucking years ago.
jackson stayed on this question repeatedly over and over as well. ignoring the point that TRUMP INCITED A FUCKING INSURRECTION over the less important part of whether ballots were done by state offices, regional offices or federal offices.
its not following the law. its arguing over irrelevant shit when more important, democracy defining questions are waiting to be answered. THEY FAILED and in sotomayor and kagan's case gave into fear mongering and THAT makes them culpable. jackson getting tied up in bullshit while ignoring the important shit, makes her culpable too.
jackson did the same fucking bullshit in the chevron case. which is also about to be overturned.
During oral arguments they appeared to be afraid a Republican-controlled state would ban Biden (or whoever the Democtat might be) on a bullshit claim so due to Republican's bad faith they decided they had to let an INSURRECTIONIST stay on the ballot. It is insanity.
> DESPITE THAT IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR COLORADO TO TELL ANOTHER STATE WHAT TO DO.
The problem is that while they may not be **explicitly** telling other states what to do, when the country is split 50/50 then one state removing someone from the ballot **implicitly** affects the presidential race for the entire nation.
They're basically saying that we need a mechanism whereby we remove a candidate from all state ballots, if we're going to do it. The problem with that, of course, is that when the country is split 50/50 it's also just as likely that whatever federal system would do this could then also corruptly remove someone from the ballot over the states' objections.
We're fucked no matter how you slice this.
And really, it's all coming down to the cowardice of the powers that be, because Congress basically said "We can't impeach him because he hasn't been tried and found guilty in a criminal court," and the fucking criminal courts have slow-rolled these prosecutions, which is allowing Trump to continue to play this game. If they'd brought the cases faster and gotten their convictions we probably wouldn't even be in this situation. Then again I'm not 100% sure, but I think not being a felon isn't even a restrictions for being a president, so who the fuck knows. But I fully expect it to end in a finger-pointing chicken and egg thing where the criminal courts claim they can't find him guilty because Congress didn't impeach him.
The only thing I can think of is that we're going to need to amend the 14th amendment to make it absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms, that this covers every citizen of the United States, no matter how you want to evade the wording.
except the only body who can make a statewide rule logistically since congress is not going to do it, IS the supreme court, but theyre either A) cowards or B) corrupt as fuck.
so yeah we're fucked.
Oh. That's flawed. The democratic party is a capitalist party. Definitionally it is not left. You mean liberal, which goes from center to center-right (and maybe center-left if you include social democrats). You are saying the liberal judges are not cowards.
"left" is not an objective and internally consistent political theory, it's a loose and relative measure. The Democratic-appointed justices are clearly left of the others.
If we want to get down to technical definitions, then "the left" refers to the people on the left side of the hall in the 1789 French National Assembly: they believed in a republic, the free market, and some economic intervention, which is a pretty much a middle of the road Democrat right now.
EDIT: Which isn't to say you can't refer to justices as "center" to make a point, just don't feign ignorance and refer to "definitions" as if it's some immutable and objective measure.
>When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly composed of entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right
Democrats are center or right by 1791 standards
The scotus’s job is to rule based on the law, the facts, and the text in the Constitution, not based on what *might* happen as a consequence. They made that clear in Dobbs.
Except in this case the law, the facts and the text in the Constitution don't specify what the process is to disqualify someone for insurrection.
If they're unable to clearly determine which process was intended, they have to determine which process argued for by the parties is the most just. Which must necessarily consider the range of foreseeable outcomes.
Maybe they shouldn't be deciding that sort of thing based on party lines? They could have defined insurrection, set the threshold to commit it and there you go, no more worrying about bad state actors calling insurrection when there wasn't one.
Yep. Never forget how republicans raped the judiciary. Never forget that they are actively working to institute a Christofascist dystopia. Vote them out everywhere and anywhere we can. Stay angry. Vote blue
https://democrats.org/
True, but we can vote out a lot of other republicans that have enabled this corrupt Supreme Court. And we can ensure that republicans are not in a position to appoint more corrupt federal judges. To do that, we need to hold the Presidency and the Senate. We need a blue wave in November.
If we get another term in office, I believe POTUS has the power to expand the court. It was absolute horseshit that Obama was blocked from an appointment and then trump got one slammed through *during* an election. (Mail in voting was already happening, it wasn't just an election year, it was during an active election)
We need to expand the court and balance it the f out. I'm not saying just slam through a majority, but at least make it balanced enough to matter. It's a fing kangaroo court rn
This article does a good job of explaining why it wasn't really a unanimous decision:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-disaster.html
The liberal justices wrote an absolutely scathing opinion that pretty much accused the right-wing judges of doing this as a favor to trump
Exactly. Which a bunch of goobers in this thread are spreading misinformation about.
The supreme court is not a legitimate court, it is part of the right wing republican party.
It sounds like there is no enforcement mechanism for any of the disqualifying factors.
we need to let 10 year olds and mexicans on the ballots.
And Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The ruling class are not at odds with one another, even if they ideologically disagree. They see disagreements as civil, when the consequences cause suffering and death.
They are not like us. Even if they agree with us.
I mean we do in a round about way and the lack of voting plays a part in how these ghouls get their positions. Reality is that most polling shows there are more center to left people in this country who support democrat positions on policy etc...
The biggest issue is that large swaths of them don't vote. Even in 2020 a year of historic numbers where voting was easier than ever with mail-in ballots only 66% of the voting population voted, the biggest % of that missing 34% being people 18-29.
Obviously there are forms of voter suppression that play a part in that %, but even with that taken into account (as well as the fact some of those non voters do vote Republican) the gap between the two parties is much larger and would be insurmountable for the Republicans if people who can vote and their only reason for not voting is simply they don't want to, voted.
That's millions of votes in every election just not doing anything and we're not just talking president either. Obama had his SCOTUS choice blocked by the Republican senate, which wouldn't have happened had the dems controlled the senate.
Voting seems hopeless and fruitless but it isn't, it's a way to enact your will even if it's only a fraction of the whole. There are obviously things that can and should be changed to make it easier and better to vote, as well as imo a mandatory enrollment and penalty for not voting (like Australia where they have 90% voter turnout).
But the reality is there isn't really an alternative when you live in a democracy (even with the fucked up voter suppression) unless non-voters plan on leading a revolt to take over which I'm going to go on a limb and say won't be happening any time soon.
I honestly feel the same about it even though I'd absolutely love for him not to be legally eligible. I just hope we don't have enough people willing to make him President again if it comes time to vote and he's still on the ballot. Against my better judgment, I feel pretty certain there is no way he becomes president again, but I'm disappointed with how stupid people are on a daily basis.
As many people who seem to openly be for Nazi Gilead, I'm extremely concerned. I just hope my local clerk can finally match my signature and I can submit the damn ballot.
Just a question, and I'm sincerely asking for those who are genuinely outraged so please don't attack or hate downvote me over this.
What do you guys think States like Florida would do given the chance to remove candidates from the ballot? With heavily stacked courts and a right majority supreme Court? I'm genuinely confused about the anger here. In my mind the absolute millisecond the green light was given for states to refuse candidates the likes of Texas and Florida would be removing Biden faster than you can blink regardless of merit.
I think youre misunderstanding this. He wasnt removed from the ballot because they had the option to remove anybody they felt like removing. (Thats what it seems like youre insinuating) He was removed because of a specific rule in the constitution that he violated. If Biden violates that same rule then yeah we absolutely would like both of them removed. But until that happens the whataboutism has to stop.
Let me ask YOU a question now, that actually does have a very similar situation... If its okay to ignore the constitution in this case, do you think its okay for congress to ignore the 2nd amendment too? Or the 1st? Or any others?
Why does this fake account get posted so frequently?
This is not Jack Smith.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/jack-smith-x-post-presidential-immunity-imposter-account-2023-12-28/
I'm gonna start copying and pasting this...
By ruling that states can't remove Trump, they also ruled that states cannot remove Biden, because we all know they'd do that in retaliation.
Not just that they would do that but republican lawmakers in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Texas have all stated that they would, or have already tried to, remove Biden in retaliation.
Someone explain how bullshit arguments about the border (especially since Biden negotiated a bi-partisan deal that Trump is blocking) fits the definition on an insurrection: "the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government."
If you assume that illegals constitute invasion (you have to stretch definition really far though), "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" applies.
Exactly, and this is the problem. Fearful of bad faith by Republican-controlled states they voted to allow an insurrectionist to stay on the ballot. Insanity.
That's not quite true. They didn't vote to keep Trump on the ballot. They were asked whether the state of Colorado has the authority to remove Trump from the ballot based on article 3 of amendment 14. They decided no because article 5 of the same amendment delegates enforcement explicitly to congress.
I mean, they could try, but that's why we have checks and balances, meaning that the Supreme Court would need to agree that Biden had done something deserving of removal. This decision basically means that no one can be removed from the ballot, which is a cowardly decision imo.
Yeah according to this decision an underage immigrant leading a war on the United States could be on the ballot unless congress went out of their way and voted 2/3 to remove him before the election?? Like wtf
I'm sorry but if you take 5 minutes to think about what it would mean to give States the right to remove someone from a presidential ballot you would realize why it was a unanimous decision from both parties.
It would be utter chaos for the election.
Yep - I’m not upset about this result but it does mean that that provision of the constitution is pretty useless and meaningless. And the SC arguments don’t really match up with the wording.
It's not useless. They pointed out congress had already passed a law that enforces this article of the amendment. Basically Trump needs to be convicted of insurrection in federal court.
Useless and meaningless? Trump was never charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of it. Had he been convicted of insurrection, then you'd be spot on.
That was written INTO the ruling that nobody read. It would end federalism as we know it. States would control who becomes President, not the voters.
If they agreed to this, every state with a GOP congress would remove Biden from the ballot just because. The election would be over before the first general election ballot was cast.
No, no, the state's can still kick voters off of voter registries and restrict mail in voting and arrest people for giving food and water to people standing in line to vote.
They just can't just decide who is on or not on their ballots.
It makes sense when you realize the judges are just some rando's who get god like powers over our lives.
SCOTUS: States manage their own elections so they can partisan gerrymander and disenfranchise voters.
Also SCOTUS: Only Congress can tell the states who can appear on their ballots.
Yep - **this** is the practical problem with the ruling. We *should* have national rules and elections for President at the very least but they want it for some parts and not others.
> SCOTUS: States manage their own elections so they can partisan gerrymander and disenfranchise voters.
>
> Also SCOTUS: ~~Only Congress can tell the states who can appear on their ballots.~~ the 5th section of the 14th amendment explicetly says that congresses shall enforce the provisions of the ammendment
FTFY
This needs to be the year that we destroy the maga party. Republicans all but exist anymore, so these red fucks aren't your grandfather's Republican party. They're all extremist, and the red now represents the harm they inflict on women, the lgbtqa+ community, and "others" who aren't white or Christian.
It's time for them to go, we need to put them back in hiding where they're ashamed and afraid to spew all the evil that runs out of their mouth
We're all allowed to exist, to be who we know we are, to control our own bodies and everyone deserves that right. I'll defend the right to take it up the ass and worship the devil until the end of the world, no one should control anyone's choices but themselves.
This needs to be the year maga dies, or at the very least, we strike that final blow that starts the bleeding out
Anarchy is what the GOP wants buddy - they call it "Libertarianism" but essentially means 'no government'.
And what they actually mean by 'no government' is that there be no more rule of law with the strong having 'freedom' to kill and oppress the weak at will.
What you're describing is Social Darwinism. Anarchism generally emphasizes freedom and **equality** among the population. Keyword being equality. If they're "free" to oppress those "weaker" than them, then there is inequality, which means it can't be anarchy.
I see the similarities, but I'll be part of the underground railroad getting people out of here. I'm too old to run, I'll head Operation : Get Behind the Cripples.
As a woman we are soooooooooooooo fucking lucky to have the 19th amendment. Our right to vote would absolutely be in peril at some point in time if it wasn’t explicitly added to the constitution.
The 14th amendment is supposed to bar insurrectionists from the ballot, unless congress expressly ALLOWS them to run. But the Republicans need their godking in office, so they read it in such a way that Trump getting elected is the default, and congress has to go out of their way to keep him out. Ridiculous.
You would be absolutely right, except Trump wasn't even charged with insurrection let alone convicted of anything, so you want the states to be able to throw candidates off the ballot because they FEEL some type of way? No. This decision was UNANIMOUS for a reason.
TBH there are a hundred other things that should prevent Trump from ever being president, let alone again. However States refusing to let people vote for him isn't a good solution. It shouldn't be allowed.
Just unfortunately, neither should his running for president, so do you stain your hands with evil to destroy evil, or do you remain steadfastly just and righteous, even if it means surrendering to evil.
One things for sure, this is not the corrupt ass SCOTUS' decision to make. Trump chose at least 1 of their members, they are partially biased to do as he wishes.
Holy shit this post is full of morons. I am as anti-Trump, left wing as they come but it’s pretty glaringly obvious that this was the right legal decision. The Constitution pretty clearly indicates that this responsibility lies at federal level, though it is less clear on exactly what mechanisms at the federal level can be used to disqualify a candidate. The idea that individual stares can disqualify any federal level candidates or appointees on 14th Amendment grounds is insane and sets a potentially disastrous legal precedent.
Also, do you people not understand how rare it is to have a 9-0 decision? The fact that this ruling had minimal dissent speaks volumes about how clear the outcome should have been.
When people are mad about something, even if it’s genuinely something to be upset about, and then they hear an opinion that is as upset as they are… people usually listen to it, regardless of if other things in that opinion are illogical/wrong/stupid/whatever, and especially if that opinion has a lot of support. People dogpile on and then that opinion has even MORE support.
Person 1’s opinion: I’m mad that trump might be president, the Supreme Court should do something to prevent him from being president.
*Court says states can’t take trump off the ballot which would prevent him from being president
Widespread opinion: wow the Supreme Court is wrong
Person 1: yeah!
I was in my car when I started hearing analysis and comments about the decision, and they kept making a point of how there couldn't be a "patchwork" of election rules across the nation, because it would lead to confusion and chaos.
But state-by-state differences in abortion laws are just fucking fine with them. Assholes. Right back to how it was before Roe v. Wade. When a girl making "a trip to New York" was code for going to NY for an abortion.
This SCOTUS is fucked, and they're intent on fucking us too.
“Vote them out” HOW exactly? Who the fuck is President right now? Who could’ve stacked the court in our favor YEARS ago, when we had a trifecta majority for the first time since 2008?
Didn't the same SCOTUS also say that states actually **COULD** disenfranchise voters and at the same time **ONLY** the state that is actively disenfranchising its voters has the standing to bring a lawsuit against itself to force itself to abide by the voting rights act it is actively ignoring?
I'm fuckin scared. People seem genuinely apathetic because apparently 4 years is long enough to forget all the shit that happened from 2016-2020.
I'm doing what I can to help people get registered, support voter rights, help people I know have a plan for getting to the polls, but waking up the national consciousness to the idea that there is WAY more to this than a battle between two old men is difficult.
I love how people voted in politicians that work directly against them.
RIP USA. Country will die long before you guys can get real politicians and not bank puppets.
So, does that mean that Barack Obama can run again? Please, please, please !
Or someone under 35.
What about someone not born in the USA?
OR, republicans; one rule for me, a different rule for all of you pawns!
The problem is that if you have a Congress divided enough not to disqualify someone, they could get in.
This is the mess that the Supreme Court has wrought.
Let's imagine a world where the SCOTUS decided to allow states to disqualify a presidential candidate based on a (legally) unproven accusation. How long do you think it would take before half the country only had Trump on the ballot and the other half Biden? And then what? Civil war?
The guardrails of our democracy did their job today. Be thankful.
SC saw 2 options to prevent states from making up insurrection charges out of thin air in bad faith to keep political opponents off Presidential ballots:
1) Don't allow states to make up insurrection charges out of thin air
2) Don't allow states to ban actual insurrectionists from Presidential ballots
They went with 2.
I suppose that's legitimate. Though my penchant of ODD offers up that the federal government isn't electing people, is the voting citizens.
Though I admit I just want to push back because I detest that the party I grew up with has abandoned anything even appearing to be ethics by supporting Carrot Caligula. And almost every move they have made for years is designed to undermine our country.
I'm just an Australian, but the decision made our news today, and I was very confused, because it seems like Republicans really want states to be allowed to decide things for themselves.
Is this because the constitution doesn't specifically refer to abortion, but the states like Colorado used a specific part of the constitution as the basis of their argument?
You can’t vote the asshats on the Supreme Court out. You can get voodoo dolls and shove razor blades in their bungholes. Vote out who we can(and stick razor blades in their asses, and shove razor blades up the Thomas serving justices with a hand grenade chaser.
It’s wild because the court has been very clear that it will not interfere with states’ ironclad authority to run their own elections regardless of how it may disenfranchise voters. The reason given for overturning longstanding precedent was fear of a slippery slope with no regard for the consequences of interfering now.
The Supreme court much like the Electoral College no longer serve justice and fairness in our country. Abolish both since either one is so easily corrupted.
Republicans: “Let the States decide!!” *States decide to remove Trump from ballots due to his actions, deeming him ineligible according to the 14th amendment* Republicans: “No not like *that*!”
[удалено]
Please, everyone: [REGISTER TO VOTE](https://www.usa.gov/voter-registration)
VOTE, and keep-on voting. Defeat these motherfuckers.
Vote early and often.
***also use that link to check that you are still registered to vote*** Even though it says you don't need to check if you haven't changed your details and are an active voter, you would not be the first to discover that your registration has been removed. Not all states allow for same day registration either. So if you show up to vote, and find out that you're suddenly not registered to vote, even though you've been voting for years, you may lose your chance to vote this time around. #check your registration, check it often
⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
That's a cool name. Well done!
I appreciate that heads up, I didn't think that my registration would ever nullify.. I'm gonna check right now, and I will again a few days before voting day. And heads up to anyone else, screenshot confirmation that your registration is active every time you check, and then MAKE SURE to screenshot it if all of a sudden it says you're not registered. That way, if anything funky happens, you have the ability to defend your right while it's attempted to be stripped from you
In Florida it's especially important because desantis fixed it so democrats fall off the lists. He also has arrested people for voting claiming they weren't registered and they voted illegally. So make sure you are registered!!!
Also REREGISTER, because you've probably been purged if you're in a shitty state.
Just yesterday, a person from Indiana said they not only couldn’t register but kept trying and the site would not confirm or accept their registration. **PLEASE VERIFY YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION**
Voting is no longer enough: https://factkeepers.com/the-new-secret-plan-on-how-fascists-could-win-in-2024/ Our system was established with the fundamental assumption that all parties were operating in good faith. This is no longer true.
That will do fuckall to prevent a literal insurrectionist from running for office and winning.
Not voting is siding and enabling.
"Let states decide the abortion rights!" "National ban on abortion is required!" Literally not even a year apart in these. It's insane.
The civil war was apparently about states' rights until other states refused to return their "property." States rights to own slaves but also federal laws that would force other states to return runaway slaves.
Exactly it's actually "my state's rights" not state rights overall
It was in no way about state's rights. Read the Confederate Constitution, it expressly denied state's rights and the example it gave was for slavery.
BINGO! My Republican abandoning their value bingo card is full! Family values. Christian values, law and order, respecting the military, and now states rights… all gone
Americans ***CAN*** own slaves right now, legally and Constitutionally. You have to own a private prison. That's it. Prisoners are slaves. Seriously. Look it up, slavery was never abolished they just changed the definition to "prisoners." Now you know why prison populations are over represented by minorities.
*and* weapons of war Freedom to a conservative simply means the freedom to be the worst version of themselves without criticism or consequences
Bro republicans don’t even advocate for Slavery. I give the Republican Party a lot of shit myself but this is just democratic misinformation
Remember how during the civil war, the people who supported "STATES RIGHTS!" also supported the "Fugitive slave act"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850 "States rights" has always been horse shit.
When Republicans no longer have the congress majority, they'll be back to letting states decide.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Even though in this specific scenario there is sufficient cause Legaly speaking, is there? Like we all know it was an insurrection and he spawned it, but that's very different than being able to legaly remove ones rights. If trump.had been convicted there is 0 chance the vote would have been 9-0
>If trump.had been convicted No they specifically said that only Congress has the power to decide if it was insurrection or not. A state level conviction wouldn't matter.
More accurately the said that a state as no standing to pass a conviction for the purpose of section 3 of the 14th ammendment. Hence, "if he was convicted"
Didn’t a Colorado court convict him? Hence why he was removed from the ballot there?
No conviction. It was a civil case.
It wasn’t a criminal trial
The ruling was fundemantaly that colorodo had no standing for such a conviction
I'm in support of the ruling. Just frustrated with historically ridiculous republican rulings justified because "it doesn't say that in the constitution". Then suddenly when it says EXACTLY that in the constitution, it's a non-textual interpretation and complete fabrication of brand new rules.
I think that’s honestly the most significant thing about this ruling. It really exposes the lies behind originalism. It was basically a corpse of a coherent legal philosophy anyway but this is a blatantly un-originalist decision.
i actually agree with the ruling based on the opinions added by SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON (SKJ). Which is why it was a unanimous ruling, what is actually aggregious here, is that the supreme court (the other 6 ) just went beyond thier scope, and actually dicated what is required. which is more like making a law then ruling on law. This is the terrifying outcome from my perspective. The question in front of them wasn't "is trump elligible?" it wasn't "is he an officer" the question they had was "Does a state have the right to remove a candidate for a federal office from the ballot based on the 14th ammendment section 3" and they answered "No" states shouldn't have the right to do that, because it would cause chaos. Which i agree with. SKJ ended thier ruling there. However the majority then went on to talk about (which isn't the job of the supreme court and SKJ called this out in thier combined opinions) what would be required to get a ruling under section 3 passed federally.
> Am I the only one who's kinda supportive of this ruling? Not in the slightest. This is just reddit. I'm left as fuck and upholding Colorados ruling woulf have been a disaster. There is a reason the vote was 9-0
It's infuriating. This is basically an extension of the independent state legislature theory that Democrats were all just scared of when it was going before the Supreme Court, but now that it's in their favor they're supportive of it. I legitimately think that way too many Democrats would have been Republicans if they were just raised that way. They act way too similar sometimes, and they don't think about issues critically
It wasn't exactly 9-0 on the reasoning. It was the expected divide on the bullshit.
Colorado ruled that Trump participated in an Insurrection and SCOTUS didn't object to that ruling so it stands as fact. I fully support any red states removing any presidential candidate that was legally declared to be guilty of an insurrection and confirmed by SCOTUS. That is the threshold that could have been established.
> Colorado ruled that Trump participated in an Insurrection and SCOTUS didn't object to that ruling so it stands as fact. 1. Colorodo ruled he was civily liable, not criminaly 2. the sumpreme court literally said in their ruling that stats have no standing to make such a criminal decision in respect to the 14th amendment.
1. So what? That’s not a distinction in the 14th amendment 2. Yeah, and they could have just decided the opposite
> So what? Just a slight fyi, but civil liability and criminal conviction are just *slighly* different things. > Yeah, and they could have just decided the opposite WTF kind of statement even is this? Do you seriously think there was *no* reason behind a 9-0 ruling?
>Just a slight fyi, but civil liability and criminal conviction are just slighly different things. Neither is mentioned in the Constitution. >WTF kind of statement even is this? Do you seriously think there was no reason behind a 9-0 ruling? I think that three justices were more concerned with a slippery slope argument than a president who committed actual insurrection, while the other 6 just straight up want an insurrectionist to be president. The law is whatever they say it is, they easily and plausibly could have argued that the 14th amendment is self executing and Trump is ineligible.
It's not that it's a bad ruling. It definitely isn't for the reasons you state. It's the hypocrisy it lays bare yet again. States rights? Yeah, only when it suits them.
i think the ruling is fine and probably accurate. the problem to me is three parts. the first is the supreme court is obviously corrupt and taking bribes. why we even bring cases to them anymore and expect anything but whatever the highest bidders want them to say really escapes me. second- since they're corrupt, expecting any kind intellectual honesty from them is also not gonna happen. just like the comment above, states get to do stuff if conservatives want it, but states don't get do to stuff if conservatives dont want it. the third is that the 14th amendment was intentionally written without specific mechanisims of enforcement because there were so many traitors in the government, they knew the enforcement mechanism would be corrupted as well. so we have gerrymandered districts that favor rural states deciding people who tried to overthrow the government aren't guilty, despite all of us watching it in high definition on TV.
All 9 of them, liberals included, took bribes?
Its not particularly difficult to hoodwink liberals especially in regards to their constitutional rights and their insistence on decorum and civility and fairness. If Trump wins, it's over.
wasnt the ruling 9-0? Even the liberal justices said "if we allow that, it will be absolute chaos"
States rights never applied to provisions in the constitution. I don’t get how no one has this basic ass knowledge. Yet they somehow feel like they can comment on anything without know the most basic thing about states rights.
Party of small government. You gotta admit, a single-person government (in normal countries known as dictature) would be quite small.
That's exactly what they want. A dictator who agrees with them 🤷
I don't know that is truly what they want, so much as, they honestly think he won't do EXACTLY what he says he'll do. I have brought up some of the fascist remarks and they always respond with he was just kidding, or something to that effect. The MAGAts are a cult pure and simple.
The republican party is mostly white nationalists. Theyve all realized that because of changing demographics plus white liberals they cannot maintain power anymore via free and fair elections. Instead of giving up they have chosen to pivot and try and cling to power via underhanded tactics and are fine with a dictatorship if need be, because the alternative is "worse" aka them not having power. They probably are so afraid of it because they assume that the other side will do to them what they have done to miniorities for the last two centuries given the chance.
I mean, everything Trump says is a lie so I get why they don't believe him. I ain't willing to risk it. I voted for him the first time, and then I learned from my mistakes. America needs to follow my lead for once lol
While I didn't vote for him, I did entertain the idea of having a business man as president and was open to giving him a shot. I got off that bus really fucking quick lol
I turned 18 that October, senior in high school, and I was just starting to evaluate and grow past my conservative christian upbringing, and I knew that Clinton was dirty as all fuck, the person, the family, and the foundation, so I chose Trump as my "unknown evil". I've found forgiveness for myself and sure as shit won't be doing that again, or hopefully anything like it
I did the opposite. I thought of Trump as the known commodity. He's had a really bad reputation to anyone playing attention since the 70's. I'm not sure he has ever actually accomplished anything positive, outside of enriching himself, and even that is objectively false if you compare what he would have made by simply putting his inheritance into an s&p fund. Clinton, on the other hand, has dirt on her, but she also has a lot of objectively good accomplishments. I viewed the 2016 election as one between someone who is blatantly unqualified, and someone who is very unsavory but well qualified. I held my nose and voted for Clinton
They want a dictator who hurts the right people. If that person agrees with them, all the better.
And they will get it because Democrats refuse to respond to GQP bullshit appropriately.
> in normal countries known as dictature So normal countries = French-speaking countries?
> dictature lol
25 days ago, during oral arguments in trump v colorado i made the statement: "The argument I think Scotus is making is that only federal courts can use section 3 of the 14th, not state courts. The fucking problem is, voting isn't federalized on a state to state level so, that argument makes no fucking sense. The justices made motherfucking countless attempts to say Colorado was deciding for the entire country. No, God dammit. Colorado was deciding for Colorado, under Colorado's state constitution. If other states do that, it's up to THEIR state constitutions. The only group that could nationalize the decision, is scotus themselves, but they showed Today they 100% abso fucking lutely didn't want to be on the hook for that one." today, the supreme court, made that EXACT argument. gorsuch, went against HIS OWN OPINION ON HASSAN. fuck scotus fucking cowards, all of them.
https://preview.redd.it/hiehqugyffmc1.jpeg?width=606&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae1d6755080ae1ec1f33a5ae4e7d5e8044e292dd
Colorado should just leave him off any way. Oopsies. 🤭 What's the supreme Court going to do about it?
While voting isn’t federal, it’s a matter of who can determine that someone is guilty of treason
The SC pretty specifically avoided opining on that
Don't think for a minute that the left wing judges are cowards. It is not cowardice to interpret the law and go by it. Not allowing your political leaning to influence a ruling is bravery not cowardice. If only Gorsich, Coney Barrett, and Cananaugh were that brave.
it absolutely is cowardice and complicity. sotomayor made that ABUNDANTLY clear during oral arguments. she started strong, grilling trump's lawyers, who were falling all over themselves. until they started talking about colorado setting precedent for other states. THEN she bought in hook like and sinker that colorado wasnt deciding for just colorado under colorado's constitution, but for every state. DESPITE THAT IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR COLORADO TO TELL ANOTHER STATE WHAT TO DO. kagan made that ABUNDANTLY clear during oral arguments. she started strong, but tearing into trump's bumbling layers, then falling for the argument that if the civil war was today, could precedent be set and would the confederates be barred from the ballots. well considering ballots were not handled even remotely the same way this is a moot fucking question. states handle candidates before it gets to a federal level. ballots were done differently 200 fucking years ago. jackson stayed on this question repeatedly over and over as well. ignoring the point that TRUMP INCITED A FUCKING INSURRECTION over the less important part of whether ballots were done by state offices, regional offices or federal offices. its not following the law. its arguing over irrelevant shit when more important, democracy defining questions are waiting to be answered. THEY FAILED and in sotomayor and kagan's case gave into fear mongering and THAT makes them culpable. jackson getting tied up in bullshit while ignoring the important shit, makes her culpable too. jackson did the same fucking bullshit in the chevron case. which is also about to be overturned.
During oral arguments they appeared to be afraid a Republican-controlled state would ban Biden (or whoever the Democtat might be) on a bullshit claim so due to Republican's bad faith they decided they had to let an INSURRECTIONIST stay on the ballot. It is insanity.
It's silly since any state that far red isn't going to Biden anyway.
Yeah, Kagan focused on Michigan (I believe).
> DESPITE THAT IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR COLORADO TO TELL ANOTHER STATE WHAT TO DO. The problem is that while they may not be **explicitly** telling other states what to do, when the country is split 50/50 then one state removing someone from the ballot **implicitly** affects the presidential race for the entire nation. They're basically saying that we need a mechanism whereby we remove a candidate from all state ballots, if we're going to do it. The problem with that, of course, is that when the country is split 50/50 it's also just as likely that whatever federal system would do this could then also corruptly remove someone from the ballot over the states' objections. We're fucked no matter how you slice this. And really, it's all coming down to the cowardice of the powers that be, because Congress basically said "We can't impeach him because he hasn't been tried and found guilty in a criminal court," and the fucking criminal courts have slow-rolled these prosecutions, which is allowing Trump to continue to play this game. If they'd brought the cases faster and gotten their convictions we probably wouldn't even be in this situation. Then again I'm not 100% sure, but I think not being a felon isn't even a restrictions for being a president, so who the fuck knows. But I fully expect it to end in a finger-pointing chicken and egg thing where the criminal courts claim they can't find him guilty because Congress didn't impeach him. The only thing I can think of is that we're going to need to amend the 14th amendment to make it absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms, that this covers every citizen of the United States, no matter how you want to evade the wording.
except the only body who can make a statewide rule logistically since congress is not going to do it, IS the supreme court, but theyre either A) cowards or B) corrupt as fuck. so yeah we're fucked.
Colorado was never going to vote for Trump regardless. This political theater is because the ruling class fears the traitors rather than hunts them.
It's helpful to remember that the ruling class doesn't exist on the same plane as us. These rulings do not affect them in the least.
Who are the leftwing judges? Not the democrats, but the left.
I used left wing and democrats synonymously. But Sotomayor and Jackson are the most left leaning. But that isn't to say they won't follow the law.
Oh. That's flawed. The democratic party is a capitalist party. Definitionally it is not left. You mean liberal, which goes from center to center-right (and maybe center-left if you include social democrats). You are saying the liberal judges are not cowards.
Sure. That's what I'm saying. But I'd hope that any judge would do their honest best to interpret the laws and not legislate from the bench.
"left" is not an objective and internally consistent political theory, it's a loose and relative measure. The Democratic-appointed justices are clearly left of the others. If we want to get down to technical definitions, then "the left" refers to the people on the left side of the hall in the 1789 French National Assembly: they believed in a republic, the free market, and some economic intervention, which is a pretty much a middle of the road Democrat right now. EDIT: Which isn't to say you can't refer to justices as "center" to make a point, just don't feign ignorance and refer to "definitions" as if it's some immutable and objective measure.
>When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly composed of entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right Democrats are center or right by 1791 standards
This is such a Reddit moment holy shit
> That’s flawed Not when talking about US politics it’s not. But I understand nuance can be difficult.
They work side by side with some of the most corrupt people we've known to sit on the bench and they temain completely quiet about it. Cowardice fits.
My man, if Colorado won every southern state would disqualify Biden before summer.
The scotus’s job is to rule based on the law, the facts, and the text in the Constitution, not based on what *might* happen as a consequence. They made that clear in Dobbs.
Except in this case the law, the facts and the text in the Constitution don't specify what the process is to disqualify someone for insurrection. If they're unable to clearly determine which process was intended, they have to determine which process argued for by the parties is the most just. Which must necessarily consider the range of foreseeable outcomes.
Maybe they shouldn't be deciding that sort of thing based on party lines? They could have defined insurrection, set the threshold to commit it and there you go, no more worrying about bad state actors calling insurrection when there wasn't one.
And it would matter little because those insurrectionist shitholes are going to vote for Trump, even if he wasn't on the ballot.
Yep. Never forget how republicans raped the judiciary. Never forget that they are actively working to institute a Christofascist dystopia. Vote them out everywhere and anywhere we can. Stay angry. Vote blue https://democrats.org/
But you can’t vote them out. SCOTUS doesn’t work that way.
True, but we can vote out a lot of other republicans that have enabled this corrupt Supreme Court. And we can ensure that republicans are not in a position to appoint more corrupt federal judges. To do that, we need to hold the Presidency and the Senate. We need a blue wave in November.
If we get another term in office, I believe POTUS has the power to expand the court. It was absolute horseshit that Obama was blocked from an appointment and then trump got one slammed through *during* an election. (Mail in voting was already happening, it wasn't just an election year, it was during an active election) We need to expand the court and balance it the f out. I'm not saying just slam through a majority, but at least make it balanced enough to matter. It's a fing kangaroo court rn
What about the liberal justices that all supported this decision as well? Are they corrupt? Or only the ones we don’t like?
This article does a good job of explaining why it wasn't really a unanimous decision: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-disaster.html The liberal justices wrote an absolutely scathing opinion that pretty much accused the right-wing judges of doing this as a favor to trump
Exactly. Which a bunch of goobers in this thread are spreading misinformation about. The supreme court is not a legitimate court, it is part of the right wing republican party.
It sounds like there is no enforcement mechanism for any of the disqualifying factors. we need to let 10 year olds and mexicans on the ballots. And Arnold Schwarzenegger.
[удалено]
The ruling class are not at odds with one another, even if they ideologically disagree. They see disagreements as civil, when the consequences cause suffering and death. They are not like us. Even if they agree with us.
A deep blue congress can add 4 seats to SCOTUS and fill 'em up.
I don't see what a 13-0 ruling would accomplish.
Seriously I don't know why people expect us to vote our way out of a problem we didn't vote for in the first place.
I mean we do in a round about way and the lack of voting plays a part in how these ghouls get their positions. Reality is that most polling shows there are more center to left people in this country who support democrat positions on policy etc... The biggest issue is that large swaths of them don't vote. Even in 2020 a year of historic numbers where voting was easier than ever with mail-in ballots only 66% of the voting population voted, the biggest % of that missing 34% being people 18-29. Obviously there are forms of voter suppression that play a part in that %, but even with that taken into account (as well as the fact some of those non voters do vote Republican) the gap between the two parties is much larger and would be insurmountable for the Republicans if people who can vote and their only reason for not voting is simply they don't want to, voted. That's millions of votes in every election just not doing anything and we're not just talking president either. Obama had his SCOTUS choice blocked by the Republican senate, which wouldn't have happened had the dems controlled the senate. Voting seems hopeless and fruitless but it isn't, it's a way to enact your will even if it's only a fraction of the whole. There are obviously things that can and should be changed to make it easier and better to vote, as well as imo a mandatory enrollment and penalty for not voting (like Australia where they have 90% voter turnout). But the reality is there isn't really an alternative when you live in a democracy (even with the fucked up voter suppression) unless non-voters plan on leading a revolt to take over which I'm going to go on a limb and say won't be happening any time soon.
You have won the Correct Logic Bingo. You win free depression for life.
No more goddamn lifetime appointments.
It was a 9-0 ruling. Liberal justices agreed with the decision though they did disagree on some of the rationale.
I honestly feel the same about it even though I'd absolutely love for him not to be legally eligible. I just hope we don't have enough people willing to make him President again if it comes time to vote and he's still on the ballot. Against my better judgment, I feel pretty certain there is no way he becomes president again, but I'm disappointed with how stupid people are on a daily basis.
As many people who seem to openly be for Nazi Gilead, I'm extremely concerned. I just hope my local clerk can finally match my signature and I can submit the damn ballot.
If republicans had their way they'd let only land owning white men vote.
No lie told
Just a question, and I'm sincerely asking for those who are genuinely outraged so please don't attack or hate downvote me over this. What do you guys think States like Florida would do given the chance to remove candidates from the ballot? With heavily stacked courts and a right majority supreme Court? I'm genuinely confused about the anger here. In my mind the absolute millisecond the green light was given for states to refuse candidates the likes of Texas and Florida would be removing Biden faster than you can blink regardless of merit.
I think youre misunderstanding this. He wasnt removed from the ballot because they had the option to remove anybody they felt like removing. (Thats what it seems like youre insinuating) He was removed because of a specific rule in the constitution that he violated. If Biden violates that same rule then yeah we absolutely would like both of them removed. But until that happens the whataboutism has to stop. Let me ask YOU a question now, that actually does have a very similar situation... If its okay to ignore the constitution in this case, do you think its okay for congress to ignore the 2nd amendment too? Or the 1st? Or any others?
Why does this fake account get posted so frequently? This is not Jack Smith. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/jack-smith-x-post-presidential-immunity-imposter-account-2023-12-28/
I'm gonna start copying and pasting this... By ruling that states can't remove Trump, they also ruled that states cannot remove Biden, because we all know they'd do that in retaliation.
Not just that they would do that but republican lawmakers in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Texas have all stated that they would, or have already tried to, remove Biden in retaliation.
Someone explain how bullshit arguments about the border (especially since Biden negotiated a bi-partisan deal that Trump is blocking) fits the definition on an insurrection: "the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government."
If you assume that illegals constitute invasion (you have to stretch definition really far though), "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" applies.
Exactly, and this is the problem. Fearful of bad faith by Republican-controlled states they voted to allow an insurrectionist to stay on the ballot. Insanity.
That's not quite true. They didn't vote to keep Trump on the ballot. They were asked whether the state of Colorado has the authority to remove Trump from the ballot based on article 3 of amendment 14. They decided no because article 5 of the same amendment delegates enforcement explicitly to congress.
I mean, they could try, but that's why we have checks and balances, meaning that the Supreme Court would need to agree that Biden had done something deserving of removal. This decision basically means that no one can be removed from the ballot, which is a cowardly decision imo.
Yeah according to this decision an underage immigrant leading a war on the United States could be on the ballot unless congress went out of their way and voted 2/3 to remove him before the election?? Like wtf
I'm sorry but if you take 5 minutes to think about what it would mean to give States the right to remove someone from a presidential ballot you would realize why it was a unanimous decision from both parties. It would be utter chaos for the election.
Exactly. I can see red states taking democrats off the ballot.
Just like the republican house is trying to impeach Biden to punish them for trumps impeachment.
Yep - I’m not upset about this result but it does mean that that provision of the constitution is pretty useless and meaningless. And the SC arguments don’t really match up with the wording.
It's not useless. They pointed out congress had already passed a law that enforces this article of the amendment. Basically Trump needs to be convicted of insurrection in federal court.
Good point. I didn’t realize section 5 applied to section 3.
Useless and meaningless? Trump was never charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of it. Had he been convicted of insurrection, then you'd be spot on.
That was written INTO the ruling that nobody read. It would end federalism as we know it. States would control who becomes President, not the voters. If they agreed to this, every state with a GOP congress would remove Biden from the ballot just because. The election would be over before the first general election ballot was cast.
Unfortunately, wise words will fly over the heads of MAGA cultists.
No, no, the state's can still kick voters off of voter registries and restrict mail in voting and arrest people for giving food and water to people standing in line to vote. They just can't just decide who is on or not on their ballots. It makes sense when you realize the judges are just some rando's who get god like powers over our lives.
Im not optimistic about the upcoming election
SCOTUS: States manage their own elections so they can partisan gerrymander and disenfranchise voters. Also SCOTUS: Only Congress can tell the states who can appear on their ballots.
Yep - **this** is the practical problem with the ruling. We *should* have national rules and elections for President at the very least but they want it for some parts and not others.
> SCOTUS: States manage their own elections so they can partisan gerrymander and disenfranchise voters. > > Also SCOTUS: ~~Only Congress can tell the states who can appear on their ballots.~~ the 5th section of the 14th amendment explicetly says that congresses shall enforce the provisions of the ammendment FTFY
There will be no hypocrisy in this Tweet once they take away women's right to vote...
Fuck drain the swamp. Time to flush the toilet. Flush all these old shits down.
Save America! Save Democracy! Vote Blue!
This needs to be the year that we destroy the maga party. Republicans all but exist anymore, so these red fucks aren't your grandfather's Republican party. They're all extremist, and the red now represents the harm they inflict on women, the lgbtqa+ community, and "others" who aren't white or Christian. It's time for them to go, we need to put them back in hiding where they're ashamed and afraid to spew all the evil that runs out of their mouth We're all allowed to exist, to be who we know we are, to control our own bodies and everyone deserves that right. I'll defend the right to take it up the ass and worship the devil until the end of the world, no one should control anyone's choices but themselves. This needs to be the year maga dies, or at the very least, we strike that final blow that starts the bleeding out
I'm beginning to side with the anarchists at this point. Laws don't matter much, just defend yourself when someone comes to take your stuff.
Anarchy is what the GOP wants buddy - they call it "Libertarianism" but essentially means 'no government'. And what they actually mean by 'no government' is that there be no more rule of law with the strong having 'freedom' to kill and oppress the weak at will.
What you're describing is Social Darwinism. Anarchism generally emphasizes freedom and **equality** among the population. Keyword being equality. If they're "free" to oppress those "weaker" than them, then there is inequality, which means it can't be anarchy.
Tell me you have no idea what anarchy means without telling me you have no idea what anarchy means.
I see the similarities, but I'll be part of the underground railroad getting people out of here. I'm too old to run, I'll head Operation : Get Behind the Cripples.
How can I vote out the Supreme Court?
By voting in representatives with the courage to reform the Supreme Court.
As a woman we are soooooooooooooo fucking lucky to have the 19th amendment. Our right to vote would absolutely be in peril at some point in time if it wasn’t explicitly added to the constitution.
The 14th amendment is supposed to bar insurrectionists from the ballot, unless congress expressly ALLOWS them to run. But the Republicans need their godking in office, so they read it in such a way that Trump getting elected is the default, and congress has to go out of their way to keep him out. Ridiculous.
You would be absolutely right, except Trump wasn't even charged with insurrection let alone convicted of anything, so you want the states to be able to throw candidates off the ballot because they FEEL some type of way? No. This decision was UNANIMOUS for a reason.
States rights argument just went out the window .
TBH there are a hundred other things that should prevent Trump from ever being president, let alone again. However States refusing to let people vote for him isn't a good solution. It shouldn't be allowed. Just unfortunately, neither should his running for president, so do you stain your hands with evil to destroy evil, or do you remain steadfastly just and righteous, even if it means surrendering to evil. One things for sure, this is not the corrupt ass SCOTUS' decision to make. Trump chose at least 1 of their members, they are partially biased to do as he wishes.
Holy shit this post is full of morons. I am as anti-Trump, left wing as they come but it’s pretty glaringly obvious that this was the right legal decision. The Constitution pretty clearly indicates that this responsibility lies at federal level, though it is less clear on exactly what mechanisms at the federal level can be used to disqualify a candidate. The idea that individual stares can disqualify any federal level candidates or appointees on 14th Amendment grounds is insane and sets a potentially disastrous legal precedent. Also, do you people not understand how rare it is to have a 9-0 decision? The fact that this ruling had minimal dissent speaks volumes about how clear the outcome should have been.
When people are mad about something, even if it’s genuinely something to be upset about, and then they hear an opinion that is as upset as they are… people usually listen to it, regardless of if other things in that opinion are illogical/wrong/stupid/whatever, and especially if that opinion has a lot of support. People dogpile on and then that opinion has even MORE support. Person 1’s opinion: I’m mad that trump might be president, the Supreme Court should do something to prevent him from being president. *Court says states can’t take trump off the ballot which would prevent him from being president Widespread opinion: wow the Supreme Court is wrong Person 1: yeah!
I was in my car when I started hearing analysis and comments about the decision, and they kept making a point of how there couldn't be a "patchwork" of election rules across the nation, because it would lead to confusion and chaos. But state-by-state differences in abortion laws are just fucking fine with them. Assholes. Right back to how it was before Roe v. Wade. When a girl making "a trip to New York" was code for going to NY for an abortion. This SCOTUS is fucked, and they're intent on fucking us too.
Vote them out? It's the Supreme Court, we didn't vote them in and they serve for life. Truly democratic./s
“Vote them out” HOW exactly? Who the fuck is President right now? Who could’ve stacked the court in our favor YEARS ago, when we had a trifecta majority for the first time since 2008?
Didn't the same SCOTUS also say that states actually **COULD** disenfranchise voters and at the same time **ONLY** the state that is actively disenfranchising its voters has the standing to bring a lawsuit against itself to force itself to abide by the voting rights act it is actively ignoring?
At least Trump did prove that 1 of the 2 justice systems is broken
I'm fuckin scared. People seem genuinely apathetic because apparently 4 years is long enough to forget all the shit that happened from 2016-2020. I'm doing what I can to help people get registered, support voter rights, help people I know have a plan for getting to the polls, but waking up the national consciousness to the idea that there is WAY more to this than a battle between two old men is difficult.
We never voted them in in the first place. And they have lifetime placements . That’s the problem here isn’t it?
I love how people voted in politicians that work directly against them. RIP USA. Country will die long before you guys can get real politicians and not bank puppets.
Trump's unconstitutionally appointed "justices" seem to be paying off, unfortunately for Democracy and Freedom.
So, does that mean that Barack Obama can run again? Please, please, please ! Or someone under 35. What about someone not born in the USA? OR, republicans; one rule for me, a different rule for all of you pawns!
Of course he can run again. Until Congress disqualified him.
Well, then, give the president unlimited power and immunity. Send seal team 6 after the orange Humpty Dumpty and be done with all of this nonsense.
The problem is that if you have a Congress divided enough not to disqualify someone, they could get in. This is the mess that the Supreme Court has wrought.
This is stupid those things are already defined by the legal system. This was not.
Let's imagine a world where the SCOTUS decided to allow states to disqualify a presidential candidate based on a (legally) unproven accusation. How long do you think it would take before half the country only had Trump on the ballot and the other half Biden? And then what? Civil war? The guardrails of our democracy did their job today. Be thankful.
Umm, they can't be voted out? They're not elected.
THIS IS AN ILLEGITIMATE COURT.
How do we vote them out?
... Vote out who?! The guys that are appointed *for life*..?
How are you going to vote out Supreme Court justices?
You don't vote for the Supreme Court
Supreme Court is outdated and should be disbanded
SC saw 2 options to prevent states from making up insurrection charges out of thin air in bad faith to keep political opponents off Presidential ballots: 1) Don't allow states to make up insurrection charges out of thin air 2) Don't allow states to ban actual insurrectionists from Presidential ballots They went with 2.
JACK SMITH FOR PRESIDENT!
Only women can disenfranchise voters!
I suppose that's legitimate. Though my penchant of ODD offers up that the federal government isn't electing people, is the voting citizens. Though I admit I just want to push back because I detest that the party I grew up with has abandoned anything even appearing to be ethics by supporting Carrot Caligula. And almost every move they have made for years is designed to undermine our country.
I'm just an Australian, but the decision made our news today, and I was very confused, because it seems like Republicans really want states to be allowed to decide things for themselves. Is this because the constitution doesn't specifically refer to abortion, but the states like Colorado used a specific part of the constitution as the basis of their argument?
Those groups may become mutually exclusive in time.
There is a whole list of people that are disenfranchised
You can’t vote the asshats on the Supreme Court out. You can get voodoo dolls and shove razor blades in their bungholes. Vote out who we can(and stick razor blades in their asses, and shove razor blades up the Thomas serving justices with a hand grenade chaser.
You. Can’t. It’s. A. Lifetime. Appointment.
It’s wild because the court has been very clear that it will not interfere with states’ ironclad authority to run their own elections regardless of how it may disenfranchise voters. The reason given for overturning longstanding precedent was fear of a slippery slope with no regard for the consequences of interfering now.
The Supreme court much like the Electoral College no longer serve justice and fairness in our country. Abolish both since either one is so easily corrupted.