deleted by creator
I just got run out of hexbear because I believe voting for Biden, while shitty, is a form of harm reduction. I got called a genocide supporter and a fascist followed by hours of threats and wishes of harm, including my favorite. An emoji of a location where Nazis were executed by partisans in Yugoslavia.
I’m new to lemmy so just kinda assumed it was a leftist space. I didn’t realize that it’s just red tented Nazis with no actual love for their fellow human beings. Something I consider necessary to being a socialist in any form. That sucked.
deleted by creator
“Block hexbear” is to browsing Lemmy as “use an ad blocker” is to browsing the internet.
deleted by creator
This. Lemmy requires a blocklist. But fortunately it’s easy to make.
Same.
I don’t really understand hexbear. They are leftists that are so left they are Nazis?
I get it, I don’t like voting for Biden, but we live in a two party system where we have to vote for the least evil one.
And despite myself, Biden has passed some of the most progressive legislation ever (at least my lefty podcasts tell me that) So while he was glacially, immorally, slow to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, he has done it and his policies are inarguably more moral than Trumps were and likely will be, should trump win.
They’re fascists LARPing as leftists.
Yeah they’re like how Mao was a communist.
Those who make it to the top after bloody revolution are far more likely to believe in nothing except their own authority and entitlement.
Many of the revolutionaries replaced even more brutal governments but realistically its only ever been where people were fully denied rights that revolutions were successful. Example: its well understood that the british empire ended slavery after a series of slave revolts. Cubans also had less rights than vacationing american mobsters under batista.
Often more developed countries get better mechanisms to resolve disputes: elections, courts, regulations, insurance, strikes, etc.
Its best to use those before pursuing violence.
Oh I agree, I abhor violence and it is my sincere wish that no human anywhere perished in such ways. But I am not a naive enough fool to believe that meaningful change is always bloodless.
Personally I think it will be the coming food riots that really kick things into high gear. And its going to happen sooner than people realize.
They are leftists that are so left they are Nazis?
Tankies are not really leftists. They are conservatives who call themselves leftists. They are engaging in modern propaganda.
One of the standard tactics of fascists is to sew chaos and confusion among any who may resist. A tankie’s primary goal is to create confusion and demotivate progressives.
Not everyone falls for it, but some tankies can be pretty convincing that they really believe their nonsense. Do not be fooled. Tankies are absolutely lying. They are pro-level trolls with a deadly serious goal.
Tankies are not really leftists. They are conservatives who call themselves leftists. They are engaging in modern propaganda.
I wish more people realized this. They are bad faith actors who exist solely to disrupt and recruit. What I find particularly reprehensible about the Hexbear playbook is they appeal to the most disenfranchised part of the LGBTQ+ community and take advantage of their rage by giving them a target…not coincidentally, the same way the public face of the right wing panders to rural white men. Hexbear is queer-friendly and does offer a safe space, but they don’t actually discuss, much fight for the rights of the queer community in any way. They give them anti-west talking points, wind them up, and send them out into the world, but they don’t actually give a shit about their recruits’ queer existence; they’re just a tool to be used. It just sucks to see, for a number of reasons.
Wow. I was completely unaware of Hexbear’s specific flavor of manipulation. Thank you for spelling that out. That is both heart-breaking and frightening.
It also explains some of the bizarre conversations I’ve had with certain tankies. I’m usually not kind to them, but I think I can be both more sensitive and more persuasive with certain LGBTQ+ tankies now that I know some of them may actually be victims of manipulation. So, again, thank you.
Maybe it’s kind of like how if you go far enough west you end up on the East.
They’re Russian trolls, and their minions.
Horseshoe theory. The extremes ends on both sides aren’t identical, but they sure do rhyme
Biden has passed some of the most progressive legislation ever
No, but he has passed some horribly racist bills back when he was involved in passing bills
And yet he was overwhelmingly the favorite pick for Black voters in the 2020 primary.
People change. Context matters – some of those bills were even supported by black community leaders. It obviously didn’t turn out well.
Plus, it matters to some people that he was happily VP under Obama. I personally don’t get it, but to some people being #2 to a black person at #1 meant something.
They’re tankies, some of the most bizarre idiots around.
Unfortunately, Lemmy.ml and a few other still-federated instances are currently infected with tankie mods. Some are a bit covert about it, banning people for clever little twists like “minimizing genocide” if the user calls any current military action a genocide.
Conservatism, including fake progressives like tankies, are a cancer that are long overdue for a cure.
Federation only works if everyone participates in good faith, and has approximately similar codes of conduct.
Blocking instances is not enough.
I always see reports of this behavior from hexbear, but I’ve never been subjected to it, even when disagreeing with the user base there. Though,I am wondering if they just blocked me because I haven’t seen any of their posts in a while, now that I think about it.
I made a snarky comment on a post from a Hexbear Truth-Teller once. The OP replied to me after a few days and thought it was important that I knew they couldn’t see my post from the Hexbear server.
Uh sorry guy, not my concern really since it seems your server is the one blocking me.
This is their classic pincer maneuver employed by the establishment - and it works really well: the left wing candidate is both too left and not left enough.
You see it in every election.
It works so well because they own mainstream media so they can run all narratives at the same time as opinion pieces to hamstrung the left. That’s how the ratchet works also.
deleted by creator
It also works because, simply put, those of us not on the Right have a tendency to disagree with one another on what to support. Now I’m not saying this doesn’t happen in general. Only that we’ll do it even to the point of detriment as we recognize situations and cases we feel need to be supported, instead of just what needs to be attacked, and those can vary widely.
My biggest and most consistent concern every election is whether we can come together in consensus long enough to make a difference. My second concern is whether we can hold that energy long enough to continue pushing for positive change.
I mean you are right, but hopefully we learnt our lesson when we got the current supreme court because Hillary was not pure like Sanders.
So long as we keep in mind that their goal is to split the working class in manageable little pieces we can put our differences aside to come together to at least stop the slide and hopefully take a few steps in the right direction.
That’s why it bears repeating that if you don’t vote for Biden in the General Election, YOU ARE HELPING TRUMP. No “genocide Joe” arguments matter at that point no matter how much you twist your logic, no matter how you WISH things worked with the US general election. These are simple FACTS.
It’s worth doing more than voting. If you’re able, sign up to volunteer and donate. Adopt a close congressional race too; fairly modest travel can get a lot of people to a swing district for the day.
deleted by creator
Can you expand on what it means to “adopt” a congressional race?
It means picking a swing district near you, and then supporting the Democrat with volunteer time and (if you can afford it) money and recruiting others to join you.
Removed by mod
Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.
This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying “Trump did nothing wrong”, this is specifically saying “States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots”, which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.
The SC could come out tomorrow and say “We’re disqualifying Trump”, this doesn’t preclude that.
States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it’s never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.
Now they do not, as outlined by the supreme court this morning. You can disagree with the ruling all you want, but that doesn’t make the premise that “the SC has no problem with insurrectionist behavior!” any less stupid. It’s a fallacious premise.
Consider the fact that there is more than one grounds for disqualification. For president, there are also age and naturalization disqualifications.
Who do you think has been determining those all these years?
You’re getting further and further away from your original, still ridiculous statement that the SCOTUS has no problem with you storming the building.
That is what is known as “sarcasm”. I wasn’t sincerely calling for violence against the Supreme Court, but rather drawing attention to their hypocrisy.
it’s never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.
It’s up to Congress to decide if someone is guilty of federal insurrection, not the states.
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see replies. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
On the contrary, Congress is expressly forbidden from deciding whether someone is guilty of a crime.
IMPEACHMENT has entered the chat.
Impeachment is expressly not a criminal procedure. It can’t result in prison or fines, nor can it can’t be pardoned by the President.
But it is the process by which a candidate can be removed from the ballot.
So if you want to go with Trump is criminally guilty of insurrection, and therefore ineligible to be on the ballot, when and where was the trial?
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see replies. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
Textbook Sealion
There’s no reason a state can’t make that decision. You didn’t even make an argument. Just made a statement.
There’s no reason a state can’t make that decision. You didn’t even make an argument. Just made a statement.
I didn’t need to make an argument because SCOTUS decided that only Congress is the authority for ballot removal per section 5. It made a lot of people mad and down-arrowed facts. The internet Constitutional scholars came out in droves.
Here is the decision that most of them didn’t read PDF warning
States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.
[citation needed]
List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn’t convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020
Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it’s the state, of course.)
Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning?
Only those thrown off the ballot using section 3 of the 14th amendment. Ballot access requirements in general have been before the court many times before and upheld generally, while some have been struck down when excessive or discriminatory.
It’s legal to say something like all candidates must get signatures equal to 3% of the number of voters for the office in the last election in order to be on the ballot. It’s illegal to say something like black candidates must get signatures of 15% of voters.
Funny. Have you read the ruling? They absolutely do not stop at section 3 of the 14th. They are over turning 200 plus years of precedent in which states disqualified ineligible candidates.
They opine that there is no bar to campaigning, just holding office. And that any disqualification must therefore come after the election, via a federal law or congressional framework.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Have you read the ruling? It actually states there was no precedent of its use as applied here, and was in violation of precedents such as prohibitions against congressional term limits. Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.
Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.
Me, I don’t want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that’s what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.
This is all a moot point. Trump simply does not qualify.
It’s just like he was 34.
He cannot hold that office. What the states do is irrelevant.
Trump got due process through the congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.
Nowhere does the Constitution even say due process is needed here.
This is not a punishment. Trump has no right to run for president.
He has to qualify.
He does not qualify.
This is all a moot point.
You’re right, the Supreme Court ruled.
Trump simply does not qualify.
Nine Justices disagreed. Final Answer.
congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.
Meaningless. It has to go to the entire House. And BTW…where is the evidence from that bipartisan panel? O right, it was deleted before the other party took control of the House. Nothing to see here.
You didn’t look at the link, did you? There’s a map that shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in each state. If the federal government was in charge of presidential candidates, wouldn’t all those numbers be the same?
Not if they didn’t file the correct paperwork (on time), pay the necessary fees, and I believe, have enough qualified signatures is each state in which you want to appear on the ballot.
Making the argument that a state can otherwise disqualify because they believe you are guilty of insurrection is now moot. 9-0.
A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional
Tell me you’ve completely forgotten what the Constitution very briefly says about presidential elections without telling me you’ve completely forgotten what it says.
Here’s a refresher: look over Article II, Clauses 2 through 5 of the US Constitution. And as you do this, remember the Tenth Amendment, and that what the Constitution does not specifically reserve to the federal government automatically remains the jurisdiction of the states, barring later changes via judicial review.
The only other mention in the original Constitution of how elections are generally to be held is in Article 1, Section 4, which goes over electing legislators.
As you can see with your own eyes, there’s not a lot there. It really is up to the states, and that’s how the Constitution was written, because the framers wanted to AVOID the centralization of power inherent in monarchies and instead have a federation of states with just enough centralized power to make it hold together.
If you want to continue to insist that an individual state’s disqualification of candidates is itself unconstitutional, then show the rest of us the article, section, or amendment of the Constitution that supports your claim. Thanks.
EDITED to add links and reformat
I’m neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I’ll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.
And they decided 9-0.
States have been doing this for 232 years. It is wild that it’s suddenly now not Constitutional. Especially when the Constitution has this to say on the matter.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So what law is there?
And why the fuck is SCOTUS inserting itself into the electoral process again? It’s not mentioned anywhere in that section for a reason. If SCOTUS can influence elections then they can influence appointments and regulations about them, which makes the entire checks and balance system a dead letter.
They’re going off of the lack of due process and any hope that his crimes will be answered for.
Legally, it’s this but actually it’s that. The court can argue its points, if they survive. Meanwhile has anyone seen the unredacted Mueller report yet? No? No one? Hmm. HOW STRANGE. Legally, the courts are fine with that too, though.
Trump’s process is going to come due, and we’d all prefer it be on live tv.
unredacted Mueller report
I’m still waiting for the Epstein list.
They use procedural reasons all the time. It’s why ballot access is a huge deal to third parties, and they still have to sue some state or another every election.
Abdul Hassan, Colorado, 2012.
And I’m not a genie. I don’t wait here for your every request. The fact that I got back to this inside an hour is a miracle. So maybe less of the “woe is me!” Routine next time?
Abdul Hassan
Guyanese-born, so not a natural born citizen, therefore not otherwise eligible. He sued, citing discrimination, and lost. Try again, this time with a natural born citizen >35 years old.
And “the woe is me routine” is for all the down arrows on this subject that didn’t or couldn’t provide a name.
Buddy. That’s why people get disqualified. They aren’t eligible. You’re asking for something beyond reality.
I’m asking for something that doesn’t exist.
Most recently, it continues to not exist because States can’t disqualify according to SCOTUS.
The Green Party, 2020 election. State supreme Court removed them from the presidential election ballot for errors in paperwork that… Are honestly entirely bureaucratic nightmare to read.
Not the first or last time there have been state based hearings in court to remove candidates especially Green Party. States decide their own ballots all the time. Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election ballot since you can’t be removed by the state.
We should make the ballot 12 pages long with every single vague or minor party enforcing they can’t have their name removed running for any federal position.
Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election
Nah, I’ll just write it in. My wife still likes me, so maybe I can get two votes.
Hey I’m actually trying to have the conversation you apparently wanted. I get you are, I guess, done with that notion.
So I’m just gonna point out this waste of a comment. You’d be better off just ignoring the people who try to legitimately add rather than just adding a wasted joke and delegitimizing your position further.It’s literally moot at this point. Internet lawyers arguing constitutional law when SCOTUS has made a (unanimous decision) on the matter is just people blowing off steam.
If you agree with the decision (I do), trying to change someone’s mind (who doesn’t) is probably not going to happen.
You’ve been reasoned in your disagreement. I appreciate that.
Arguably states unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot is a major paving stone on the road to the civil war, when Lincoln won because of the split pro slave vote the south blew a gasket because it only just hit them then that everyone else had enough electors among them to ignore the south completely.
The idea that we have to let an insurrectionist campaign and win before disqualifying them is far worse. It would instantly lead to massive protests and violence from whichever party had that happen to them. If you want to avoid civil war then denial must happen early if at all.
A lot of the Constitution assumes a level of good faith that just no longer exists among Republicans. Anyway, by my read Colorado can still make it a state law and be totally fine since there would be no conflict, they just can’t use the 14th Amendment.
Ultimately, it’s a stupid decision based on stupid facts, the worst kind. He hasn’t yet been found guilty of insurrection, let alone in that state, so they’re just sort of declaring it’s true via a lesser standard. While it absolutely is true, it’s asinine to use an amendment that otherwise protects fucking criminal due process to then declare in a civil case someone a criminal and disqualify them from office.
That may be true, but the problem is that we really needed the federal government to actually bother to inflict consequences on Trump.
Colorado can’t make the determination of insurrectionest for say North Dakota, and it’s nuts if the eligibility of a president varies state to state. So the federal government has to be responsible for the determination.
Even putting that aside, only three states even tried to declare him insurrectionist. The three states didn’t have even enough sway to influence the Republican race. Even to the extent they did, Republicans already declared they would caucus to sidestep the primary ballot if Trump were banned. In the general election, those states have been true blue for at least 16 years, no Republican was going to get those electoral votes anyway. It was only ever going to be a symbolic gesture even if it could stand, the federal government would have had to disqualify him in states that actually mattered for any meaningful result.
And ND is free to keep him on the ballot. If a state is acting egregiously there is a remedy for that in the certification of electors in early January.
Maybe the actual fix is to make the college of electors real again. We elect not a president but someone we trust to make a decision in that college and possibly become president.
Oh my, could you imagine the disaster of the certification of electors genuinely became contentious? Could you imagine what happens if the electors chose whomever they felt like without the general populace knowing in advance? It would end up being supremely corrupt.
Eh, it’s certainly different. Most likely one of the electors would be president and the electors who supported them would take high ranking appointments in the administration.
It’s not a State Law they’re using to remove him. It’s federal election laws. It’s in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. They even specifically discussed if a President should have an exception and decided it did not. The Supreme Court is choosing NOT to enforce the US Federal Constitution!
On the other hand, I could definitely see a bunch of red-controlled states deciding to remove Biden (or future Dem candidates) for whatever bullshit reason in the future, so while this ruling isn’t necessarily consistent with current practice it at least doesn’t open the door to that.
Except that R’s are already pretty cool with being inconsistent about what is our isn’t allowed, which is how we got certain members of the SC in the first place…
deleted by creator
No justice, no peace.
In this case, I don’t disagree with their decisions and neither did the moderate justices.
This prevents all of the heavily gerrymandered red States from pulling Biden from the ballot as well.
And if they ruled in favor of pulling Trump from the ballot, you can bet your ass that Biden will be gone from every red and swing state ballot too. Possibly more than we would be able to get Trump pulled from.Then we knew it was a sham all along and we march in the streets. Giving a criminal conspiracy what they want because they might conspire is crazy town.
. . . For no reason, being the difference. Right.
The thing is, there being no reason wouldn’t stop them from declaring that they have a reason. They’d abuse the hell out of it. No one is saying there is a justification for disqualifying Biden, just that a lot of GOP folks would do it anyway.
See when they decided they needed some sort of revenge impeachment and impeached without any particular reason.
Sorry, but this is absolutely a victory for democracy and what little structure our government still has. If the states were to be allowed to remove candidates from the ballot, you could kiss any chance of Democrat candidates showing up on red state ballots goodbye.
Except for the part where they punt to Congress as the sole arbiter of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. They absolutely know Congress won’t get off its collective ass to enforce, because it’s too broken to even pass a budget.
deleted by creator
If a person cannot hold an office, they are typically also disqualified from running for said office, for exactly that reason. What would you do if an ineligible person won the election? That would be utter chaos.
Someone explained to me there is a procedure for an elected candidate who is ineligible actually wins the election.
If for any reason the president cannot carry out the duties of the office, it falls to the vice president. So you’d have to just skip the president and swear in his running mate.
It would still be utterly stupid, but surprisingly there is a process to handle the scenario.
They can’t really sue to disqualify him in federal court because Congress hasn’t defined any process to do so. They absolutely could if they wanted though. As of right now if I’m correct the only way to disqualify someone is if they’re convicted of rebellion or insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 as it specifically lists it as part of the punishment. Or Congress could potentially disqualify someone directly by name – it wouldn’t necessarily be an illegal bill of attainder because it carries no criminal penalty.
More than anyone can imagine
That’s a problem with Congress. That doesn’t change the fact that we should not give Republicans a new route to undermine the voting process.
States have always had control over federal elections and candidate qualifications. That’s been fundamental to American federalism since the very beginning.
It’s not like oath-breaking is the only disqualifier, and states decide those too.
Call me old fashioned, but an outgoing president who falsely claims their challenger stole the election and incites their supporters to storm the capitol building should be barred from holding office again, Democrat or Republican.
I absolutely agree. But it’s up to Congress to actually do that. That’s the branch of government that has failed here.
How would they do that? Congress can’t actually charge someone with a crime. That’s why they wrote the 14th Amendment which spelled this out.
States remove candidates routinely. It’s their constitutional right. Except with Trump for some reason.
For some Reason indeed.
Yup. He’s getting special treatment. Again.
Do you have any examples of that? I’m certainly no expert in this subject, so I’d love to know more.
Abdul Hassan, 2012, Colorado. Disqualified by the state for not being a natural born citizen. Sued and lost. The ensuing opinion authored by then district judge Neil Gorsuch upheld the constitutional right and duty of states to bar ineligible candidates.
‘States rights only apply when not direct conflict with conservative views’
- John 22:16
More like states rights only apply when not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They should really have written that down somewhere.
They also probably should’ve put something about how the rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution were not our only rights, and the explicit mention of some rights did not disparage other rights. That way the conservative court wouldn’t have been able to say “we can’t find a right to xyz in the Constitution therefore it isn’t a right”.
If only there was a Ninth Amendment or something, and a way to hold the Court accountable to it.
And you definitely always believe this should be applied consistently?
Yeah
The states explicitly have that determining power according to the constitution, specifically for insurrection.
Fuuuck the Supreme Cowards.
Unanimous? How?
Because the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings, while the conservatives justices all of a sudden forgot that they think these things should be deferred to the states.
Or, alternatively:
The liberals are also part of the problem.
See: the Citizens United ruling.
What are you talking about? Citizens United was a 5-4 decision as to the parts everyone is mad about. The 4 dissents were Ginsberg, Kagan, Stevens, and Sotomayor. The liberals concurred with the conservatives as to a disclosure requirement, which, why wouldn’t they? They dissented as to the rest of the opinion. Unsurprisingly with the benefit of hindsight, the only justice who disagreed with the reporting requirements was Thomas.
If the liberals actually gave a fuck about stopping the blatant corruption of the Court they’d have told Obama his primary responsibility in office was filling Court seats, including RBG’s, and expanding it when they had the chance for the express goal of overturning a bought and paid for decision.
They knew from the moment those five voted yes to Citizens United what they were dealing with, and buried their heads in the sand instead. There is a direct quote from Stevens outright stating “Democracy can not function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”
Instead, they sit and smile at their “colleagues” and murmur quietly about “the reputation of the Court” instead of using their position to call out corruption.
Now, why do you think they aren’t screaming about being in the same room with a travesty like Thomas?
Do you think it’s because they actually respect his legal opinions?
Or are they worried their own finances can’t stand up to scrutiny?
How do you mean the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings?
The conservatives are being very consistent by pursuing their political agenda regardless of states rights or the rights of the electorate.
Did you read the actual ruling?
Yep and they just handwaive it. They assert the other sections are held against the states so this must be too. They also assert that only Congress has enforcement power for it despite nothing in the amendment saying so. It says “Congress shall have power…”, not sole power, not the power. There is no exclusionary language to preclude a state’s normal constitutional right to run it’s elections. Instead this adds Congress to the list of bodies that can enforce this.
The remedy for a state running an improper election is also not the supreme court. It is Congress, as laid out in the Constitution they supposedly are experts at enforcing. And yet they keep giving themselves major powers not in Constitution.
You have the most interesting take that I’ve read: Congress shall also have a way to enforce this and not just the States. I kind of wish you had argued that in front of SCOTUS.
Sometimes I wonder if our constitutional interpretation is so twisted because we’ve been going at for so many years. But getting a new one is going to require decades of catch up work by the Democrats. Republicans have been practicing for a Constitutional Convention and actively seek one.
Yes, why?
They explain in the ruling why it doesn’t make sense in the context of when this law was made to have states decide.
Should a confederate state decide who is eligible to run? No, it should be the federal government
…or so they argue
So we can just ignore the Constitution when the laws are outdated and don’t make sense anymore? Cool. Let’s do gun control.
The Constitution says “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” SCOTUS isn’t ignoring the Constitution for once.
Noteably, SCOTUS doesn’t legislate, nor are they “Congress”. If there is a law saying as much (states can’t control primary ballots), though, sure.
Yeah, SCOTUS can’t remove a candidate for insurrection. The only way is if Congress passes a law describing who is.
Of course not. Not when it suits them.
deleted by creator
Where did I say that we can just ignore the constitution? Hell, I’ve been downvoted to hell on Reddit for suggesting that rights to firearms is restricted for militias…
My comment is on the opinion, not on you.
I couldn’t find a single legitimate reason in that decision to arbitrarily remove the power of the states or the democratic voters to remove a candidate based on very clear strictures in the Constitution, except for the implication that the conservatives would try to use this measure by claiming every valid candidate had somehow committed insurrection.
But conservatives already basically tried to do that with Biden with their “documents” case for more than 2 years now and it didn’t work, they couldn’t make even that relatively insignificant charge stick.
In this case, we have a judgment of a candidate liabile of an insurrection that directly violates the presidential oath of office thay previously took.
Notice I said confederate not conservative
It is hereby noted that 17 hours ago hddsx said confederate not conservative.
Someone give you shit about it?
You ignored the context of the civil war. It wasn’t about liberals or conservatives. It was about the federal government not allowing former confederate states to elect confederates into federal office. In other words, as determined by SCOTUS, this is the constitution explicitly taking power away from states and delegating it to the federal government. Thereby it is NOT a reserved right of the states and the people
Fascism.
Fascists use institutions to secure and entrench power. They are not restricted by them.
The question for those cheering this decision as a win for the rule of law or the institution is: how aware of this are you?
That’s exactly it though - if the court said state judges can enforce laws keeping people off ballots, then you’d have fascists using the courts to secure and entrench power by keeping democrats off the ballot. There’s all sorts of zealots on the state courts, if the Supreme Court said this was legal I have no doubt that at least the AL supreme court would quickly find that Biden is guilty of insurrection against god or something and knock him off the ballot there.
Something as big as keeping a presidential candidate off the ballot can’t be up to the states, because there’s a lot of crazy state governments.
So because we have shit states who race to the bottom means we can’t have states control their elections? Ruling by the lowest common denominator is a a recipe for garbage.
We just had a president calling up state leaders to try and reject the winner of the election.
No one took him up on it, primarily because there was no legal basis to do so.
If a state can remove a nominee before the election even starts, that would NOT be good for us. We’ve seen time and time again how political factions will use any leeway they have to solidify power.
Ideally you’d just challenge a ruling like that and have it thrown out for being meritless and the judge who made it sanctioned. But the supreme court has ruled that judges have absolute immunity for their actions no matter how corrupt, so the best you can do is vote them out of office and then do nothing to them like we’re doing here.
The justice system is more concerned with protecting itself than justice and it’s the supreme court that’s been heading that boat for the last 200 years.
Still that doesn’t make their argument not stupid as hell. They have chances to fix it here and just refuse to admit that there’s a problem.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
A nonsensical ruling.
The section specifically says congress can allow someone to hold office with a 2/3rds vote. How does it make any sense that it also takes specific congressional action to disqualify someone? A simple majority could stop that.
They even noted on a footnote a case where a 2/3rds majority voted to seat a former confederate. Yet they didn’t bother to outline how he was disqualified to start with. It wasn’t congressional action.
And they exceed legal thoughts as the suppose there needs to be uniformity so the president is president for all. History is filled with candidates that didn’t appear on the ballot is some states. Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in some southern states. Like it or not, that is how it works.
And while the majority was rightfully chided for going beyond the question presented, shame on the liberals for ruling to protect their federal power rather than protecting the integrity of elections. I hated the oral arguments where they were all saying it “feels” like a federal question. If you want it to be a federal question, amend the constitution so the feds are in charge of elections. Until then, states have the right to decide who is on their ballot.
What about a motion in congress to exempt Donald Trump under the 14th amendment? If it failed to get 2/3 approval would that defacto mean he is barred from office?
Sorry if that’s a dumb question, I’m not American.
Simple answer: this process could be used to disqualify essentially any candidate.
…And yet it hasn’t been used in 150 years
States should still have full power to tell their own electors who they can and can’t vote for, congress deliberately can’t control that and SCOTUS can’t tell them what rules to use. Ballot access don’t matter if votes for the traitor are void by default.
It’s a shame the Romans didn’t at least have Dip n’ Dots before their republic fell.
It’s a shame for anyone to model themselves after the Romans, to be honest.
Lmao we’re on cruise control to be exactly like their society with a Caesar and collapsing under it’s own weight.
Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.
For those of us who want to read the relevant portions of the 14th Amendment:
Amendment 14, Section 3: Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.Amendment 14, Section 5: Enforcement
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.From https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/#14_S3
EDITED for formatting
What happened to State’s Rights? Oh, they only matter when they didn’t benefit you. Got it.
What happened to upholding the constitution? He is literally barred from office for his crimes, and his legal defence was that he did those crimes but it shouldn’t disbar him (even though it very clearly does).
cue Strum Thurmond spinning in his own grave
It’s so wild that the ‘but the people have democratic rights to choose among candidates’ crowd invoke that argument to make the candidate that’s promised to end democracy and rights one of the options they can vote for
You know, because democracy
And also, he never won on the people’s democratic right to choose among candidates. Hillary did. He won because the president is chosen by the states, not the people. Don’t like it? Abolish the electoral college.
Abolish electoral college is not the answer to these issues. Unless you have a new idea in mind. Electoral college is better than using popular vote. It helps prevent fraud from any one particular state.
How exactly does it prevent fraud?
How so? And does that outweigh the negatives and weaknesses we’ve seen in the electoral college system over the past 2 election cycles?
I was mostly curious those that want to abolish it what their alternative solution is.
Under popular vote, DeSantis is still running and maybe now he gets 63 billion votes from Florida alone. The impact of this fraud (there are not 63 billion ppl voting in Florida) is bigger with no electoral college.
Other countries don’t have EC bc other counties don’t have our state and government structure.
Yall do you. I’m not very political anyway.
Popular vote works pretty well, that’s how we run every other election.
If you didn’t know, the electoral college is a holdover from when slave states wanted to keep political control away from the North, where the population was rapidly growing while the South was falling apart.
Except this assinine system only exists in 'murica, which also happens to be the country where democracy doesn’t work.
Also it occurs to me that there are other factors that disqualify candidates from being president- the bit about being 35 or older means AOC can’t be president right now and the bit about being a natural-born citizen disqualifies Schwarzenegger and isn’t it interesting that the court hasn’t taken up the issue on how that denies voters their democratic rights? I mean, when you want to understand how to apply the constitution as it pertains to who may not serve in office, don’t you want to consider all the disqualifiers and their mechanisms?
If you’re under 35 or foreign-born, it doesn’t take an act of congress to bar you from office, those things are the law and already in the constitution with plain wording. A plain reading of sec 3 of the 14th amendment basically reads as if the authors of the amendment intended it to take an act of congress (with 2/3rds majorities, in both houses) to allow an insurrectionist that previously took an oath of office to serve again, but the court magically inverted that by asserting the only congress could invoke section 3
Nope, this is the court bending over backwards to deliver a political outcome
I thought a president can do anything with full immunity. So Biden could make it so, according to Trump’s own rules.
Does this case not also show that they will infact say he has immunity as well unless Congress impeaches him and the Senate agrees/dismissed the person. Aka the president has immunity to do anything they want so long as one of the legislative departments will not act. Aka, they can be run by fear of death as well unless they can pass the impeachment and dismissal faster than the president can hear about it or act to stop it.
Theoretically wouldn’t it be legal for the president to blow up Congress in session because they couldn’t impeach him for doing so until a new Congress is elected… Which of course cannot happen without them all being scared for their lives. Legal dictatorship. : /
Anyone here watched the video of Saddam and how he rose to power? It’s like a scene from Godfather.
Could that happen here? I’d absolutely hope not. But how many committed people do you need in order to make it happen? How many have to die in order for all others to be cowed?
Giffords didn’t die and it sent an absolute chill.
This ruling was an inevitability. No matter how strong the case, they weren’t going to kick Trump off the ballot. Even if the Court didn’t have a conservative majority, the Court generally doesn’t like being seen as political. This is a polarizing case that asks them to choose between the election proceeding as usual, or being the ones responsible for disqualifying Trump. They may be willing to dive head first into polarizing issues of their choosing, but this wasn’t something they wanted, it was something that they could reasonably ignore. So, forced into ruling on this case, they voted 9-0 to take the easy way out and make an excuse.
The question of total presidential immunity to all prosecution doesn’t cause quite the same problem. Hell, they don’t even need to rule on presidential immunity, they can just rule that there’s no immunity for ex-presidents. It’s the obviously correct answer, and it isn’t really changing the status quo. Ruling that current and former presidents have total immunity would put the Court in a much worse position, setting a massive game changing precedent and bailing Trump out in a way that looks corrupt. This seems especially implausible given the way the lower courts have explored this issue. A ruling in favor of Trump has very clearly been established to be a ruling that gives presidents a license to kill. I would honestly be surprised if we don’t get a 9-0 decision against Trump whenever they get around to deciding the case.
Biden can’t do that because he didn’t win the election. But Trump still can because he is technically the president. But you might say, then he cant run in 2024, right? Well, he’ll just have to change that as president. You’ve gotta think bigger and dumber.
States rights only applies when it benefits the GQP
Naturally
Correct. States simply don’t have this power. The decision was unanimous for a reason.
States rights*
*terms and conditions apply
*terms and conditions apply
Always has been. States have never had free reign to do anything they want. This is one of the things they cannot do.
States already do things like bar felons from voting and only put on 3rd party candidates that meet a certain signature threshold. Or add barriers to voting, like restricting when you can vote and ID laws.
Pretty much how it goes. Laws affect peons: oh well. Laws affect wealthy politicians: off to SCOTUS for them to overturn it!
For anyone wondering if the wording of the Constitution is unclear, this is the provision that constitutionally bars trump from office:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Here is Article 2 section 1, referring to the office of the President of the United States:
“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,…”
Trump engaged in insurrection, violating the oath of office he took. As such, he is constitutionally ineligible to run for office.
Supreme Cowards
What is the text of the last section of Amendment 14?
Why?
There is no “why”. I asked a question.
For no reason? Helpful of you.
My bad. I overestimated the ability of people on this website to infer subtext.
The last section of Amendment 14 explains why the Supreme Court was more or less correct in its interpretation before you edited your original comment.
What I don’t understand about the ruling is that congress has already exercised their power. Donald Trump was impeached by congress in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. The states are only enforcing the law based on the ruling a of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate.
Removal from office takes a supermajority in the Senate, so maybe disqualification via the 14th does as well. That would presumably depend on Senate rules that currently don’t cover it.
A simple majority ought to be sufficient, but it also ought to be sufficient for just about everything, but it’s not.
14th didn’t say that
14th didn’t say it’s up to Congress either. The Supreme Court said that, and now it’s up to Congress to decide what that looks like. The constitution lets the legislative bodies setup their own rules for how a lot of things function.
If the Supes said it without merit then it can be ignored. Ban him from the ballot anyway.
I’m not sure I even disagree with the idea that it needs to be done at the Federal level. If individual states can do it, then Republicans will start declaring that everything they don’t like is an insurrection (as their rhetoric already does on many issues) and remove Democrats from ballots.
Whether that means it has to be the legislature and what that looks like are different questions.
Removed by mod
This was actually a 9-0 decision. Being a cynic is definitely justified by the state of our government, but you should have some ideas what your being cynical about.
States rights!!! Sometimes.
I mean, the whole argument hinges on the fact that the procedures around Section 3 are ambiguous, but clearly since states haven’t tried to do it themselves before, that means they obviously don’t have the authority. So, the precedent exists not because it has actually been set, but because it can be inferred to exist by the fact that it hasn’t been set.
May as well have signed it in crayon, too. OH WAIT THEY DIDN’T SIGN IT
They have done this before tho. Scotus is corrupt and illegitimate.
It doesn’t really make any sense, the SCOTUS expects congress to vote on enforcing laws that they passed 150 years ago every time the issue comes up? Why? They already voted.
Many of there recent ruling use that logic, like the epa one that says the must be hyper specific. Ending the ablity of the government to functio is the core goal of republican party.
This is a bit more than just that, though, it was a 9-0 ruling. There really is no more faith to be had in the court as a whole.
