News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
So which will SCOTUS rule:
A. January 6 wasn't really an insurrection;
B. Trump didn't participate;
C. The 14th Amendment doesn't really mean what the plain words of it say it means
?
My bet is C
SCOTUS refused to entertain Trump's election lie. Don't be so certain they will be friendly to him this time. I hate the current SCOTUS, but they can surprise you sometimes.
It's also not like he can retaliate in any way (other than trying to provoke his supporters into acting). They are set up for life, and can continue to influence the country for years to come with or without him. They may choose to let him drown.
Exactly. They are in no way beholden to him. And even their pet issue of abortion has been taken care of, so they've paid their dues. Now they can do whatever they feel like.
Sure he can, why don't you think he can?
He's been shown to indirectly threaten judges, juror, investigators, and witnesses. By turning the hate and violence of his supporters their way. He doesn't have to personally do anything, there will always be a sympathizer willing to lay down their own life and well-being for his political cause, that's how fascism works.
He very much can retaliate. And has a rich history of it at this point.
Another way that retaliations can be had is with a corrupt Supreme Court who are influenced by external parties by way of wealth or influence. In which case sources of wealth can be pulled or affected.
Good thing we don't have any Supreme Court members on dubious grounds related to ill-gotten gains...
Ill wait until all the ~~opinions~~ bribes are cast
Thomas almost feels like he has an obligation to something other than his wallet, so he's slowed down on the radically unpopular rulings.
The only certainty is that Roberts and the liberal judges would definitely not be onboard with ignoring the 14th. Kavanagh probably, Thomas all but certainly.
We can definitely hope. But it's really going to come down to how well the individuals are owned.
If this were just a panel of supreme Court justices voting along their biases, It's anybody's guess what they could do. But they're not exactly impartial and lots of people have lots of dirt against them then gobs and gobs of political power.
Qualifications for being President is a constutional issue.
Disqualifiers you mean... But it's still debatable... Especially since, as previously said, states are in charge of how they run elections.
Unlike other republicans who are at the whim of trump, the Supreme Court can’t really be touched and don’t have to bow down to him while still being shitty republicans.
I dunno. The consequence of an unfavorable ruling is that the bribes stop.
Nah that's the thing. Trump can kick rocks and there'll still be plenty of "donors" who just so happen to have cases coming up.
They will probably pass it back to the states. It's not like the blue states were going to vote for Trump anyways, and the "unfairness" of it will probably boost him in purple and red states.
If you want chaos, this would be the best bet.
It’s extremely risky for him. It looks like this was brought by citizens. Citizens in purple states could also bring it and get the same result. Some might say yes, some say no, but if enough say no name on ballot, he has no path to victory.
Would the republicans implode, choose among the trash candidates they currently have in the debates, or would someone new step up?
The Supreme Court doesn't really have any say in how states run their elections. That's the only wrinkle I see on this. If they tried to dictate state elections, states could just ignore it.
The question is if Trump qualifies to be president per the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The states don't decide that, SCOTUS does.
The constitution is pretty clearly written on this one. Any decision otherwise than to bar Trump from running is playing fuckery politics.
You and I might find it clear, but we are not SCOTUS.
They are indeed exceptionally good at manufacturing ambiguity where none exists.
Going with C. Without explicit language to the president, they will need to interpret this to mean the president included, which may be up to anyone’s interpretation.
I feel it should, however it could be argued it doesn’t.
It cannot be argued in good faith. Talking about the presidency as an office has been a thing forever, and therefore the president is an officer. He's also an officer just by the plain meaning of the word officer. I never heard one peep to the contrary until people started looking for a way for Trump to weasel his way out of the 14th amendment.
It’s all up to interpretation though, you might not see it, or you might have heard it in a way, but it can be argued. Similar to the lower court judge saying so.
Similarly one of the judge points out in the dissenting opinion there is no conviction of insurrection.
So I still think C will win, but A or B is a possibility too.
Source
I see it just fine. I reject it as a bad faith argument. Any judge who entertains it is showing how corrupt they are.
Pointing to a lack of a conviction, OTOH, is at least a reasonable argument not based on pretending not to understand what words mean.
Yea fair enough. Just a different set of eyes is all. Thanks for the response!
The lack of conviction is prolly the biggest hurdle here which makes me wonder who would, or even could, bring those charges (even if the lower court explicitly stated he did). Jack smith has his hands full and while interesting to follow it’s not a direct case of questioning insurrection. Curious as to where it all leads.
End of the day, it starts to ask the question, which prolly ends at the Supreme Court no matter what.
Trump wss just committed to the continuity of government at all costs. Including the republic itself.
(That is the likely argument)
The 14th amendment also guarantees the right to seek medical treatment. Yet women are denied this right.
The 14th amendment does not guarantee any sort of right to any specific healthcare.
If it did, one assumes abortion proponents would have used that language in lieu of privacy as in Roe v Wade
It's not the right to healthcare. It's the right to seek healthcare. Ie, they can't deprive you of life or liberty without charging you. Restricting you from seeking healthcare deprives you of both.
They used whichever they thought was more likely to get through SCOTUS.
This does not stand up to constitutional muster, is my point. The argument is that the government has a right to prevent certain things that could be healthcare, and that does hold water constitutionally.
Like, I love your energy here but this is not the way to guarantee abortion/reproductive care access
Literally anythng that keeps him on the ballot is my guess.
or maybe that he hasnt been convicted yet of it
That would be "B" there's a B guy here.