this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
117 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10180 readers
50 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is what worries me. If all you need to ban a candidate is the low bar of preponderance of evidence, then I don't understand what prevents Republicans from using this precedent and wielding their 27 (!) state supreme court majorities to bar all candidates except Trump.
Trump factually engaged in insurrection, but this case sets the bar for proving it so low that Republicans are going use this precedent to push lawsuits in every state and ban every candidate they don't like in any office they want over spurious claims of disloyalty.
EDIT: The standard followed in the district court wasn't a "preponderance of the evidence," (>50% chance of being true, or >50% share of responsibility) as it typically is for civil lawsuits. The judge actually followed a "clear and convincing" standard (see the ruling page 14). That's a significantly higher bar, typically used in discrimination and fraud lawsuits. So while bad actors will still try to abuse this precedent, it'll be a lot harder for them to succeed.