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
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
996 points (99.2% liked)
News
23376 readers
3888 users here now
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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
Restricting you from seeking healthcare deprives you of both.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Good, this shouldn't even have been a debate. It is clear that Trump attempted a coordinated effort to stay in office. If that's not disqualifying from president, then nothing is.
This is a massively historical moment. But, with everything that has happened the last several years this is, quite literally, Tuesday for me.
Nothing is final until the federal supreme court weighs in or the election is final.
At this stage of the game all of the appeals in the world are in play.
ftfa
The court put its decision on hold until Jan. 4 to allow for further appeals. It also said that if the matter is pursued before the U.S. Supreme Court before that date, the pause will remain in effect during that time and Colorado will be required to include Trump’s name on the primary ballot pending action by the Supreme Court.
Article also mentions the supreme court in CO is appointed by all democrats. A big win would be a red state agreeing with this.
I’m not too sure about that. I think it’s pretty open and shut and scotus can’t do anything about it.
Case law has found time and again that states can decide their own election laws, and that the federal government cannot override that except in the most egregious cases.
But the very cases where they chose to defer were huge, election changing cases, like Bush v Gore and the VRA.
I don’t think they can even issue a stay without doing the exact same thing. The current stay is through the 4th because CO law says they have to set the ballots by Jan 5. So even issuing a stay would be the feds overstepping the bounds.
Overstepping their own bounds in fact, since people still on this court decided those cases, and Gorsuch actually ruled on this same Colorado law in favor of CO having the right to control its own ballot.
What this means is very possible sweep in CO, because if Trump isn’t on the ballot, that will hurt turnout which would flip some new areas blue. That’s the entire downticket from senators to dogcatchers.
I think it’s pretty open and shut and scotus can’t do anything about it.
Justice Thomas will go on a long vacation aboard a yacht and come back with a different opinion than you.
I have no doubt about that one.
The fun bit is that he voted with the majority in those other cases. He’s going to either come up with some Olympic level gymnastics or just write “No.” There’s no in between.
Actually I have MORE faith in Thomas siding with Colorado because he's corrupt. A dictator doesn't need a corrupt supreme court but a republican president does.
Sweet, consequences. Cheers Colorado.
Man, Colorado just can't stop winning
Colorado is seemingly a cool state to be in. I'd really consider moving there lately.
We also just reintroduced wolves and banned grocery bags. One of the most expensive metro to live in, but you look at the states surrounding us and you get why everyone is moving here.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It really is. They have done some good things, law wise, lately. Cost of living is insane. But it is a pretty swell place and I never want to leave.
Yeah, we’re pretty awesome.
Someone in Colorado did their job.
Now let's see how many other states follow.
Fuck the republican traitor filth.
Colorado has 10 electoral votes.
I’m still scared shitless about the prospect of him winning or being handed the presidency by GOP ghouls, but this is the most hopeful news I’ve seen in a while. Granted at this point I think any Republican candidate would be as bad or worse if they won, none of them have the hold over the base that Trump does. We’ll see if it cascades in a meaningful way but we likely won’t be out of the woods even if it does.
One interesting take here is that the states have complete autonomy, per the constitution, to do their elections however they want. They are only required to select a candidate and send electors as a state. So that could be a great side-step, to say “the state is deciding state election policy for a state, and this is not a federal matter.”
view more: next ›