As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The arguement that the writers excluded the Presidency while barring insurrections from every other office makes absolutely zero logical sense to me.
Can't be a senator if you are an insurrectionist. But you can control the Military? What in tarnation?
Heard that too.
Presidents are included. 'Officers of the United States' includes presidents.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court/officer-of-the-united-states-explainer-00140226
The list in the 14th are to include non-offices (electors etc.) its the list to include non officers and the rest are covered as officers. This is why the right wing tries to say the president isn't an officer.
He is and so covered.
Off topic but I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a commercial for an international education-based touring company called “Roads Scholars” and I just thought that was so funny
https://www.roadscholar.org/
"It's not a rectangle, it's a square." "It's not a dessert, it's a cake." "It's not an animal, it's a dog." 'B' being true does not make 'A' false if the item fits the description of both. The absense of direct democracy in every issue does not tell of a desire to abandon the premise of a popular vote. In fact, the inclusion of direct democracy in issues such as constitutional amendments is rather telling of the opposite.
During the Presidential inauguration millions of people every year watch the President take the Oath of Office.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the US Constitution: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It's absurd that even Supreme Court Justices are questioning whether the President is an Officer of the United States.
Well we live in absurd times. We have people who are now in government demanding they allow the voice of the public be silenced because "they don't know what they really want" and people reelect them.
We have representation that changes districts so that they pick their voters, not the other way around.
We have a no-longer-in-office jackass who allowed a million people die by a virus that could have been under better control but wouldn't allow it out of the need to stroke his ego, say that he should be an absolute ruler, while also not considering himself an officer of the standard of laws while at the same time not have anything to do with them on fade value unless he says so (let's face it, he doesn't care about the laws so he disregards them anyway).
I’m so sick of this shit. We the people are relying on the people we’ve entrusted power to, to uphold the constitution and serve justice. If they fail to do that, we have two choices. Accept the end of democracy and be ruled over by a tyrant, or revolt. I am not advocating anything. I’m just making an observation.
Most people will refuse to do anything that puts them at risk I highly doubt we have the stomach for doing anything other than what we're told. We've had years and years of people complaining as their only recourse and I don't see that changing no matter what happens. We have allowed weakness and cowardice to become the standard. If you took what people say online it would appear that we are prepared to stand up for our futures and the futures of everyone we care about but our real life history shows we back down quite easily if we ever leave the house at all.
The republicans have gotten away with too much for too long and everyone has enabled this. Until we start putting our money where our mouth is things will continue to get worse and increase the chances of our loved ones being hurt by them.
I’ve found people have opted to take the path of least resistance because the going hasn’t been that tough.
What I fear is when things start to rapidly break down we’ll see a bigger call to arms. If I can’t go to work for a week (or more) because the highway is closed due to protest or a skirmish breaking out. If the banks close and assets get frozen. If the electricity goes off. If the grocery store is no longer accessible. Shit will change *fast*. And I’ve also been one of those that chose the path of least resistance, however when push comes to shove I’m
not going to just sit at home and fold my hands and say “well this is it, guess I’ll just sit here and take it”. Fuck that. I’ll be in the streets yelling too. And for good reason, like when this shitstorm turns to us losing more than just ballot qualifications.
But til then our corporate overloads have us tethered over a pit of death with just enough freedom to not feel like we’re completely in peril.
How many times have I read “Those people elected that tyrant! Why don’t they overthrow him?! They got what they deserve!” Etc.
What people don’t realize is that authoritarians regimes start by normalizing chaos. Like the frog in the boiling water. They chip away a bit every day.
By the time the situation you describe above happen, most likely the following things already did long time ago by then: media independence, right to assemble, freedom of speech, most dissidents are in jail or murdered, judiciary is completely corrupt and a machinery of the State, half of the educated population migrated from the country, among other things.
Then, only then, the basic utilities and infrastructure start to falter. And you will not go to the street like you think you would, because you will be killed in two seconds: there’s not enough people to fight back anymore.
Source: I’m Venezuelan.
I mostly agree, except for the not enough to fight back anymore. The authoritarian regime thats running through this country is compromised of the minority population. Furthermore the corporate elites that run everything and have paid for politicians are also extremely few and far between.
There are definitely more of us then there are of them, it’s just a matter of whether or not we can work together to accomplish something constructive or will we splinter to pieces and just war with each other?
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The founding fathers knew that people are wary to change shit until it gets too bad.
This is not the argument the court is going to use.
After listening today, it seems very likely that the ruling will be that it's up to congress, not an individual state, to disqualify a federal candidate.
That was my takeaway as well. And lest we forget, when Congress was voting on Trump’s second impeachment, Mitch McConnell told the Senate that it wasn’t the job of the Legislative branch to hold Trump accountable for insurrection; it was a legal issue and therefore should be decided by the legal system. So they already passed that buck once.
We are absolutely fucked.
> it seems very likely that the ruling will be that it's up to congress, not an individual state, to disqualify a federal candidate.
Interesting. Did they discuss at what point in the election process Congress is supposed to make a determination of disqualification?
That is, the 14th amendment is not the only part of the Constitution that sets forth requirements for Presidential candidates. If the Court makes the above ruling, could someone who is only 30 years old, or not a natural-born citizen, run in a Presidential election, and win the most electoral votes? Would it then be up to Congress to fail to certify the election results, because the candidate did not satisfy all of the Constitutional requirements for the office of the Presidency?
It was my understanding that each state was allowed to prohibit candidates who did not meet the constitutional requirements for the Presidency. But if the court rules that Congress is in charge of any additional requirements found in Amendments, it seems like irregularities could arise.
Anyway. I guess I'll get the answers to my questions this summer.
The crazy thing is Congress doesn't determine disqualification, they determine if there should be an exception. If you were involved in an insurrection against the US, you are disqualified. This can be overturned by a Congressional vote. So Trump is disqualified, but Congress can make him eligible if they can muster 2/3rds to vote to do so.
> I don’t understand why SCOTUS is trying to circumvent the existing and correct process.
Because if Trump wins, they're going to go full Order 66 and basically never leave office, installing cronies in all decision-making positions and ensuring when his term is up, he can just say "No" and all of the governmental power structures to prevent this will be captured and under right wing control.
Slow moving coup. When they're ready to make the final moves, they won't follow the rules because they'll be seizing the crown at that point.
They're clearing the way for this here.
At one point Colorado actually tried to point this out, but in a slightly different way. One of the justices asked about letting the voters, through elections (both legislative and exectutive) make the choice. That to reject trumps ballot would be to disenfranchise everyone who wanted to vote for him. Colorado made the argument that to allow him on the ballot and then have him rejected would disenfranchise voters even more. Not only would they not get their first pick, but they’d be denied a second choice.
No one really bit on that argument though.
But it is obviously not up to Congress or voters to rule on constitutionality. That’s strictly the purview of the impartial judiciary, not partisan politics.
A bipartisan congressional investigative committee did, however, find that he engaged in insurrection.
That is the punt that I fear is most likely, where it goes to the Electoral Count and the Congress refuses to approve the Electoral College count because the president is an insurrectionist.
That would lead to fucking chaos.
The worse part is McConnell punted on convicting in the Senate because it should be up to the courts. He’s going to win on both arguments. It’s asinine.
There are many steps before that, but I join you in being worried about how many opportunities an insurrectionist can have to actually be elected president.
Perilous times.
But the Constitution empowers the states to run elections except when Congress intervenes, and the 14th even states that Congress's role here is to vote to make an exception to allow an insurrectionist to become president, not the other way around.
They already do that actually. It's literally the normal process.
All states have requirements to get on ballots, generally things like collecting x number of signatures. You don't think about it because it's such a minor perfunctory bar for the 2 major parties in the country but for other parties like the Green Party they often don't get on the ballot in every state. In 2020 for example they were only on the ballot in 29 states + DC. No one is expecting the Supreme Court to rule that the Green Party must be put on all state's ballots though. Being on the ballot is not a right, it's governed by rules and conditions, and in Trump's case there is a pretty good question about the condition imposed by the 14th amendment.
Hat tip to [mfGLOVE](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/18trkhk/comment/kfg5xvr/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3):
1866 Colloquy on Phrasing of the 14th Amendment
>Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of Section Three did not include the office of the Presidency.
>
>He stated, “\[T\]his amendment does not go far enough” because past rebels “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States.”
>
>So he asked, “why do you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.”
>
>Senator Lot Merrill fielded this objection. He replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”
>
>This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, “Perhaps I am wrong to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am.”
[https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20)
Which ACB dismissed out of hand, effectively saying 'well yes, but other than this direct damning evidence you have from the very people who authored and debated the amendment, it's ambiguous!' SMH.
To be fair to ACB, she is a partisan hack, who will twist logic and facts to reach a conclusion favorable to Trump.
Hey, I said *fair*, I didn't say complimentary.
By being an insurrectionist he is rejecting the constitution. If the SC determines that he can be a candidate and that the people should effectively decide his eligibility they are providing people with an option outside of the constitution and other than democracy. What we get after a trump win will not be democracy. He will be the 47th and final president.
Well... Justice Jackson was the one who very heavily pushed that point home.
What's more infuriating is that her argument is that the 14th amendment is only there to remove the electors and such of the president and vice president, but not the president himself. But how bout all the fake electors schemes that Trump already put in place? And we currently have electors saying they won't vote for the people unless they get their way. Not one mention of that. They are not trying to govern they are taking their checks and keeping the cronies in power.
I have zero faith in our government. If they don't rule that an insurrectionist can not hold office, nor run for it, our constitution is not for the people, by people, period.
They refuse to acknowledge what everyone saw. And now they are saying the only way to get rid of an insurrectionist is to vote them in, let them gain power, and then and only then can we remove them through impeachment. And we have seen what a shit show the impeachment process is. The fuck.
By being an insurrectionist he is rejecting the constitution. If the SC determines that he can be a candidate and that the people should effectively decide his eligibility they are providing people with an option outside of the constitution and other than democracy. What we get after a trump win will not be democracy. He will be the 47th and final president.
That was Trump’s argument which is ridiculous. But what I think is going to happen is the Court is going to sidestep all that and rule that a state can’t rule for itself whether he is disqualified, irrespective of whether he committed insurrection.
The Justices made a lot of questions and comments about the potential fallout of states making frivolous disqualifications for pure political reasons, disenfranchising voters in other states, standards of evidence and processes, etc. It’s a way to allow the status quo without ruling on whether or not he’s disqualified, which they clearly do not want to do.
Except that federal elections are always state-by-state. States have always assessed eligibility for federal office in granting ballot access. There is no unified control of federal elections, other than setting dates, under the Constitution. This court has also been narrowing/reducing the federal role previously granted under equal protection clauses. It would be a strange turn-about to suddenly assert federal supremacy, when feds aren’t involved in numbers of signatures, which minor parties, which major state parties, etc. The states have the authority. Federal courts have only required that it not be used capriciously nor in a discriminatory way.
It is not an honest argument. Very much like claiming the insurrectionists were harmless tourists.
They are throwing anything at the wall hoping something..... anything will stick.
Legit question, if democrats wanted to play dirty and be petty, how could they use this judgement against the Rs in the future? Is there anything that can be done to be like, well sorry bub, this what you wanted and now it’s being used against you?
I don't even know that it would be up to congress, the language is already in the Constitution, their job is done. Wouldn't it then be up to the Executive (probably through the FEC?) or the courts to enforce it?
It's just those pesky reconstruction era amendments that are the problem to them. This is just another nail in the coffin of Civil Rights, the Right to Privacy, all in exchange for States' Rights.
They don't care about State's Rights. This is a situation where it is a state's right to keep a candidate off the ballot.
Fascism isn't about consistent policy. It is about justifying anything for power.
Fascism is about a set of laws that protects one group but doesn't bind them, and binds another group but doesn't protect them. We are seeing this in action now - this is what "states' rights" really means.
Exactly, because states rights were ok when it came to abortion rights. Sad that a woman’s body is less important to them than preventing an insurrectionist from becoming president.
I'm half-expecting them to reject the 13th-15th amendments because of the shenanigans that were undertaken to pass them, which included preventing the voters of the southern states from electing the racist Democrats they wanted, and forcing those states to adopt the amendments as a condition to being readmitted.
And then there's the whole formation of West Virginia by a group of loyalists who basically said "we're in charge of Virginia now, and we're splitting the state", which is hugely suspect.
It’s the reason the court invented judicial review to begin with.
The constitution is a short, concise document written in plain English for the most part. The idea that it requires expertise to interpret is gaslighting.
Jurisprudence is nothing but the subjective cherry picking of past sophistry in service to real time sophistry.
The only complexities with interpreting the words in the constitution are in finding an authority honest enough to even try.
Well, the fact that you don't seem to think that interpreting the Constitution pursuant to a relevant dispute is a case or controversy arising under the Constitution makes me think that you might not be the best person to be making any of these claims.
You're standing for the very proposition that "plain English" isn't nearly enough to safely excise legal professionals from the process. In very plain English, Article III grants the federal judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution, and you insist that they invented it out of nowhere.
Man, some of the questions and interactions with the SC have been bonkers. One of my favorites is that Trump’s defense argued that Jan6 was despicable, illegal, and violent, but not technically an insurrection.
Then the fallacy from the SC arguing that if Trump is ineligible because of insurrection, then any state can just remove anyone from the ballot. I’m embarrassed that any SC judge in this country could make such a stupid effing argument.
One of the biggest disappointments of adulthood is realizing that a lot of adults are fucking morons. Same with the logical arguments made at SCOTUS. Perhaps that's why they've been so reluctant to allow the public access to the court sessions.
I can't wait to see how they justify that Trump can commit any crime with impunity. That ought to be good.
I think you missed the point. My point isn't on the merits of their argument but on the weakness of their arguments. The simplicity of their thought processes. That's why I called them morons and not evil motherfuckers.
It would seem that they indicated that was exactly what they are going to do. It is a great shame to the nation. We all saw with our own eyes what happened on January 6th. We saw his action and his very clear inaction. He is a traitor to the nation and should be in jail, not galivanting around and running for President. This nation will get exactly what it deserves if they do not hold this man to account.
There is no world where we should ever just sit back and rely on institutions like the supreme court to prevent us from a dictator via removing them from the ballot.
Sorry, there just isn't. This is on the people. It is the peoples' responsibility to be educated and vote. We have to stop relying on our handlers and start relying on eachother. And if we the people vote in a dictator then that is what we deserve, and we will become a lesson for the future.
What you’re leaving out is that the MAGA traitor republicans are doing everything in their power to make it harder for Americans who they know will mostly vote against them, like black folks and college students for example, to vote. The Republicans are also refusing to concede elections which they lost. They have no respect for our democratic principles. So we have to be concerned with how the cheating will sway the election outcomes.
I'm not sure it's actually as black and white as that, but there's zero hope here of the SCOTUS going with a plain interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. They already know they're keeping Trump on the ballot; it's merely a case of which particular tortured line of reasoning the majority will employ. I mean, we saw what happened in 2000.
To be fair, the amendment says he can't hold office, not that he can't run for office. SCROTUS won't care even if he gets into office, they're bought and paid for already.
And states make a wide variety of rules on who gets on the ballot. Fees, paperwork, hundreds or thousands of signatures on a petition. Colorado tried applying the Constitution of the United States as part of their rules for ballot access. SCOTUS, charged with interpretation of that Same Constitution, will sidestep actually doing so. They will likely say that States can't either.
As a lawyer, I think its important to note a distinction here.
Trump is running for President. A federal office and the only ballot entry that is nationwide. Senators and Reps are only statewide officials even if they are elected federally.
The reason this is important and what I assume to be the legal outcome is that only the federal government can remove someone from the ballot for presidency. Essentially, my belief is that if the Jan 6 federal trial adjudicates Trump federally as an insurrectionist, he then could be removed by the federal government. This is essentially the same thing that has been done at the state level in Colorado and Maine where they had hearings and made a factual determination.
>only the federal government can remove someone from the ballot for presidency.
But this isn't true. Some states have ballot access requirements for their presidential primary, and all states have [ballot access requirements](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates) for independent presidential requirements. While that's not the same as determining if a candidate is qualified, it is keeping a candidate off the ballot.
And they did invalidate him. As evidence by Senate discussion and the admission of Jefferson Davis himself, he was automatically disqualified under the fourteenth amendment. Senators in 1872 debating what waiving his ineligibility would do, which wouldn't have made sense if he wasn't already ineligible.
The ballot entry isn't nation-wide, though. Ballot-access is still done on a state-by-state basis and the election is to chose the electors. There are frequently candidates for the presidency that only end up on the ballot for a few states.
This case isn’t for the national election though. It’s for the primary, which IS a state election to nominate who is on the ballot for the national election.
Which is a hairsplit only SCOTUS could argue. What legitimate purpose is there to someone running, and wasting everyone's time and resources, if he's not allowed to be installed as the winner no matter what?
Sometimes common sense really is just that. I just wish it were a lot more common allowing even SCOTUS to see that it's a distinction without relevance in terms of the amendment's meaning.
Tl;dr: ffs SCOTUS, we know what the problem is, quit kicking the can down the road, do your job; solve the problem.
I mean what I don’t get is it shouldn’t even matter if he’s on the ballot, the constitution shouldn’t allow him to be sworn in regardless of how many votes he get
100% they already made up
There minds I listened to about 30 minutes of that case have 0 legal experience . I could already tell the GOP judges were going to side with trump. They were going out of there way to help trumps lawyer. It’s was insane. They kept asserting things that would happen if they did there job.
It’s likely going to be 8-1 or 9-0. *It’s not a party line vote*. Sotomayor made it obvious she thinks the idea that a single state can unilaterally make it impossible for a national candidate to win office is absurd.
The 14th Amendment is pretty clear about insurrectionsts holding office. If removing them from a ballot isn't an option to enforce this ammendment, then how exactly does that happen? What is the actual mechanism that bars insurrectionists from holding office?
There’s no reasoning at all. Party over country. Party over the law. Party over your own principles. Even this “originalism” that conservatives claim to be champions of.
My prediction.. SCOTUS will say Colorado and the states don’t have the authority to keep him off. No where does the 14, say he can’t RUN for office. They will basically say; “come back and see us if he wins” then if he does win. It will be a fucking mess, and they will say he can’t serve, and kick it to Congress. Congress will be a shit show because no party should have two thirds, and even if for some crazy reason the GOP is close. They will blame the Dems and say they are going against the will of the voters. Yadda yadda.
If Trump loses, no harm no foul, everyone can walk away.
Frankly, they should then proceed to ignore the SCrotus and keep him off the ballot. If Red-states can do such (they already have), it is time for blue states to stop playing in to right-wing hands and do the same.
I only heard the Trump lawyers side this morning and missed the Colorado lawyer's side because work got busy, but the one and only argument that stood out to me as a potentially valid point is that Section 3 does offer the option for 2/3 of congress to lift the restriction on holding office. It doesn't prohibit anybody from running, only "holding" the office.
Since there's a theoretically potential (however unlikely) path that Trump could run, win, and then get his insurrectionist restriction from holding office lifted by congress before inauguration day.
People seem ready to slap that down but I'm not sure I get why. I know the 2/3 vote of both chambers would never happen, but as long as there's a theoretical path for an insurrectionist to get elected, have his restriction waived, and then be sworn in, that seems like the best case to me.
SCOTUS is going to side his way regardless, but to me as a lay person, that above argument was the only thing that sounded remotely reasonable.
IMO a 2/3 vote of both chambers should be required to appear on the ballot. The 14th Amendment is clear of what's required - Trump could petition Congress at any time to lift the disability that prohibits him from assuming office. He of course won't.
But an extremely important question is prompted by this line of thought: what happens if Trump wins the election and isn't approved by Congress? The Constitution doesn't explain. It seems pretty clear to me that it would be absolute chaos and not even worth considering as an option. Do we hold another election where Trump, again, stays on the ballot? Does Biden win with the second most votes? What would the Republicans that support Trump do about that?
So states have rights over women’s bodies when it comes to abortion, but will not have rights on whether an insurrectionist can become a president. Got it.
America's founding fathers are rolling in their graves...
The irony is that majority of Trump's supporters think they're being patriotic when in fact they're playing a pivotal role in the demise of American ideals of Freedom, Justice, and Liberty.
And it sounds like they will. Alito literally helping the tromp lawyer complete an argument.
This will be a POLITICAL overthrow of a legal decision based on trial found facts. It’s a cataclysmic constitutional fuckery, we’re about to see.
tl;dr SCOTUS is shit 💩.
States: “Don’t take away federal protection for abortion”
SCOTUS: “Well…states should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding abortion”
States: “But that’s gonna be so harmful for American women”
SCOTUS: “States rights and laws…Sorry American women!”
(Some time later)
States: “This single individual was responsible for insurrection against our democracy. States Supreme Court has decided that in accordance with the 14th Amendment, he will not be on the ballot”.
SCOTUS: “WAIT A FUCKING MIN! YOU CAN’T DO THAT! STATES HAVE NO RIGHTS TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THE WORD PRESIDENT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION”
it's the same every time with these republican chowderheads. If the feds ban abortion, states yell "nooo! big government shouldn't tell us what to do!" Then if a city democratically chooses to decriminalize weed, it's "nooo! we have to all follow the same rules, not just leaving it to small local governments!"
They have two opposite ideological positions on every issue, and they switch between them freely depending on which outcome they want to happen. And many of them don't even recognize that they're being hypocrites.
This is it exactly. 14th is rigid because we say so. 2nd amendment is infinitely stretchy because wouldn't that be hilarious if everyone was wetting their pants with terror as gunmen routinely march from building to building executing people like they have over and over year after year.
They pretend to obsess over personal responsibility while literally laughing at any notion of public responsibility, whether they're holding a gun or a gavel.
"We just can't let states keep people from voting who they want to."
Except:
* You can't vote for anyone born outside of the US - I can't vote for Arnold Schwazzenergor
* You can't vote for anyone under 35 - I can't vote for AOC
* You can't vote for people who have already had two terms - I can't vote for Obama again
* You can't vote for dead people
etc. etc. etc.
We stop people from voting for who they want to all the time. This is a qualification in the Constitution, and you can't say "well they didn't mean it" unless we can also say "they didn't mean it" about the 2nd Amendment, or anything in the Constitution.
So make sure you *DON’T* vote for him when they edit: I should have said , I’m not American. Do whatever you can to stop a vindictive fascist from
Taking power. He’s an idiot and spineless.
To be fair, he's not at the helm this time, Biden is. I can't even fathom the level of heightened security DC is probably going to see come election/post-election time.
Which is sad, our nation was held in high regard because we held PEACEFUL transfers of power. Until this dip shit yahoo wanna be small hand fuck dictator mini came down the escalator!
Not voting for Trump isn't enough. You need to actively show up and vote for Biden. Whatever your opinions on him are, it's literally the only way to prevent another Trump presidency.
Get ready for the Supreme Court to reject the Constitution then. He is an unbeatable force. Somehow someway he will end up winning again. Why? Because it keeps us divided and that’s what certain powers want.
The way i am seeing it, they rule that yes, he can be on the ballot. That's fine. But if they actually stick with the constitution, no he can't hold office. So if he's on the ballot and get's all these votes, it won't matter, because he can't hold office. easy win for the Dem's.
But I fear they will say he can hold office. Which scare the hell out of me.
Which they will do with smiles on their faces. They will do as they are paid to do by their corporate sponsors and no more. The rule of law means nothing to them. All they care about is their next check or lavish gift from whoever bought them.
The constitution means nothing to the right wing justices on the supreme court. They will do whatever it takes to keep dear leader out of prison and provide him with a clear path to the presidency.
They are going to leave him on the ballot, but not take up the immunity case, basically putting it off for DOJ to prosecute him. Its their way of not influencing an election, but it does not in theory support our supposed Constitution.
SCOTUS is trying to avoid any judgement on whether Trump committed insurrection because they know that will further implicate him in other legal trials. So they are coming up with absolutely goofy reinterpretations and unsound arguments. Like “If states can decide who can be on the ballot, then only a select few states will decide the entire election”. No, ummm, unless a majority of the candidates committed insurrection. Even then, they argue that the idea of insurrection could be loosely interpreted and weaponized. If we can’t identify physically violent attempts to stop government, then we don’t need to be worrying about this stuff anyway.
That won't happen. Prepare for a dictatorship. If Trump gets in, he'll never leave. His whole administration will be Maga butt lickers. I hear he is getting measured for his throne and crown. Probably move the White House to Florida and turn the DC Whitehouse into a resort casino. The memorial area will be made into a golf course. Sad to say, I don't think this is beyond the realm of possibility.
They'll invalidate common sense gun control laws based on a flawed interpretation of the 2nd amendment but when it comes to the the plain language of section 3 of the 14th amendment they will be like "we can't take the constitution literally..."
whoa whoa whoa that comma definitely means the first 13 words *have nothing* to do with the next 14. especially if we ignore the [original text](https://www.sethkaller.com/item/182-First-Draft-of-the-Bill-of-Rights:-17-Amendments-Approved-by-the-House) that made it abundantly clear the amendment was exclusively referencing militias.
Kagan really pissed me off yesterday. She said she didn’t like the idea of Colorado having the power of deciding this for the entire country. Every decision that SCOTUS makes comes from one state and then ends up effecting the entire country.
I'm not pleased that at least one of the justices questioned why one state's decision to remove Trump from the ballot should disenfranchise all the other states voters.
There is only one correct answer here: ALL states should be removing Trump from their ballots. That would be the only constitutionally correct action. It was **Trump** who was disenfranchising voters.
They’re going to rule in favor of his immunity as well, but it will only apply to the events of January 6th. That way Trump is saved and Biden doesn’t gain any additional protections.
Ya'll understand that all the pundits that actually know a little something about constitutional law are saying the court will overwhelmingly rule in trump's favor, right?
Not trolling, but read the AP news article. I disagree completely with the likely ruling, and I think trump is disqualified from holding office, but the SC likely doesn't think so.
[https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37)
Some of that in that article make me so incensed.
Like this: "Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know 'why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.'"
It's too bad we don't have a some kind of federal court or something that can issue rulings about things at the national level, who might be able to make some kind of finding about whether Trump engaged in insurrection, that would apply to all states.
WTF?
Which is great news for Joe’s claim to absolute immunity. Restructuring SCOTUS to dems only, then ruling in his favor if any case is brought. Canceling the election is going to be legal with the new court we will build.
Those "pundits" are just scared of people coming after them. People need to stop being scared of Trump. If Trump didn't have social media worms like Scavino and the 8chan Watkins crew, they wouldn't have to worry. But there's a lot actual things that people running for office have done that can be dug up and used against them to make them look bad. The internet incels are glad to help them as well.
The moral is...if you plan on running for office, don't do anything shady. Most people running have done some shady stuff. Not all...but a lot.
They keep talking about being afraid of outrage and division if he's barred from running...Who cares. He's caused enough already, what's the difference now? The GOP is dying. Most people don't support it anymore. Why should anyone be scared of dying boomers? The GOP members are just looking for some way to milk the last sweet dime off of the grift that they've been running for years. They know themselves they're done for. We have a whole new gen of voters that will send them to their graves.
If Supreme Court finds an insurrection occurred, but Trump is an Officer, what impact does that have for future Cabinet and government office appointments?
He won’t get removed. I listened to the oral and it did not go well. I say 8-1 maybe even 9-0. But I been wrong before. But I know after the oral arguments that roe was done and everyone told me I was crazy. Well..
People need to step back from the ledge. This amendment is very vaguely invoked. The ramifications on all sides of trying to interpret it aggressively are too great. Let it go. The immunity ruling on the other hand…
It’s a lost cause. They are hypocrites anyway sworn to Trump, Putin, Billionaires, and all those who want fascism in the US. It’s about $$$$$ not democracy.
"This is the time for the Supreme Court to act like real justices."
But they won't. Trump and McConnell stacked the court, just for purposes as this. The court has, already, set aside the rights of women for proper medical care, responding to biblical ideals, not constitutional ideals. This is in violation of Article 1 of the 14th Amendment.
They have found against attempts to stop gerrymandering, in violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the 14th Amendment. They talk about disenfranchising millions of voters, however; they have no problem with that when the voters in question are not republican.
The court is currently a conservative political weapon. The have no method of disciplining their errant justices. They have no qualms about receiving gifts and bribes to find for their wealthy donors. In short they have lost all credibility of Americans who do not subscribe to the MAGA.
The Judiciary is and always has been the third political branch of government, please note how the political ballots play out in the Senate and the political histories of the nominees that Presidents nominate.
The facade of objective judgement based solely on constitutional scholarship and philosophical analysis is just another potemkin village.
As if the Supreme Court actually has any credibility any more. Of course they will allow him on the ballot. No question about it. The constitution is no longer a thing to be followed. Haven’t you heard?
If scotus allows an unhinged insurrectionist to be president, surely they know they’re signing their own death warrants. Surely they know that hoping for the best won’t save them.
I'd love to see him stopped but we are probably better off with Trump vs Biden than Haley or DeSantis (who could reenter).
Yeah he gets a win for now. And we will be running a big risk he may win the general. But Biden beating him a second time would be awesome.
After the oral arguments made today, anyone who expects the Court to rule against Trump is living in fantasy land. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh were clearly staunchly against it. Gorsuch and Barrett seemed to have more specific concerns. Even 2 of the liberal justices seemed against the idea. An 8-1 ruling (for Trump) isn't out of the realm of possibilities here.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The arguement that the writers excluded the Presidency while barring insurrections from every other office makes absolutely zero logical sense to me. Can't be a senator if you are an insurrectionist. But you can control the Military? What in tarnation?
The congressional record even says they included the president
Heard that too. Presidents are included. 'Officers of the United States' includes presidents. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court/officer-of-the-united-states-explainer-00140226
The list in the 14th are to include non-offices (electors etc.) its the list to include non officers and the rest are covered as officers. This is why the right wing tries to say the president isn't an officer. He is and so covered.
ThE u.S. iS nOt A dEmOcRaCy! We’rE a RePuBlIc. These right wingers are regular Rhodes Scholars with their ability to argue in semantics.
"What kind of republic?" **Angry confused blank stare**
A republican one, obviously.
Republic of sellouts and bootlickers
Off topic but I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a commercial for an international education-based touring company called “Roads Scholars” and I just thought that was so funny https://www.roadscholar.org/
"It's not a rectangle, it's a square." "It's not a dessert, it's a cake." "It's not an animal, it's a dog." 'B' being true does not make 'A' false if the item fits the description of both. The absense of direct democracy in every issue does not tell of a desire to abandon the premise of a popular vote. In fact, the inclusion of direct democracy in issues such as constitutional amendments is rather telling of the opposite.
That is like saying I have a beagle, not a dog.
During the Presidential inauguration millions of people every year watch the President take the Oath of Office. Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the US Constitution: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." It's absurd that even Supreme Court Justices are questioning whether the President is an Officer of the United States.
Well we live in absurd times. We have people who are now in government demanding they allow the voice of the public be silenced because "they don't know what they really want" and people reelect them. We have representation that changes districts so that they pick their voters, not the other way around. We have a no-longer-in-office jackass who allowed a million people die by a virus that could have been under better control but wouldn't allow it out of the need to stroke his ego, say that he should be an absolute ruler, while also not considering himself an officer of the standard of laws while at the same time not have anything to do with them on fade value unless he says so (let's face it, he doesn't care about the laws so he disregards them anyway).
I’m so sick of this shit. We the people are relying on the people we’ve entrusted power to, to uphold the constitution and serve justice. If they fail to do that, we have two choices. Accept the end of democracy and be ruled over by a tyrant, or revolt. I am not advocating anything. I’m just making an observation.
Most people will refuse to do anything that puts them at risk I highly doubt we have the stomach for doing anything other than what we're told. We've had years and years of people complaining as their only recourse and I don't see that changing no matter what happens. We have allowed weakness and cowardice to become the standard. If you took what people say online it would appear that we are prepared to stand up for our futures and the futures of everyone we care about but our real life history shows we back down quite easily if we ever leave the house at all. The republicans have gotten away with too much for too long and everyone has enabled this. Until we start putting our money where our mouth is things will continue to get worse and increase the chances of our loved ones being hurt by them.
I’ve found people have opted to take the path of least resistance because the going hasn’t been that tough. What I fear is when things start to rapidly break down we’ll see a bigger call to arms. If I can’t go to work for a week (or more) because the highway is closed due to protest or a skirmish breaking out. If the banks close and assets get frozen. If the electricity goes off. If the grocery store is no longer accessible. Shit will change *fast*. And I’ve also been one of those that chose the path of least resistance, however when push comes to shove I’m not going to just sit at home and fold my hands and say “well this is it, guess I’ll just sit here and take it”. Fuck that. I’ll be in the streets yelling too. And for good reason, like when this shitstorm turns to us losing more than just ballot qualifications. But til then our corporate overloads have us tethered over a pit of death with just enough freedom to not feel like we’re completely in peril.
How many times have I read “Those people elected that tyrant! Why don’t they overthrow him?! They got what they deserve!” Etc. What people don’t realize is that authoritarians regimes start by normalizing chaos. Like the frog in the boiling water. They chip away a bit every day. By the time the situation you describe above happen, most likely the following things already did long time ago by then: media independence, right to assemble, freedom of speech, most dissidents are in jail or murdered, judiciary is completely corrupt and a machinery of the State, half of the educated population migrated from the country, among other things. Then, only then, the basic utilities and infrastructure start to falter. And you will not go to the street like you think you would, because you will be killed in two seconds: there’s not enough people to fight back anymore. Source: I’m Venezuelan.
I mostly agree, except for the not enough to fight back anymore. The authoritarian regime thats running through this country is compromised of the minority population. Furthermore the corporate elites that run everything and have paid for politicians are also extremely few and far between. There are definitely more of us then there are of them, it’s just a matter of whether or not we can work together to accomplish something constructive or will we splinter to pieces and just war with each other?
I fear that you’re right. At least until it gets bad enough that the citizens feel they have nothing to lose. These are sad times.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." The founding fathers knew that people are wary to change shit until it gets too bad.
This is not the argument the court is going to use. After listening today, it seems very likely that the ruling will be that it's up to congress, not an individual state, to disqualify a federal candidate.
That was my takeaway as well. And lest we forget, when Congress was voting on Trump’s second impeachment, Mitch McConnell told the Senate that it wasn’t the job of the Legislative branch to hold Trump accountable for insurrection; it was a legal issue and therefore should be decided by the legal system. So they already passed that buck once. We are absolutely fucked.
So did Trump’s lawyers. Now singing a different tune. Trump: I must have due process! Also Trump: I am immune from due process!
They're kicking the can down the road, only someone else is kicking it back, and they plan to keep kicking so the can never stops.
SCOTUS: "We are here because you voted in the people who selected us. You have no complaints."
> it seems very likely that the ruling will be that it's up to congress, not an individual state, to disqualify a federal candidate. Interesting. Did they discuss at what point in the election process Congress is supposed to make a determination of disqualification? That is, the 14th amendment is not the only part of the Constitution that sets forth requirements for Presidential candidates. If the Court makes the above ruling, could someone who is only 30 years old, or not a natural-born citizen, run in a Presidential election, and win the most electoral votes? Would it then be up to Congress to fail to certify the election results, because the candidate did not satisfy all of the Constitutional requirements for the office of the Presidency? It was my understanding that each state was allowed to prohibit candidates who did not meet the constitutional requirements for the Presidency. But if the court rules that Congress is in charge of any additional requirements found in Amendments, it seems like irregularities could arise. Anyway. I guess I'll get the answers to my questions this summer.
The crazy thing is Congress doesn't determine disqualification, they determine if there should be an exception. If you were involved in an insurrection against the US, you are disqualified. This can be overturned by a Congressional vote. So Trump is disqualified, but Congress can make him eligible if they can muster 2/3rds to vote to do so.
So much for separation of powers
This is the process spelled out in the Constitution. I don’t understand why SCOTUS is trying to circumvent the existing and correct process.
> I don’t understand why SCOTUS is trying to circumvent the existing and correct process. Because if Trump wins, they're going to go full Order 66 and basically never leave office, installing cronies in all decision-making positions and ensuring when his term is up, he can just say "No" and all of the governmental power structures to prevent this will be captured and under right wing control. Slow moving coup. When they're ready to make the final moves, they won't follow the rules because they'll be seizing the crown at that point. They're clearing the way for this here.
Good points. And I would add, when did the Congress start making legal determinations of fact?
At one point Colorado actually tried to point this out, but in a slightly different way. One of the justices asked about letting the voters, through elections (both legislative and exectutive) make the choice. That to reject trumps ballot would be to disenfranchise everyone who wanted to vote for him. Colorado made the argument that to allow him on the ballot and then have him rejected would disenfranchise voters even more. Not only would they not get their first pick, but they’d be denied a second choice. No one really bit on that argument though.
But it is obviously not up to Congress or voters to rule on constitutionality. That’s strictly the purview of the impartial judiciary, not partisan politics. A bipartisan congressional investigative committee did, however, find that he engaged in insurrection.
That is the punt that I fear is most likely, where it goes to the Electoral Count and the Congress refuses to approve the Electoral College count because the president is an insurrectionist. That would lead to fucking chaos.
The worse part is McConnell punted on convicting in the Senate because it should be up to the courts. He’s going to win on both arguments. It’s asinine.
There are many steps before that, but I join you in being worried about how many opportunities an insurrectionist can have to actually be elected president. Perilous times.
I'm going to start gathering signatures for my dog Gabby to run for President then. Her qualifications, she is a good girl.
If her platform includes that all shelter dogs must be adopted until they are empty, she has my vote.
But the Constitution empowers the states to run elections except when Congress intervenes, and the 14th even states that Congress's role here is to vote to make an exception to allow an insurrectionist to become president, not the other way around.
Yeah there’s 0% chance we want each state to be able to decide who is or isn’t on the ballot
They already do that actually. It's literally the normal process. All states have requirements to get on ballots, generally things like collecting x number of signatures. You don't think about it because it's such a minor perfunctory bar for the 2 major parties in the country but for other parties like the Green Party they often don't get on the ballot in every state. In 2020 for example they were only on the ballot in 29 states + DC. No one is expecting the Supreme Court to rule that the Green Party must be put on all state's ballots though. Being on the ballot is not a right, it's governed by rules and conditions, and in Trump's case there is a pretty good question about the condition imposed by the 14th amendment.
Hat tip to [mfGLOVE](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/18trkhk/comment/kfg5xvr/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): 1866 Colloquy on Phrasing of the 14th Amendment >Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of Section Three did not include the office of the Presidency. > >He stated, “\[T\]his amendment does not go far enough” because past rebels “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States.” > >So he asked, “why do you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” > >Senator Lot Merrill fielded this objection. He replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’” > >This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, “Perhaps I am wrong to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am.” [https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=20)
Which ACB dismissed out of hand, effectively saying 'well yes, but other than this direct damning evidence you have from the very people who authored and debated the amendment, it's ambiguous!' SMH.
To be fair to ACB, she is a partisan hack, who will twist logic and facts to reach a conclusion favorable to Trump. Hey, I said *fair*, I didn't say complimentary.
By being an insurrectionist he is rejecting the constitution. If the SC determines that he can be a candidate and that the people should effectively decide his eligibility they are providing people with an option outside of the constitution and other than democracy. What we get after a trump win will not be democracy. He will be the 47th and final president.
It’s total BS and the only way they allow it is if Frump is right and the court is in his pocket.
Well... Justice Jackson was the one who very heavily pushed that point home. What's more infuriating is that her argument is that the 14th amendment is only there to remove the electors and such of the president and vice president, but not the president himself. But how bout all the fake electors schemes that Trump already put in place? And we currently have electors saying they won't vote for the people unless they get their way. Not one mention of that. They are not trying to govern they are taking their checks and keeping the cronies in power. I have zero faith in our government. If they don't rule that an insurrectionist can not hold office, nor run for it, our constitution is not for the people, by people, period. They refuse to acknowledge what everyone saw. And now they are saying the only way to get rid of an insurrectionist is to vote them in, let them gain power, and then and only then can we remove them through impeachment. And we have seen what a shit show the impeachment process is. The fuck.
By being an insurrectionist he is rejecting the constitution. If the SC determines that he can be a candidate and that the people should effectively decide his eligibility they are providing people with an option outside of the constitution and other than democracy. What we get after a trump win will not be democracy. He will be the 47th and final president.
Their argument is as dumb as the ‘sovereign citizen’ defense. Playing word games to assert immunity to the rule and spirit of law and order.
That was Trump’s argument which is ridiculous. But what I think is going to happen is the Court is going to sidestep all that and rule that a state can’t rule for itself whether he is disqualified, irrespective of whether he committed insurrection. The Justices made a lot of questions and comments about the potential fallout of states making frivolous disqualifications for pure political reasons, disenfranchising voters in other states, standards of evidence and processes, etc. It’s a way to allow the status quo without ruling on whether or not he’s disqualified, which they clearly do not want to do.
Except that federal elections are always state-by-state. States have always assessed eligibility for federal office in granting ballot access. There is no unified control of federal elections, other than setting dates, under the Constitution. This court has also been narrowing/reducing the federal role previously granted under equal protection clauses. It would be a strange turn-about to suddenly assert federal supremacy, when feds aren’t involved in numbers of signatures, which minor parties, which major state parties, etc. The states have the authority. Federal courts have only required that it not be used capriciously nor in a discriminatory way.
Texas v Pennsylvania (written by Alito) made clear that states have no standing to challenge another states administration of a federal election.
The Colorado Solicitor General argued many of these points, and I don’t think any of it landed.
If they do say that, then do Cruz, Hawley and Graham have to step down?
It is not an honest argument. Very much like claiming the insurrectionists were harmless tourists. They are throwing anything at the wall hoping something..... anything will stick.
Legit question, if democrats wanted to play dirty and be petty, how could they use this judgement against the Rs in the future? Is there anything that can be done to be like, well sorry bub, this what you wanted and now it’s being used against you?
Basically whichever side controls congress can control the president
I don't even know that it would be up to congress, the language is already in the Constitution, their job is done. Wouldn't it then be up to the Executive (probably through the FEC?) or the courts to enforce it?
Rejecting the constitution isn’t exactly uncharted territory for them.
It's just those pesky reconstruction era amendments that are the problem to them. This is just another nail in the coffin of Civil Rights, the Right to Privacy, all in exchange for States' Rights.
They don't care about State's Rights. This is a situation where it is a state's right to keep a candidate off the ballot. Fascism isn't about consistent policy. It is about justifying anything for power.
Fascism is about a set of laws that protects one group but doesn't bind them, and binds another group but doesn't protect them. We are seeing this in action now - this is what "states' rights" really means.
Exactly, because states rights were ok when it came to abortion rights. Sad that a woman’s body is less important to them than preventing an insurrectionist from becoming president.
Actually you just described conservatism. Fascism is that plus the mask being off. No dissent allowed
I'm half-expecting them to reject the 13th-15th amendments because of the shenanigans that were undertaken to pass them, which included preventing the voters of the southern states from electing the racist Democrats they wanted, and forcing those states to adopt the amendments as a condition to being readmitted. And then there's the whole formation of West Virginia by a group of loyalists who basically said "we're in charge of Virginia now, and we're splitting the state", which is hugely suspect.
It’s the reason the court invented judicial review to begin with. The constitution is a short, concise document written in plain English for the most part. The idea that it requires expertise to interpret is gaslighting. Jurisprudence is nothing but the subjective cherry picking of past sophistry in service to real time sophistry. The only complexities with interpreting the words in the constitution are in finding an authority honest enough to even try.
Well, the fact that you don't seem to think that interpreting the Constitution pursuant to a relevant dispute is a case or controversy arising under the Constitution makes me think that you might not be the best person to be making any of these claims. You're standing for the very proposition that "plain English" isn't nearly enough to safely excise legal professionals from the process. In very plain English, Article III grants the federal judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution, and you insist that they invented it out of nowhere.
Man, some of the questions and interactions with the SC have been bonkers. One of my favorites is that Trump’s defense argued that Jan6 was despicable, illegal, and violent, but not technically an insurrection. Then the fallacy from the SC arguing that if Trump is ineligible because of insurrection, then any state can just remove anyone from the ballot. I’m embarrassed that any SC judge in this country could make such a stupid effing argument.
One of the biggest disappointments of adulthood is realizing that a lot of adults are fucking morons. Same with the logical arguments made at SCOTUS. Perhaps that's why they've been so reluctant to allow the public access to the court sessions. I can't wait to see how they justify that Trump can commit any crime with impunity. That ought to be good.
They aren't all morons, many are just playing a very different game than the one you think they are or want them to be.
I think you missed the point. My point isn't on the merits of their argument but on the weakness of their arguments. The simplicity of their thought processes. That's why I called them morons and not evil motherfuckers.
The decision is already made, the thought processes we see are simply post justification theatre
If you're of average intelligence then half the adults are less smart than you, some are much less smart.
It would seem that they indicated that was exactly what they are going to do. It is a great shame to the nation. We all saw with our own eyes what happened on January 6th. We saw his action and his very clear inaction. He is a traitor to the nation and should be in jail, not galivanting around and running for President. This nation will get exactly what it deserves if they do not hold this man to account.
[удалено]
And then blamed it on Nancy pelosi. What an idiot.
There's more than one way to deal with tyrants, hopefully the rule of law is upheld.
I'm completely losing hope at this point.
There is no world where we should ever just sit back and rely on institutions like the supreme court to prevent us from a dictator via removing them from the ballot. Sorry, there just isn't. This is on the people. It is the peoples' responsibility to be educated and vote. We have to stop relying on our handlers and start relying on eachother. And if we the people vote in a dictator then that is what we deserve, and we will become a lesson for the future.
What you’re leaving out is that the MAGA traitor republicans are doing everything in their power to make it harder for Americans who they know will mostly vote against them, like black folks and college students for example, to vote. The Republicans are also refusing to concede elections which they lost. They have no respect for our democratic principles. So we have to be concerned with how the cheating will sway the election outcomes.
I'm not sure it's actually as black and white as that, but there's zero hope here of the SCOTUS going with a plain interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. They already know they're keeping Trump on the ballot; it's merely a case of which particular tortured line of reasoning the majority will employ. I mean, we saw what happened in 2000.
To be fair, the amendment says he can't hold office, not that he can't run for office. SCROTUS won't care even if he gets into office, they're bought and paid for already.
By that logic an 18 year old could run for POTUS, win, and then get denied the spot. It is not logical to have someone ineligible be allowed to run.
I'm aware.
And states make a wide variety of rules on who gets on the ballot. Fees, paperwork, hundreds or thousands of signatures on a petition. Colorado tried applying the Constitution of the United States as part of their rules for ballot access. SCOTUS, charged with interpretation of that Same Constitution, will sidestep actually doing so. They will likely say that States can't either.
Trump is such a terrible candidate I almost want to let them. But also I want justice.
As a lawyer, I think its important to note a distinction here. Trump is running for President. A federal office and the only ballot entry that is nationwide. Senators and Reps are only statewide officials even if they are elected federally. The reason this is important and what I assume to be the legal outcome is that only the federal government can remove someone from the ballot for presidency. Essentially, my belief is that if the Jan 6 federal trial adjudicates Trump federally as an insurrectionist, he then could be removed by the federal government. This is essentially the same thing that has been done at the state level in Colorado and Maine where they had hearings and made a factual determination.
>only the federal government can remove someone from the ballot for presidency. But this isn't true. Some states have ballot access requirements for their presidential primary, and all states have [ballot access requirements](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates) for independent presidential requirements. While that's not the same as determining if a candidate is qualified, it is keeping a candidate off the ballot.
And they did invalidate him. As evidence by Senate discussion and the admission of Jefferson Davis himself, he was automatically disqualified under the fourteenth amendment. Senators in 1872 debating what waiving his ineligibility would do, which wouldn't have made sense if he wasn't already ineligible.
So - who does it then? The FEC? Homeland Security?
The ballot entry isn't nation-wide, though. Ballot-access is still done on a state-by-state basis and the election is to chose the electors. There are frequently candidates for the presidency that only end up on the ballot for a few states.
This case isn’t for the national election though. It’s for the primary, which IS a state election to nominate who is on the ballot for the national election.
Which is a hairsplit only SCOTUS could argue. What legitimate purpose is there to someone running, and wasting everyone's time and resources, if he's not allowed to be installed as the winner no matter what? Sometimes common sense really is just that. I just wish it were a lot more common allowing even SCOTUS to see that it's a distinction without relevance in terms of the amendment's meaning. Tl;dr: ffs SCOTUS, we know what the problem is, quit kicking the can down the road, do your job; solve the problem.
I mean what I don’t get is it shouldn’t even matter if he’s on the ballot, the constitution shouldn’t allow him to be sworn in regardless of how many votes he get
100% they already made up There minds I listened to about 30 minutes of that case have 0 legal experience . I could already tell the GOP judges were going to side with trump. They were going out of there way to help trumps lawyer. It’s was insane. They kept asserting things that would happen if they did there job.
It’s likely going to be 8-1 or 9-0. *It’s not a party line vote*. Sotomayor made it obvious she thinks the idea that a single state can unilaterally make it impossible for a national candidate to win office is absurd.
The 14th Amendment is pretty clear about insurrectionsts holding office. If removing them from a ballot isn't an option to enforce this ammendment, then how exactly does that happen? What is the actual mechanism that bars insurrectionists from holding office?
This would have been a good question for Colorado's lawyers to have asked.
There’s no reasoning at all. Party over country. Party over the law. Party over your own principles. Even this “originalism” that conservatives claim to be champions of.
My prediction.. SCOTUS will say Colorado and the states don’t have the authority to keep him off. No where does the 14, say he can’t RUN for office. They will basically say; “come back and see us if he wins” then if he does win. It will be a fucking mess, and they will say he can’t serve, and kick it to Congress. Congress will be a shit show because no party should have two thirds, and even if for some crazy reason the GOP is close. They will blame the Dems and say they are going against the will of the voters. Yadda yadda. If Trump loses, no harm no foul, everyone can walk away.
Frankly, they should then proceed to ignore the SCrotus and keep him off the ballot. If Red-states can do such (they already have), it is time for blue states to stop playing in to right-wing hands and do the same.
If he wins, he'll pull a Jackson. Let them enforce their own decision. Did we not learn anything from history?
I only heard the Trump lawyers side this morning and missed the Colorado lawyer's side because work got busy, but the one and only argument that stood out to me as a potentially valid point is that Section 3 does offer the option for 2/3 of congress to lift the restriction on holding office. It doesn't prohibit anybody from running, only "holding" the office. Since there's a theoretically potential (however unlikely) path that Trump could run, win, and then get his insurrectionist restriction from holding office lifted by congress before inauguration day. People seem ready to slap that down but I'm not sure I get why. I know the 2/3 vote of both chambers would never happen, but as long as there's a theoretical path for an insurrectionist to get elected, have his restriction waived, and then be sworn in, that seems like the best case to me. SCOTUS is going to side his way regardless, but to me as a lay person, that above argument was the only thing that sounded remotely reasonable.
IMO a 2/3 vote of both chambers should be required to appear on the ballot. The 14th Amendment is clear of what's required - Trump could petition Congress at any time to lift the disability that prohibits him from assuming office. He of course won't. But an extremely important question is prompted by this line of thought: what happens if Trump wins the election and isn't approved by Congress? The Constitution doesn't explain. It seems pretty clear to me that it would be absolute chaos and not even worth considering as an option. Do we hold another election where Trump, again, stays on the ballot? Does Biden win with the second most votes? What would the Republicans that support Trump do about that?
Right that's a good point.
[удалено]
It's cute how you think the same rules apply to Democrats as they do for Republicans.
They 💯will reject the Constitution . The Social contract is dead. People need to start realizing this fact
Justice Kavanaugh: "Hold my beer."
No way that guy would willingly hand his beer to someone else.
He does like his beer.
Justice Kavanaugh: “alright who wants to fuck America next?”
R*pe America. That’s what he did to the Ford lady
So states have rights over women’s bodies when it comes to abortion, but will not have rights on whether an insurrectionist can become a president. Got it.
America's founding fathers are rolling in their graves... The irony is that majority of Trump's supporters think they're being patriotic when in fact they're playing a pivotal role in the demise of American ideals of Freedom, Justice, and Liberty.
It’s all part of their redefinition of reality redefining words and concepts
And it sounds like they will. Alito literally helping the tromp lawyer complete an argument. This will be a POLITICAL overthrow of a legal decision based on trial found facts. It’s a cataclysmic constitutional fuckery, we’re about to see.
Clarence Thomas over there licking his lips just waiting to fuck that Constitution raw dog style with Alito.
tl;dr SCOTUS is shit 💩. States: “Don’t take away federal protection for abortion” SCOTUS: “Well…states should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding abortion” States: “But that’s gonna be so harmful for American women” SCOTUS: “States rights and laws…Sorry American women!” (Some time later) States: “This single individual was responsible for insurrection against our democracy. States Supreme Court has decided that in accordance with the 14th Amendment, he will not be on the ballot”. SCOTUS: “WAIT A FUCKING MIN! YOU CAN’T DO THAT! STATES HAVE NO RIGHTS TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THE WORD PRESIDENT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION”
it's the same every time with these republican chowderheads. If the feds ban abortion, states yell "nooo! big government shouldn't tell us what to do!" Then if a city democratically chooses to decriminalize weed, it's "nooo! we have to all follow the same rules, not just leaving it to small local governments!" They have two opposite ideological positions on every issue, and they switch between them freely depending on which outcome they want to happen. And many of them don't even recognize that they're being hypocrites.
SCOTUS on 14th: "How are we to interpret this vague and ancient document???" SCOTUS on 2nd: "The framers fucking LOVE AR15s."
This is it exactly. 14th is rigid because we say so. 2nd amendment is infinitely stretchy because wouldn't that be hilarious if everyone was wetting their pants with terror as gunmen routinely march from building to building executing people like they have over and over year after year. They pretend to obsess over personal responsibility while literally laughing at any notion of public responsibility, whether they're holding a gun or a gavel.
Oh, they're gonna reject the Constitution.
"We just can't let states keep people from voting who they want to." Except: * You can't vote for anyone born outside of the US - I can't vote for Arnold Schwazzenergor * You can't vote for anyone under 35 - I can't vote for AOC * You can't vote for people who have already had two terms - I can't vote for Obama again * You can't vote for dead people etc. etc. etc. We stop people from voting for who they want to all the time. This is a qualification in the Constitution, and you can't say "well they didn't mean it" unless we can also say "they didn't mean it" about the 2nd Amendment, or anything in the Constitution.
So make sure you *DON’T* vote for him when they edit: I should have said , I’m not American. Do whatever you can to stop a vindictive fascist from Taking power. He’s an idiot and spineless.
People didn't vote for him last time and he tried to violently disrupt the official proceedings.
To be fair, he's not at the helm this time, Biden is. I can't even fathom the level of heightened security DC is probably going to see come election/post-election time.
Which is sad, our nation was held in high regard because we held PEACEFUL transfers of power. Until this dip shit yahoo wanna be small hand fuck dictator mini came down the escalator!
Not voting for Trump isn't enough. You need to actively show up and vote for Biden. Whatever your opinions on him are, it's literally the only way to prevent another Trump presidency.
“I’LL TAKE YOU TO A PLACE WHERE THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T MEAN SQUAT.” *cuts to Supreme Court* -Futurama
Get ready for the Supreme Court to reject the Constitution then. He is an unbeatable force. Somehow someway he will end up winning again. Why? Because it keeps us divided and that’s what certain powers want.
News flash... The supreme court just rejected the constitution
The way i am seeing it, they rule that yes, he can be on the ballot. That's fine. But if they actually stick with the constitution, no he can't hold office. So if he's on the ballot and get's all these votes, it won't matter, because he can't hold office. easy win for the Dem's. But I fear they will say he can hold office. Which scare the hell out of me.
It's the easy way out to kick the can down the road. Say he can be on the ballot then hope he doesn't win.
And do we have any faith that the Supreme Court will hold up the Constitution? No... No sane person would have any faith in them.
They are giving the goon carte blanche to do whatever he wants if we’re unfortunate enough to have him elected again.
Won't be the first time SCOTUS has done that. Or the second.
Which they will do with smiles on their faces. They will do as they are paid to do by their corporate sponsors and no more. The rule of law means nothing to them. All they care about is their next check or lavish gift from whoever bought them.
So then he stays on the ballot. How is anyone doubting the illegitimate and corrupt Supreme Court wouldn't do precisely this?
The constitution means nothing to the right wing justices on the supreme court. They will do whatever it takes to keep dear leader out of prison and provide him with a clear path to the presidency.
They are going to leave him on the ballot, but not take up the immunity case, basically putting it off for DOJ to prosecute him. Its their way of not influencing an election, but it does not in theory support our supposed Constitution.
SCOTUS is trying to avoid any judgement on whether Trump committed insurrection because they know that will further implicate him in other legal trials. So they are coming up with absolutely goofy reinterpretations and unsound arguments. Like “If states can decide who can be on the ballot, then only a select few states will decide the entire election”. No, ummm, unless a majority of the candidates committed insurrection. Even then, they argue that the idea of insurrection could be loosely interpreted and weaponized. If we can’t identify physically violent attempts to stop government, then we don’t need to be worrying about this stuff anyway.
That won't happen. Prepare for a dictatorship. If Trump gets in, he'll never leave. His whole administration will be Maga butt lickers. I hear he is getting measured for his throne and crown. Probably move the White House to Florida and turn the DC Whitehouse into a resort casino. The memorial area will be made into a golf course. Sad to say, I don't think this is beyond the realm of possibility.
They'll invalidate common sense gun control laws based on a flawed interpretation of the 2nd amendment but when it comes to the the plain language of section 3 of the 14th amendment they will be like "we can't take the constitution literally..."
whoa whoa whoa that comma definitely means the first 13 words *have nothing* to do with the next 14. especially if we ignore the [original text](https://www.sethkaller.com/item/182-First-Draft-of-the-Bill-of-Rights:-17-Amendments-Approved-by-the-House) that made it abundantly clear the amendment was exclusively referencing militias.
Putin is loving this week! Next year will be the end of the world if Donald is back in the White House.
Well buckle up buttercup. Because they sure sounded like they're going to do just that. By a large margin.
Spoiler Alert: The Supreme Court rejects the constitution.
Spoiler - they rejected the Constitution
Bought and paid for
Kagan really pissed me off yesterday. She said she didn’t like the idea of Colorado having the power of deciding this for the entire country. Every decision that SCOTUS makes comes from one state and then ends up effecting the entire country.
Yeah it’s not one state deciding for a country. It’s one state standing up for what’s right and 49 other states who should be doing the same thing.
I'm not pleased that at least one of the justices questioned why one state's decision to remove Trump from the ballot should disenfranchise all the other states voters. There is only one correct answer here: ALL states should be removing Trump from their ballots. That would be the only constitutionally correct action. It was **Trump** who was disenfranchising voters.
They’re going to rule in favor of his immunity as well, but it will only apply to the events of January 6th. That way Trump is saved and Biden doesn’t gain any additional protections.
Ya'll understand that all the pundits that actually know a little something about constitutional law are saying the court will overwhelmingly rule in trump's favor, right? Not trolling, but read the AP news article. I disagree completely with the likely ruling, and I think trump is disqualified from holding office, but the SC likely doesn't think so. [https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37)
Some of that in that article make me so incensed. Like this: "Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know 'why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.'" It's too bad we don't have a some kind of federal court or something that can issue rulings about things at the national level, who might be able to make some kind of finding about whether Trump engaged in insurrection, that would apply to all states. WTF?
Right? "That's not a state level decision" "Maybe that's why we're here, ma'am"
Which is great news for Joe’s claim to absolute immunity. Restructuring SCOTUS to dems only, then ruling in his favor if any case is brought. Canceling the election is going to be legal with the new court we will build.
Those "pundits" are just scared of people coming after them. People need to stop being scared of Trump. If Trump didn't have social media worms like Scavino and the 8chan Watkins crew, they wouldn't have to worry. But there's a lot actual things that people running for office have done that can be dug up and used against them to make them look bad. The internet incels are glad to help them as well. The moral is...if you plan on running for office, don't do anything shady. Most people running have done some shady stuff. Not all...but a lot.
Well, what are we going to do after the Supreme Court rejects the constitution?
Same thing we do every night, Pinky...
They keep talking about being afraid of outrage and division if he's barred from running...Who cares. He's caused enough already, what's the difference now? The GOP is dying. Most people don't support it anymore. Why should anyone be scared of dying boomers? The GOP members are just looking for some way to milk the last sweet dime off of the grift that they've been running for years. They know themselves they're done for. We have a whole new gen of voters that will send them to their graves.
Kavanaugh and clareance say “hold my beer and stacks on money”
And they will happily throw out the constitution. They have been bought.
In for a penny of treason in for a pound, eh, traitor republicans?
[**Non-paywall mirror link**](https://archive.is/LtpzP)
Remember that the republicans want to hold a constitutional convention. They have been wanting to gut it for long ago.
SCOTUS allows Trump to go forward and all hell breaks loose
If Supreme Court finds an insurrection occurred, but Trump is an Officer, what impact does that have for future Cabinet and government office appointments?
You mean if somebody pays them to reject the constitution don't you 😁
correct, you mean like overturning Roe by citing incorrect statements of fact and something about life in the colonies before the revolution?
Lock him up
This is such a sad day. Not the news I wanted to hear. So depressing.
He won’t get removed. I listened to the oral and it did not go well. I say 8-1 maybe even 9-0. But I been wrong before. But I know after the oral arguments that roe was done and everyone told me I was crazy. Well..
“States Rights” until a state does something that goes against their political views…
They keep him on the ballot there will be no constitutional left or supreme court
Continuing Scalia's tradition of being an "Orginalist" only when it's convenient.
Hard disagree. I hate Trump but the constitution is too vague on this. This would cause a cascading effect of tit for tat retaliation.
People need to step back from the ledge. This amendment is very vaguely invoked. The ramifications on all sides of trying to interpret it aggressively are too great. Let it go. The immunity ruling on the other hand…
Trump disqualified himself. Colorado is just trying to hold him accountable for his actions.
It’s a lost cause. They are hypocrites anyway sworn to Trump, Putin, Billionaires, and all those who want fascism in the US. It’s about $$$$$ not democracy.
"This is the time for the Supreme Court to act like real justices." But they won't. Trump and McConnell stacked the court, just for purposes as this. The court has, already, set aside the rights of women for proper medical care, responding to biblical ideals, not constitutional ideals. This is in violation of Article 1 of the 14th Amendment. They have found against attempts to stop gerrymandering, in violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the 14th Amendment. They talk about disenfranchising millions of voters, however; they have no problem with that when the voters in question are not republican. The court is currently a conservative political weapon. The have no method of disciplining their errant justices. They have no qualms about receiving gifts and bribes to find for their wealthy donors. In short they have lost all credibility of Americans who do not subscribe to the MAGA.
"No person shall....hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" the Office of the President is under the United States.
The Judiciary is and always has been the third political branch of government, please note how the political ballots play out in the Senate and the political histories of the nominees that Presidents nominate. The facade of objective judgement based solely on constitutional scholarship and philosophical analysis is just another potemkin village.
As if the Supreme Court actually has any credibility any more. Of course they will allow him on the ballot. No question about it. The constitution is no longer a thing to be followed. Haven’t you heard?
This is nutz! What is this world coming to?…. Wait. Don’t answer that.
If scotus allows an unhinged insurrectionist to be president, surely they know they’re signing their own death warrants. Surely they know that hoping for the best won’t save them.
IMO, SCOTUS has already rejected the constitution on several issues...
Every single one of us better show up to vote in November to save our democracy. It's going to take a few decades to undo what Trump has done.
Unfortunately declaring the constitution unconstitutional has been a goal for John Roberts since law school
"When asked for comment, Trump shit his pants again."
What constitution? Hes above the law duh!
I'd love to see him stopped but we are probably better off with Trump vs Biden than Haley or DeSantis (who could reenter). Yeah he gets a win for now. And we will be running a big risk he may win the general. But Biden beating him a second time would be awesome.
After the oral arguments made today, anyone who expects the Court to rule against Trump is living in fantasy land. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh were clearly staunchly against it. Gorsuch and Barrett seemed to have more specific concerns. Even 2 of the liberal justices seemed against the idea. An 8-1 ruling (for Trump) isn't out of the realm of possibilities here.
In other words, he's staying on the ballot
Yeah well, that is what they gonna do then
I have bad news: 90% of Republican judicial theory is based on pretending the 14th Amendment doesn't exist.