BenLeMan ,
bradorsomething ,

So what happens if the states continue to keep him off the ballot? Does the federal government take over their elections, or do they refuse to recognize the electors?

The supreme clowns are giving an opinion and states are already starting to ignore their opinions. What happens if the states ignore this and say their state rights exceed here?

Godric ,

What a mystery! Who knows what happens when States try and assert their "State's Rights" to ignore the federal government, it's never happened ever in American history, thank you for asking such a deep and intellectually thought-out question!


chiliedogg ,

The bigger news isn't that he's back on the ballot, but the 5-4 split within the unanimous ruling.

They unanimously agreed that a state Court can't ban someone from election to a federal office based on federal rules. There's something to be said for that, which is why the liberal justices were all on board with it.

The 5-4 split with the separate opinions, however, was Thomas, Alito, Robert's, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch saying that federal courts also can't ban someone from holding office for insurrection even if convicted of the crime in a federal court.

They're setting up Trump to be eligible to be elected President even if he loses the insurrection trial prior to the election. They're saying only Congress can ban him from office for insurrection.

The liberal justices wrote a heated rebuke of that in their concurring opinion, and Barrett sided with the liberals, but scolded the liberals for being too mean about it in her standalone concurring opinion.

cultsuperstar , (edited )

"It's not for us to decide. It's up to the Republican controlled Congress to decide to allow Trump and any other Republican candidate and not allow Democrat candidates the same luxury."

guacupado ,

They want to leave it to states' rights when it benefits them. Then they want it to Republican-controlled groups.

cheese_greater ,

I leave it to legal minds better versed in this but it was a unanimous decision and its not devoid of sense that States (some of whom consistently elect bad-faith actors who are a threat to civil society) should not be able to mix-match disqualify candidates, but rather that a federal mechanism for enforcement needs to be legislated by Congress.

They have literally provided a roadmap to disqualify Trump/future ilk that they cannot turn around and deny when it comes back to them to adjudicate on eventually. The law is iterative so its for the best. In any case, he's gonna lose his state criminal trials so they'll finally be able to put him away or dispose of him. Even Barrett was bitching about giving too much of the plot away

whoelectroplateuntil , (edited )

I mean, the whole argument hinges on the fact that the procedures around Section 3 are ambiguous, but clearly since states haven't tried to do it themselves before, that means they obviously don't have the authority. So, the precedent exists not because it has actually been set, but because it can be inferred to exist by the fact that it hasn't been set.

May as well have signed it in crayon, too. OH WAIT THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT

Dkarma ,

They have done this before tho.
Scotus is corrupt and illegitimate.

FiniteBanjo ,

It doesn't really make any sense, the SCOTUS expects congress to vote on enforcing laws that they passed 150 years ago every time the issue comes up? Why? They already voted.

hglman ,

Many of there recent ruling use that logic, like the epa one that says the must be hyper specific. Ending the ablity of the government to functio is the core goal of republican party.

FiniteBanjo ,

This is a bit more than just that, though, it was a 9-0 ruling. There really is no more faith to be had in the court as a whole.

Pussydogger ,

Did anyone read the opinions?

Dkarma ,

Did any one read the Constitution?

Trump doesn't qualify as an insurrectionist.
Just as if he was 34

cheese_greater ,

MidasTouch on YouTube does good analyses of such things

callouscomic ,

States rights!!!!! Sometimes.

Illuminostro , (edited )

What happened to State's Rights? Oh, they only matter when they didn't benefit you. Got it.

FiniteBanjo ,

What happened to upholding the constitution? He is literally barred from office for his crimes, and his legal defence was that he did those crimes but it shouldn't disbar him (even though it very clearly does).

fne8w2ah ,

cue Strum Thurmond spinning in his own grave

BeautifulMind , avatar

It's so wild that the 'but the people have democratic rights to choose among candidates' crowd invoke that argument to make the candidate that's promised to end democracy and rights one of the options they can vote for

You know, because democracy

Wilzax ,

And also, he never won on the people's democratic right to choose among candidates. Hillary did. He won because the president is chosen by the states, not the people. Don't like it? Abolish the electoral college.

upandatom ,

Abolish electoral college is not the answer to these issues. Unless you have a new idea in mind. Electoral college is better than using popular vote. It helps prevent fraud from any one particular state.

Kite_height ,

How so? And does that outweigh the negatives and weaknesses we've seen in the electoral college system over the past 2 election cycles?

upandatom ,

I was mostly curious those that want to abolish it what their alternative solution is.

Under popular vote, DeSantis is still running and maybe now he gets 63 billion votes from Florida alone. The impact of this fraud (there are not 63 billion ppl voting in Florida) is bigger with no electoral college.

Other countries don't have EC bc other counties don't have our state and government structure.

Yall do you. I'm not very political anyway.

Kite_height ,

Popular vote works pretty well, that's how we run every other election.

If you didn't know, the electoral college is a holdover from when slave states wanted to keep political control away from the North, where the population was rapidly growing while the South was falling apart.

Aleric ,

How exactly does it prevent fraud?

Gabu ,

Except this assinine system only exists in 'murica, which also happens to be the country where democracy doesn't work.

gedaliyah Mod , avatar

What I don't understand about the ruling is that congress has already exercised their power. Donald Trump was impeached by congress in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. The states are only enforcing the law based on the ruling a of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate.

Tinidril ,

Removal from office takes a supermajority in the Senate, so maybe disqualification via the 14th does as well. That would presumably depend on Senate rules that currently don't cover it.

A simple majority ought to be sufficient, but it also ought to be sufficient for just about everything, but it's not.

Dkarma ,

14th didn't say that

Tinidril ,

14th didn't say it's up to Congress either. The Supreme Court said that, and now it's up to Congress to decide what that looks like. The constitution lets the legislative bodies setup their own rules for how a lot of things function.

FreakinSteve ,

If the Supes said it without merit then it can be ignored. Ban him from the ballot anyway.

Tinidril ,

I'm not sure I even disagree with the idea that it needs to be done at the Federal level. If individual states can do it, then Republicans will start declaring that everything they don't like is an insurrection (as their rhetoric already does on many issues) and remove Democrats from ballots.

Whether that means it has to be the legislature and what that looks like are different questions.

FreakinSteve ,

So we're just gonna allow a corrupt party to simply decide what words mean on their own?

Hold up, George Orwell on line three...

Tinidril ,

This was actually a 9-0 decision. Being a cynic is definitely justified by the state of our government, but you should have some ideas what your being cynical about.

FreakinSteve ,
Tinidril , (edited )

Nothing here says that one party gets to define anything. Also, the court did not say that the Senate must agree by a 2/3 majority, only that Congress must decide. The text of the constitution does clearly make section 3 self executing but, unhelpfully, it does not tell us who determines that an insurrection occurred or whether a particular person is guilty of participation.

It clouds the issue even further that the previous vote failed in the Senate, but would have passed by a simple majority. It could well be that some who voted in favor of impeachment might have voted otherwise if a simple majority were required. I think a simple majority should be sufficient in this case, but that vote never occurred.

Personally, I'm not sure it would be a good thing to remove Trump from the ballot. I think it will be far better for the nation to defeat him at the ballot box. If Trump can actually win, then we are doomed anyways.

Trump is uniquely bad as a human being, but he is not uniquely bad as a potential Republican president. There are plenty of Republicans that would be worse, simply because they are competent and, for many milquetoast Americans, far more persuasive.

FreakinSteve ,

So you think that candidates should ve defeated at the ballot box and not by judicial decree, but judicial decree is perfectly okay for policymaking.

FreakinSteve ,

This is wild because Obama got his nom yanked because Mitch said "the institutions shouldn't do their jobs; let the American people decide if he should be able to nominate a judge!"

You dont saturate the airwaves with radical fascist conspiracist bullshit and then give the listeners and fans the reins to government

Tinidril ,

What does this have to do with the topic we are discussing? Yeah, that was complete bullshit. If the argument is that the Supreme Court is illegitimate, then I'm with you. However, this particular ruling probably wouldn't be impacted by a change in the makeup of the court since, as I pointed out, it was a 9-0 ruling. Replace all three of Trump's nominees with judges that agree with you, and you still lose 6-3.

Personally I think Biden should have stuffed the court with one judge for each Federal district (13). Even if he did that, and all the new judges took your perspective, you still lose 9-4.

FreakinSteve ,

The Constitution says what it says. If I lost 6-3 it doesnt change the fact that they decided that the Constitution does not say what it says, and is not the law of the land. We can easily speculate why they ruled that way based on exactly what we know about their corruption. They rejected the Constitution; this is not debateable.

Tinidril ,

And what does the constitution say about who decides when someone has participated in an insurrection? Exact constitutional text please.

FreakinSteve ,

It's the constitution, not Webster's dictionary. It is not the Constitution's job to define every single word that is within the Constitution. Participating in an insurrection is participating in an insurrection, which is what happened on January 6th. The Constitution clearly states that anyone who does such is ineligible to hold office again. This is not complicated at all. What is happening is a slow coup

Tinidril ,

Read your argument above then read this response again. You are arguing that the court is overriding what the constitution says, then arguing that it doesn't matter that the constitution says nothing on the subject. Your mind is a really weird place.

FreakinSteve ,

That is the worst case of obtuse misreading ever. The Constitution is very clear on this. The SCOTUS is ignoring it and making up conditions that DO NOT EXIST.

Tinidril ,

Great. The constitution is clear. Super. Tell me where the constitution tells us who decides if an insurrection has occurred. Round round round we go.

Republicans say Biden must be removed from the ballot because he allows "open borders" allowing the country's enemies past the gate. Is that insurrection? Are they wrong? How do we know? Who decides?

FreakinSteve ,

And no, border issues are not an insurrection and the Republicans know that it isn't. They are not challenging the Constitution or the supreme Court on this? They are simply trying to brainwash and con their voter base. You are giving them entirely too much power and I can't understand why.

Tinidril ,

Here is an excerpt from the 14th

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Does Biden's "open border policy" allow terrorists or foreign agents to sneak into the country? Is that not aid and comfort to our enemies?

Sure, you and I think that is a ridiculous interpretation, but will a judge in Mississippi? Do you really believe that the current Republican party wouldn't abuse the fuck out of this? Republicans started using that rhetoric the moment people started talking about applying it to Trump. This needs to be defined at the Federal level.

I am not giving them power. In red states, they are the power.

FreakinSteve ,

According to your very own interpretation with this question there is no such thing as a crime because every time a crime is committed someone has to step in and define what a crime is. We can't say a victim was murdered because there's no one to determine what a murder is. Fraud and larceny cannot possibly be crimes because the Constitution nor the Senate have appointed someone to define what larceny and fraud is.

Do you not see how psychotic resorting to such ridiculous semantics are?

Why is everyone so desperate to back up the SCOTUS claim that 'there is no law, therefore there can be no disorder'?

It's not even a "dogs can't play basketball!" ruling; it's a "there are no dogs" ruling.

Tinidril ,

Are you really not aware that one of the primary jobs of Congress is to literally define what a crime is? That's what laws are. There is literally a statute (several actually) passed by Congress that does define what murder, fraud, and larceny are. That's the cornerstone of due process. A crime isn't a crime unless there is a law being broken. You have failed your constitution test.

FreakinSteve ,

And you are telling me that an actual amendment was passed concerning a crime that nobody seems to know exists or what it is or how to define it?

Tinidril ,

Where did I mention an amendment? The constitution gives Congress the ability to write laws. Those laws are not constitutional amendments or part of the Constitution in any way. They are part of the US criminal code. Well defined laws have been foundational to modern justice systems since at least the time of Hammurabi.

FreakinSteve ,

This entire case is based around interpreting an amendment. Colorado was following Constitutional Amendment and the supreme Court said that they cannot follow a constitutional amendment because following the Constitutional amendment is illegal. This is so very uncomplicated

Tinidril ,

The constitution doesn't say who decides what qualifies as insurrection, so it is not at all clear that state courts have that authority. The federal government defines federal law, and state governments define state law. Likewise, federal courts adjudicate state law, and state courts adjudicate state law.

The amendment in question is in the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions. Therefore, defining what is or isn't an insurrection is a matter for federal lawmakers, and adjudicating guilt is a matter for federal courts.

Yes, this is pretty straightforward for anyone who understands how our legal system functions.

Of course this is all separate from the practical implications of allowing states to make up their own definitions of "insurrection" and arbitrarily remove Democrats from ballots. Given the Republican party's long history and recent escalation of underhanded tactics, it's a guarantee that this would be abused and, if you had your way, they would have the cover of a Supreme Court ruling to back it up. Just a reminder, there are a lot more red states than blue.

HurlingDurling , avatar

States rights only applies when it benefits the GQP

derf82 ,

A nonsensical ruling.

The section specifically says congress can allow someone to hold office with a 2/3rds vote. How does it make any sense that it also takes specific congressional action to disqualify someone? A simple majority could stop that.

They even noted on a footnote a case where a 2/3rds majority voted to seat a former confederate. Yet they didn’t bother to outline how he was disqualified to start with. It wasn’t congressional action.

And they exceed legal thoughts as the suppose there needs to be uniformity so the president is president for all. History is filled with candidates that didn’t appear on the ballot is some states. Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in some southern states. Like it or not, that is how it works.

And while the majority was rightfully chided for going beyond the question presented, shame on the liberals for ruling to protect their federal power rather than protecting the integrity of elections. I hated the oral arguments where they were all saying it “feels” like a federal question. If you want it to be a federal question, amend the constitution so the feds are in charge of elections. Until then, states have the right to decide who is on their ballot.

Natanael ,

States should still have full power to tell their own electors who they can and can't vote for, congress deliberately can't control that and SCOTUS can't tell them what rules to use. Ballot access don't matter if votes for the traitor are void by default.

m0darn ,

What about a motion in congress to exempt Donald Trump under the 14th amendment? If it failed to get 2/3 approval would that defacto mean he is barred from office?

Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm not American.

Bgugi ,

Simple answer: this process could be used to disqualify essentially any candidate.

m0darn ,

...And yet it hasn't been used in 150 years

CptEnder ,

It's a shame the Romans didn't at least have Dip n' Dots before their republic fell.

TankovayaDiviziya ,

It's a shame for anyone to model themselves after the Romans, to be honest.

CptEnder ,

Lmao we're on cruise control to be exactly like their society with a Caesar and collapsing under it's own weight.

ZombiFrancis ,

Fascists use institutions to secure and entrench power. They are not restricted by them.

The question for those cheering this decision as a win for the rule of law or the institution is: how aware of this are you?

rsuri ,

That's exactly it though - if the court said state judges can enforce laws keeping people off ballots, then you'd have fascists using the courts to secure and entrench power by keeping democrats off the ballot. There's all sorts of zealots on the state courts, if the Supreme Court said this was legal I have no doubt that at least the AL supreme court would quickly find that Biden is guilty of insurrection against god or something and knock him off the ballot there.

Something as big as keeping a presidential candidate off the ballot can't be up to the states, because there's a lot of crazy state governments.

Doomsider ,

So because we have shit states who race to the bottom means we can't have states control their elections? Ruling by the lowest common denominator is a a recipe for garbage.

TangoUndertow ,

We just had a president calling up state leaders to try and reject the winner of the election.

No one took him up on it, primarily because there was no legal basis to do so.

If a state can remove a nominee before the election even starts, that would NOT be good for us. We've seen time and time again how political factions will use any leeway they have to solidify power.

FreakinSteve ,

The difference is that this isnt a whim...he is legit a criminal traitor who engaged in insurrection and is disqualified by the Constitution. States' rights have nothing to do with any of this.

ferralcat ,

Ideally you'd just challenge a ruling like that and have it thrown out for being meritless and the judge who made it sanctioned. But the supreme court has ruled that judges have absolute immunity for their actions no matter how corrupt, so the best you can do is vote them out of office and then do nothing to them like we're doing here.

The justice system is more concerned with protecting itself than justice and it's the supreme court that's been heading that boat for the last 200 years.

Still that doesn't make their argument not stupid as hell. They have chances to fix it here and just refuse to admit that there's a problem.

WoahWoah , (edited )

Good. Democracy means that it can be democratically dissolved. If you're holding on to a piece of paper written by slave owners to save your democracy, then you've missed the point of democracy.

If a majority of voters want racist, sexist fascism, that's what you'll get. No amount of social media posts will change that. Ask the slaves, Indigenous Peoples, women, poor men, non-Christians, and children of the United States for the majority of its history.

Vote. And get others to do it too. Change people's minds--and, no, posting on social media isn't changing anyone's mind. You have to actually go out and do the work of talking to people, understanding them, and then changing minds. Yelling at people, digitally or actually, isn't doing anything. Sorry.

Now all the people that want to sit in their room doing nothing and act like it is doing something can downvote.

It's the only form of "democracy" you know: cheap and easy. "I NO LIKE."

GeneralVincent ,

Well that would be great if we had a democracy. No Republican has won the popular vote for something like 20 years, but we've had more than one Republican president since then.

Voting is super important, but we also need a better democracy because we know the majority don't want a bigot in office. But we're still getting one every couple years

tigeruppercut , avatar

Yeah GW Bush won in 88 and since then there's only been one GOP population vote win when W won in the middle of the war in 04. Only one republican win in the past 35 years, and this coming election will be no different. There's no way in hell the popular vote goes against Biden in November.

WoahWoah ,

The United States is HUGE. Do you feel like population centers should get to dictate the terms to everyone that doesn't live in a populous state? If so, then, again: vote. If you don't like the current election process then change it.

You Americans complain so much about your electoral processes, but you do nothing to change them.

You get bigots and violent offenders in office either way you cut it. Obama normalized the massive, largely remote kill operations in non-battlefield engagements. He authorized the death of several thousand people exclusively through remote kill actions. As he noted himself, "turns out I'm really good at killing people. Didn't know that was going to be my strong suit."

The popular vote for an overpowered executive isn't the answer. And I think you know that. The answer is harder and requires more work. But it's nice to think it's just about voting once every four years to fix it, isn't it?

Good luck.

PoliticallyIncorrect , (edited ) avatar

LMAO see it came in since months ago, finally they did it..

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • movies
  • news
  • stillalive
  • ServerNonsense
  • istillthinkofyou
  • oneorangebraincell
  • MBBS
  • All magazines