jordanlund Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

US Internal news is not World News.

pineapple_pizza ,

Technically he has yet to be found guilty of insurrection in the court of law. Right? Isn't that case still ongoing?
If so, this would make sense cause we assume he's innocent until proven guilty

Evilcoleslaw ,

As of right now the only way he'd be disqualified is if he were charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection -- which explicitly lists disqualification from holding office as part of the punishment. Even in his DC criminal case he has not been charged with this.

This ruling means Congress needs to either specifically pass a bill disqualifying him or laying out other circumstances for disqualification which would apply to him.

stown ,
@stown@sedd.it avatar

The Constitution says nothing about them being charged. It talks about them "engaging" in that behavior but there is no requirement for being charged with or convicted of that behavior. The Supreme Court is making this all up as they go.

Dozzi92 ,
@Dozzi92@lemmy.world avatar

That's what the supreme Court does though, no? We have a legislative branch that leaves all the decisionmaking to the supreme court, time and time again. It's why we are where we are with so many decisions of the past eight years, because there is no law, and it's left to the opinions of folks appointed by politicians.

Gigan ,
@Gigan@lemmy.world avatar

Probably for the best, that would have been a dangerous precedent to set.

SinningStromgald ,

Chief Justice John Roberts said he could foresee, in the not-too-distant future, a world in which some states would try to boot the Democratic nominee from the ballot, and others would use Section 3 to do the same for the Republican candidate.

"It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence."

Is he assuming insurrections happening all the time now or something? Because otherwise I don't see how you could get to that conclusion. Really though it sounds like the Supremely Corrupt Court just doesn't want to rule on cases every election cycle because nutjob partisan judges in red states greenlight removing democratic candidates for vague nonsense reasons that have nothing to do with actual insurrection.

Telodzrum ,

Is he assuming insurrections happening all the time now or something? Because otherwise I don’t see how you could get to that conclusion.

Any state capable of finding someone guilty of engaging in insurrection is also capable of defining what "engaging in insurrection" means. If the Court went the other way on this one, Biden and every other Democrat would be removed from the Texas ballot the instant they define not shutting down the Mexican border with the military as "engaging in insurrection."

I swear to god, most of the people on this site have zero ability to conceptualize anything outside that which already supports their poorly considered argument.

DigitalFrank ,
SinningStromgald ,

So they don't want to deal with the appeals or define insurrection. Got it.

Telodzrum ,

It's not up to the court to define insurrection. Did anyone on this site pass a civics course?

Binzy_Boi ,

Unanimous? I might be out of the loop on some things but strikes me as unexpected that Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled in favour of Trump here.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

Apparently the non-conservstives were also worried that it would be abused and that congress needs to be the way the amendment is enforced.

So let the obstructionist conservatives avoid the right way of doing things by never letting such laws pass while pointing out the decision was unanimous. What a terrible outcome.

Transporter_Room_3 ,
@Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website avatar

Dems shooting themselves in the foot to try and be more accommodating to fascists

Name a more iconic duo

Ranvier , (edited )

Close, it sounds like they all agreed it should be enforced federally. The liberal justices plus Barrett didn't agree with saying congress was the only federal institution that could enforce it. So the liberal justices plus Barret may have opened a path for a federal lawsuit to prevent him from taking office or being on ballots. As it is with the current ruling, only congress would be able to stop him, either by passing a new bill specifically laying out how insurrectionists will be barred from ballots, or possibly by refusing to certify his electoral votes after the election.

ShepherdPie ,

They'd rather maintain the status quo than run the risk of rocking the boat. I find their justification that "this could lead to other states disqualifying candidates in the future" laughable as those candidates would first need to engage in an insurrection before action could be taken.

Evilcoleslaw ,

as those candidates would first need to engage in an insurrection before action could be taken.

Yes but it would allow the states to define what constitutes insurrection. You already had some state officials saying they'd apply it to Biden using their rhetoric about federal border policy failures as constituting an insurrection.

I think their logic about taking it out of the states' hands is probably sound. But I tend to agree with the liberal justices in their opinion that the majority went a little far by saying it rests solely with Congress instead of allowing the federal courts to potentially be an avenue as well.

Wrench ,

Honestly, even if abused, it probably wouldn't make much difference, since the state legislators party lines probably line up with presidential voting trends in most cases.

So really, if states abused the law, it probably wouldn't change the result, and one would hope consequences would reign down on those who abused their authority to take the vote away from their constituents.

anticolonialist ,

She knows the Constitution, sec 5 says only Congress can remove him

NocturnalMorning ,

We're in for a wild ride the next few years. This is not gonna be fun. It's crazy to see our institutions being torn down before our very eyes.

It's like watching a car accident in slow motion, and I'm powerless to do anything about it.

Godric ,

Supreme Court's not gonna save anyone from anything. Get registered to vote, make sure your friends and community are too.

chakan2 ,
@chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

Get registered to vote

That's not going to save you either. Get ready for the most corrupt voting cycle in US history.

revelrous ,
@revelrous@sopuli.xyz avatar

We'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
First we register to vote.

ZeroCool ,
@ZeroCool@slrpnk.net avatar

But I’ve been told Biden is old therefore we must allow a fascist dictatorship! What do?!

Godric ,

Decide if you prefer 81 years OR 77 years + 91 felonies!

xmunk ,

I've got 91 felonies but my age ain't one....

Yeah, the choice is pretty clear and Biden, while definitely too old, seems to be more with it than Trump. Maybe eating buckets of KFC in your 70s isn't the best idea.

negativeyoda ,

Here's the thing tho: it's been "vote blue to save democracy" but the DNC is just as fucked up just without the outwardly fascist leanings. No one wants to vote for Biden, they just want to vote against Trump. It's lose/lose and the most marginalized of us are going to get savagely fucked or slightly less fucked depending who's voted in.

There's no viable candidate who doesn't want to give Isreal carte blanche to commit genocide with US backing, no one wants to address money in politics... the fucking economy is a mess for the rank and file, non owning class majority of us. If these very real issues are mentioned, suddenly it's progressives' fault the Trump with be president. Fuck all that. Explain why I'm supposed to be enthusiastic?

I get voting for harm reduction and by virtue of the electoral college, my presidential vote won't matter in my state (my state has been "safe democratic" for the last half century) but when I cast my vote I will be holding my nose

reverendsteveii ,

I get voting for harm reduction

Question for you: has any candidate for president, or even someone running in a party's primary, ever been perfectly aligned with your beliefs on all things?

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

I don't like the guy, but I like even less the government deciding to take candidates off the ballot.

Edit: The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

abort_christian_babies ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • BombOmOm ,
    @BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

    Section 3 was exactly what this case was about and there was unanimous agreement that "States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

    FlowVoid , (edited )

    SCOTUS: If you're trying to keep Black people from participating in an election, the 14A clearly says the states are responsible for administering elections.

    Also SCOTUS: If you're trying to keep Trump from participating in an election, the 14A clearly says states are not responsible for administering elections.

    alilbee , (edited )

    Almost as if the balance of federalism is a central topic to almost every amendment and the core of the constitution itself... You're not making a "gotcha" here.

    Edit: kinda fucked to ninja edit your comments to say something different and much more inflammatory, but cool.

    FlowVoid ,

    The court "balances" its arguments with a thumb on the scales. It is not operating by some abstract principle, it is operating to ensure a predetermined political outcome.

    alilbee ,

    Not going to respond honestly with someone who edits their comments after people reply to make themselves say something completely different.

    NegativeLookBehind ,
    @NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world avatar

    So if the states can’t uphold it, and the fed doesn’t uphold it, then it’s pointless anyway.

    alilbee ,

    This applies to every line item in the constitution. The federal government can fail to do their duty on practically anything. It doesn't mean the Court is now obligated to change the reading to make it effective in a different way just because one of the other branches is inept/corrupted. I agree with you though, the insurrection clause is practically worthless in this era.

    Funnily enough, it's hard to see how the framers of the amendment didn't foresee a second Confederacy-like being incentivized to work to corrupt from within to break all these new tools. Then again, it's hard to come up with a scheme that truly blocks the possibility of an uprising this large without trampling on freedoms or causing disastrous consequences. (As much as I want trump gone, I really didn't want the future where every election season was watching court cases by sleazy lawyers in all 50 states, shifting even more power to the judiciary)

    morphballganon ,

    States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices

    So who does, then?

    BombOmOm ,
    @BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

    As per the Consitution (14A Secion 5): "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

    FlowVoid ,

    Which the SCOTUS ignored in Shelby County vs Holder.

    Turns out that sometimes 14A section 5 is an impermissible burden on state sovereignty. You know, when it's used to help the wrong people.

    WanderingVentra ,

    I guess the idea is that he'd have to be convicted of an insurrection? And then Congress or the Supreme Court would have to take him off the ballot?

    I actually get the idea, I just don't like the inconsistency between this and states deciding their voters (like some not allowing felons). There's a philosophical inconsistency to it I don't like about what states control about their own elections. But I also get the fear, because red states would start removing Democratic candidates for no reason.

    ShepherdPie ,

    Maybe they should tackle the argument when states begin removing candidates for no reason rather than jumping in to remove someone who attempted to overthrow a democratic election.

    alilbee ,

    This will be contentious maybe, but I don't think the supreme court should ever care about consequences. They are interpreters. In the theoretical framework of our government, the consequences were considered and locked in by the legislature and it's up to the executive to use discretion in enforcement.

    However, all that being said, the consequences for this would have sucked so hard. Every single election season, wall to wall coverage of court cases in all 50 states trying to toss candidates. Judiciary gets juiced even more than it already is, and judicial takeover becomes even more political than it already is. The presidential election hardly matters when the judiciary has become your new honorary electoral college.

    Evilcoleslaw , (edited )

    Basically, to be disqualified now Congress must pass some sort of legislation either explicitly disqualifying someone or devising some other method/process for disqualification.

    Edit: forgot there's already one in the books: 18 U.S.C. § 2383, Rebellion or insurrection, with which Trump is not charged.

    chakan2 ,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

    But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    That's the key phrase. It's by definition up to the states who can be on the ballot, and congress may compel them to put someone back on the ballot with a 2/3 vote.

    But our courts have long ago left the realm of reality.

    anticolonialist ,

    Read sec 5 of the 14th. That's the enforcement means for sec 3

    anticolonialist ,

    Now read sec 5 which is the means of enforcement for sec 3.

    Godric ,

    Chief Justice John Roberts said he could foresee, in the not-too-distant future, a world in which some states would try to boot the Democratic nominee from the ballot, and others would use Section 3 to do the same for the Republican candidate.

    "It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence."

    Darkard ,

    This is the sensible response here.
    While I agree that Trump is a piece of shit and shouldn't be president again, the obvious outcome is that it would be used as a precedent for future bad faith applications of the same rule.

    chakan2 ,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

    That's how it works today. I'm not sure what would be different in the future.

    snooggums ,
    @snooggums@midwest.social avatar

    States already keep 3rd party nominees off ballots with signature requirements.

    Dio ,
    @Dio@lemy.lol avatar
    DarkNightoftheSoul ,

    some golden girls haters in here.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • world@lemmy.world
  • random
  • movies
  • news
  • stillalive
  • ServerNonsense
  • istillthinkofyou
  • oneorangebraincell
  • MBBS
  • All magazines