• LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    180
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yes please. Would love if they didn’t phrase it in a horse race kind of way, “it would be a boon to the Biden campaign” and instead “it would be appropriate because Trump tried to overthrow an election and we have a specific constitutional amendment prohibiting insurrectionists from running for office”

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      101
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, people keep bringing up political strategy. Like Trump can’t win California anyway, or doesn’t need Colorado, so taking him off the ballot saves him money.

      That’s not the reason states want him off the ballot. It’s not political machinations. It’s the fucking law.

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        78
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, the headline could read something like, “49 States Have Yet to Follow the Law and Remove Trump from Ballots.”

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      And, quite frankly, I think Biden has a better chance of beating Trump than Nikki Haley. Don’t get me wrong, Haley isn’t much better than Trump. I don’t want her in the White House either, but she has a better “facade of reasonableness.” People know KNOW how bad she is and could assume she’s not as bad as Trump. The Biden campaign would need to work hard to prove to everyone that she’s bad. Meanwhile, everyone outside of MAGA knows Trump is bad.

      So while Trump being booted from the election might be bad for Biden’s reelection chances, it would be good for the country.

      • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        No way does Haley have a chance of turning out the base the way Trump does.

        Overturning Roe and ensures a strong turnout for the Democrats regardless of how lackluster everyone feels about Biden.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is how he needs to lose. A systemic refusal to allow a traitor to America to hold power.

    • WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      All we need is one defecting GOP SC justice to bar him from the entire country’s general election. Cross your fingers.

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m surprised that any president impeached in their first term is still allowed to run for any public office again. Being impeached for any reason should automatically disqualify you from running or holding ant public office.

      • rbhfd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        While I would agree under normal circumstances, that would just be abused in the current political atmosphere.

        Republicans are now already trying to impeach Biden for some made up reason while knowing it will never stick in the senate. Can you imagine how much more effort they’d spent in it if it would prevent Biden from running for reelection.

        Everything Trump has done should be enough to make him unelectable in the eyes of the voters, even if it doesn’t legally prevent him from running.

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m ok with that. I think Joe Biden better step up his game or we will get one of those other crazy Republicans. Last time we only voted for him because we were voting against trump and the others don’t have that same sway.

    • Aghast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      64
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well shouldn’t the rule of law have a say? He hasn’t been convicted of anything that would bar him from office.

      He definitely should not be president but even he needs to face justice before states start arbitrarily banning him as a candidate.

      If more states bar him I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates and it will start an endless tit for tat chain of retribution. The only way it can be stopped is if he is convicted and then removed from ballot.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        56
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The 14th amendment doesn’t require a conviction. It was written in the wake of the civil war to unilaterally prevent any confederates from holding office, without needing to convict each and every one of them. The entire purpose was to preempt the need for a conviction.

      • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The insurrection clause says NOTHING about a conviction. It was written so as to apply to virtually every confederate soldier and other supporters of the confederacy, without needing to drag each and every one of them before a judge.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If more states bar him I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates

        If those hypothetical democrats staged an insurrection against the United States in attempt to stay in office after they were voted out, I would support those red state’s bans.

      • Pratai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        He’s a twice impeached convicted rapist. What more do you need to keep him off the ballot?

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          For that to disbar from the office.

          Fortunately, leading an insurrection does, and the post Civil War case law is very clear it doesn’t need a criminal conviction.

          This, btw, is common knowledge at this point, so if you see some idiot screeching about the “rule of law” just tell them this is the law.

          • Frigid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure, but we’re talking about a job application… I don’t think the difference matters there.

      • Corhen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        Tell me you haven’t read the constitution without telling me you haven’t read the constitution…

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates

        They didn’t ban him because they didn’t like him. There’s a constitutional amendment that precludes him from being on the ballot.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The US Supreme Court could rule against Trump, leading to similar lawsuits in additional states.

    If SCOTUS rules that Trump is an insurrectionist, barred from office by the Constitution, wouldn’t that make him ineligible in every state?

    • CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      If they ruled that way, then yes. The 14th Ammendment would overrule any state law and bar him from office, unless 2/3 of Congress voted to exempt him.

  • shininghero@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 months ago

    Do it. And when his adherents make their little death threats…
    Take more things away from Trump, and say it’s a direct result of his adherents actions.

    Parental discipline™, coming soon to a political office near you!

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Colorado might not be the only state to prohibit former President Donald Trump from being on the 2024 presidential ballot.

    The decision does not go into effect until January 2024, giving Trump’s campaign weeks to appeal.

    Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame’s Law School, told the Associated Press that the state supreme court’s decision poses a “major threat” to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

    Colorado was the first state to bar Trump from being on the ballot, but it’s not the only one that’s seen similar legal challenges.

    The Minnesota Supreme Court, for example, was presented earlier in the year with a similar opportunity, though it ruled in favor of Trump.

    The state of Michigan also received a challenge from the same group behind Minnesota’s attempt: Free Speech For People.


    The original article contains 297 words, the summary contains 134 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Turning Michigan dark blue this early in the election cycle would be YUGE. That’s a ton of campaign cash that gets to stay in the war chest. Granted, you still have to get past the US Supreme Court.

  • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Didn’t the Michigan Supreme Court already rule on this? I remember the Secretary of State saying she didn’t want to make that decision and was glad the court ruled as quickly as they did.

    –Oh, I see, it was a lower court, now being appealed to the Supremes–

  • Jonamerica@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    What’s the over/under on SCOTUS ruling in favor of Trump when these are eventually appealed?

    • Fondots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The most proper thing for them to do is probably to say “this is a state election issue, not our place to get involved in”

      Which is probably fairly likely, I don’t think they’ll really want to deal with this, it’s an easy way for them to wash their hands of it, leaves the door open for red states to try to find an excuse to remove Biden from the ballot, let’s them act like they’re respecting the intent of the founders, etc.

      If they do decide to take it up, who know? The court is definitely packed with conservative assholes, but even among them, I don’t think most of them particularly like trump, and they certainly haven’t been as “loyal” to him as he would like, some of them would probably love to see him removed from the ballot in hopes that an actually competent Republican asshole might win.

      I think it’s probably about a 50/50 shot of SCOTUS actually taking it up, and if they do it’s probably about 50/50 again for what the outcome would be.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Either that or they’ll punt it. “We looked at the case and decided that it’s up to the states to decide who goes on the ballots and who doesn’t.”

        This would let Colorado and other states kick Trump off the ballot, but it would also open the door to red states kicking Biden off the ballot for “all his crimes which we still have no evidence of.”

        Then the Supreme Court will eventually need to hear a case on WHAT REASON is good enough to kick someone off the ballot. Is “they fail to meet the requirements” good enough? What about “we don’t like this guy and don’t want him to win?”

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          In Trumps case he was deemed to have incited insurrection and the constitution tells them he can’t hold office.

          It’s going to be a lot harder for anyone to remove Biden and survive a court challenge unless they also find him guilty of insurrection somehow.

  • SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’ll postpone the inevitable for another few years, but there’ll be another autocrat soon enough. Have enough people with bad jobs and in debt up to their eyeballs, and some minority scapegoating wannabe dictator will appear eager for the job.

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Turning a purple state blue via court order rather than votes will have consequences down the line. While the stacked Supreme Court is almost definitely going to rule in Trump’s favor, them ruling against him isn’t something we should simply see as a boon with no strings attached.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Shut up, idiot. For one thing, the law is clear, this is literally using the Constitution as intended, for another the Republicans are free to nominate someone that isn’t a traitor.

      • Godric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m terribly sorry you snacked on paint chips as a child and are thus unable to see both my point and potential longterm consequences. Trump is a traitor, but if you think his base is going to quietly shrug and let constitutionality get in the way of getting their guy in power, I have a bridge to sell you.

          • Godric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            No we should not, as I am not saying that. I’m not in any way suggesting that he should get off scot-free for his poorly attempted coup, I’m merely pointing out the existence of consequences, which is apparently a controversial view.

      • Godric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Then hurray for that! I’m not nearly optimistic enough to think that, but one can hope.