• rebul@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Does anyone seriously think this will pass Supreme Court scrutiny? I expect an 8-1 decision that will stop this silliness. As much as you hate Trump, surely you can think forward enough to see what an awful precedent would be set which would come back to bite you later?

    • shiveyarbles@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, the precedent is needed. When you lead an insurrection against the USA, you shouldn’t be allowed to run for ANY office.

    • Cyv_@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      11 months ago

      Just don’t do an insurrection and you won’t be barred from office based on the insurrection clause. I get some conspiracy theorists will try to paint everything as an insurrection now but if were at the point where that shit would fly I’m not sure whats stopping them from doing it already.

      We’ve been begging the dems to stop playing fucking nice with these idiots for years. I’m all for consequences for actions. Jan 6 was definitely an attempt at subverting our elections. Trump definitely participated in it and encouraged it. To not enforce the constitution would open the doors for worse.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

      Do you think people will just accuse candidates of insurrection willy nilly? I mean I bet Republicans would since they’re trying to impeach Biden for literally nothing. But I don’t think those will pass scrutiny. But Trump absolutely committed actions that could be considered aiding insurrection. Hense the 14th amendment cases.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      The precedent of following US Constitution? That would be indeed a horrible thing.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      The irony here is that Trump and the Republicans worked really hard to stack the SCOTUS with originalists, because that tends to play well with a conservative Republican agenda.

      But it also upholds the Insurrection Act. Remember that SCOTUS may be conservative, but they’re not all Republican lackeys. In order to decree this unconstitutional, SCOTUS would have to make a majority decision that what Trump did doesn’t fall under insurrection. I can see them wanting to stay out of THAT one completely, refusing to make a finding that would create SCOTUS precedent; that means they would leave these decisions in place in order to preserve future flexibility.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        In order to decree this unconstitutional, SCOTUS would have to make a majority decision that what Trump did doesn’t fall under insurrection.

        No, they wouldn’t. They would just have to accept a due process argument, essentially that the opinion of a CO state judge is not the appropriate venue or process for determining if someone is an insurrectionist. Probably calling for either Congress or criminal courts to establish that.

        This is notably different than the CSA, as CSA officers were openly and publicly members of an organization that openly and publicly waged a war against the US.

        • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is notably different than the CSA, as CSA officers were openly and publicly members of an organization that openly and publicly waged a war against the US.

          What do you call storming an election certification and killing a cop?