He hasn't been convicted yet, so if they found in favor of the plaintiff, it would be setting a dangerous precedent.
Try again after conviction.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
24 points (96.2% liked)
Politics
1025 readers
1 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 2 years ago
I expect to close 40+ posts about this non-story in the next 72-hours.
I mean, he was impeached for it. That's pretty equivalent to a conviction, even if the Senate decides not to punish him.
Except he specifically wasn't convicted because the Republicans voted against it both times because party is more important than reality.
Conviction isn't a requirement. Confederate politicians & officers weren't "convicted" after the Civil War, yet they were barred from office.
It hasn't hit the lower courts yet.
Yeah, they just said they won't hear it, not that they'll allow him.
Besides, it'd probably be better if it happens right before the 2024 general election, at the point it'll be too late to remove his name from the ballot and all his idiot followers will still cast their vote for him despite being disqualified.