this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
313 points (97.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7228 readers
102 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

DENVER (AP) — The campaign to use the U.S. Constitution’s “insurrection” clause to bar former President Donald Trump from running for the White House again enters a new phase this week as hearings begin in two states on lawsuits that might end up reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

A weeklong hearing on one lawsuit to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado begins Monday, while on Thursday oral arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court on an effort to kick the Republican former president off the ballot in that state.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] crawley 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...in two states that Trump never would have won anyway. It's absolutely the right thing to do and I hope more states follow suit as ultimately that would force the GOP to kick Trump off the ballot as well.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

*Thirteen.

Colorado, Michigan, Hew Hampshire, Arizona, West Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Nevada, Montana, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Wyoming.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a North Carolinian, I can report that our state judiciary is a joke and we're gerrymandered to fuck and back, so there's very little hope of fixing it anytime soon. Odds of Trump being kicked off the ballot here are infinity to one against.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The aim is to get the question of disqualification under 14A S3 answered. And perhaps the subtext is to make them say the quiet part out loud.

All it's going to take is one state court anywhere to find that Trump is not qualified to hold office. Then the appeals process starts, and it probably gets fast-tracked to SCOTUS. In order to find that one state court, you file in every state you can find standing in, because every case filed has a chance to be taken up by the court (FL found no standing, if you recall), every case taken up by a court has a chance of winning.

Just a numbers game.

[–] hydrospanner 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then the appeals process starts, and it probably gets fast-tracked to SCOTUS.

That does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Wouldn't surprise me to see that totally backfire for Trump's opponents once it gets to the SCOTUS level.

McConnell and RBG have seriously fucked things up for the next few decades, sadly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

RBG

What did Justice Ginsberg do here except work until almost her death?

But yeah: if they can't get justice Clearance Thomas off the bench and break the politically-fixated court of its partiality problems, then we're screwed.

Don't take people's vote, and don't rob them of justice, lest there be cars flipped and burning in the street.

[–] CADmonkey 4 points 1 year ago

She could have retired in the middle of the Obama admin, so he could appoint a not-nazi judge.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why is this even a thing. If dude wasn't a member of the 1% and laws applied as should be usual, he'd be in jail.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

I understand the frustration in watching him waltz around unfazed after what he did, but we've never had to apply this law before. We need to get this right the first time. We can't afford to fuck up applying this law, and not fucking it up takes time.

[–] hansl 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both the richest and poorest of people are equally prohibited from sleeping under a bridge.

[–] dvoraqs 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A rich person could probably easily get a permit to do so and pay people to do anything needed for it

[–] FutileRecipe 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This should definitely end up at the U. S. Supreme Court. This is for a federal position, so it should be decided at a federal level.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Supreme Court that Trump himself personally filled with corrupt partisan cronies…

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately that's not how it works because of the electoral college. You're ultimately voting to choose your state's electors. It's up to each and every state to decide the process for choosing their electors.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Electors; those people threatened, stalked and harassed by gun-clutcher Trump cultists? Those guys?

I'm in favour of removing that role, now that it's changed from "valuable last-ditch crazy-dictator prevention mechanism" to "go hug your kids and do what we say".

[–] DevCat 11 points 1 year ago

There are a number of republicans that would disagree. Thankfully, they've been told no.

The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power (such as constitutional conventions or independent commissions).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If that fails I suggest we also add any other previously tried criminal that we see as fit to be our president. In a country having hundreds of thousands of perfectly good Americans that don't commit crimes, sure, let's give criminals a venue to better adjusting their freedoms.