Gee I wonder how they'll rule. A real judge would recuse from a case involving the one who appointed them. A real government would imprison a Justice who engages in open corruption. I guess we'll just have to see if I'm right once again.
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
165 points (97.1% liked)
News
23284 readers
3497 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You don't think they would throw Trump under the bus if they thought it might take some of the heat off them?
I bet they throw him under the bus.
I hope you're right.
A defining characteristic of corrupt republicunts is how often they double-down on terrible/illegal/stupid ideas.
Gorsuch ruled on the case that the Colorado Supreme Court cited as precedence for their decision. He might recuse himself rather than attempt to reverse his own decision.
The Conservatives can still rule 5-3 in Trump's favor, though.
Republicans aren't above hypocrisy. He'll make up some stupid excuse about how this case is different somehow. Maybe he'll say that Trump isn't an insurrectionist because he wasn't successful, or maybe he'll blame it on the phase of the moon, who the fuck knows
Republicans embrace hypocrisy. It's the defining feature of conservativism.
While you're probably right, the difference is that Gorsuch would give ammo to his enemies by reversing his own decision when he doesn't need to in order for his team to win. IF he recuses himself, it is because he knows the other conservative justices will find for Trump.
This presents an interesting problem for Republicans, and by interesting I mean an unwinnable scenario.
See, if the conservative judges put Trump back on the ballot, they will instantly give more ammunition to people already screaming for court reform.
That's the one thing the conservative legal movement fears.
On the other hand, if they don't come up with some excuse to justify putting Trump back on the ballot, the maga mob will declare them traitors and might actually try to kill them.
The trick will be threading that needle, and I don't think it's possible.
I want to agree, but I think they can safely assume Dems are not capable of reforming the court. People (including me) will scream about it but no one will actually do anything about it.
Not unless we vote for people who actually want reform. Joe Biden doesn't want reform. I'm still going to vote for him, but I'm also voting for more progressive candidates in the downticket primaries.
I agree 100%. I should have clarified current Democratic party leaders, and it is definitely still important to vote for the better choice in every election even if the candidates aren't perfect.
Like all politicians, Democrats will recognize the self interest in having fair elections. If the court is going to hand the elections to Republicans against the rules, they will suddenly see the need to reform the court.
So, even from a pessimistic point of view, they either uphold the law as it clearly should be or face their end.
Worst case scenario: the Trump Justices recuse themselves pretending to care about conflict of interest. This allows them to avoid the mob and get rid of Trump. When he gets a negative ruling based on mostly the non-Trump judges, the Republicans are able to campaign on getting the presidency and a senate super majority, in order to impeach all of them and we end up with a 9-justice right wing court.
The repbulican establishment would gladly sacrifice Trump to get the full court.
I assume the Republican establishment wants to get rid of Trump, but they also want to be able to blame it on the democrats so that it helps their preferred candidate and they don't anger their base.
Weirdly, I think some in the democratic establishment haven't learned their lesson, and want Trump to run. Arguably easier to beat for Biden. Super risky strategy though, given inflation.
They just rule it's within Colorado and Maine's rights to determine who's on their ballot. Like it is. Realistically this unfortunately probably helps Trump cause he was never gonna win either of those states and big bad liberals trying to keep Trump out plays great to the base and will get his supporters out to the polls.
They could choose to point out Trump has not been found guilty of a 14th amendment offense in a court of law and enforce innocent until proven guilty and say after a guilty verdict, maybe.
This seems really obvious to me. I mean of course we all know he's guilty, but even I think it would be bad precedent to act before a conviction - from then on, every election the Republicans will immediately try to disqualify whoever the Democrat(s) opposing them are the same way (just with made up crimes)
I always assumed that was the strategy. Trump has a huge handful of lawsuits in the pipeline. None of them will technically prevent him from holding office. This specific ruling will make it clear, "Yes, he is disqualified."
I'm not confident it's necessary, but I understand the legal argument that it should be more clear, which is what this does.
I'm not sure what you are saying. The supreme court is clearly not going to rule that he's disqualified. Like the grandparent comment said - he's not convicted, so he'll stay on the ballots.
Right. But without this case, what happens when he is eventually convicted of insurrection?
We would have to go through all the legal arguments we're going through now.
This case is being brought up now so that we already have the answer.
If they rule in favor of Trump that presidents are above the law: Biden should just blow up the court with expansion (as has been done before anyway) If they rule against Trump death threats incoming.
No win here.
Expanding the court requires the approval of Congress, which Biden won't get.
If they rule presidents are above the law, he could (and perhaps even should) simply kill them himself without any possible retaliation, but seeing as he'd never actually do that they don't have to worry about it.
I hope it's not too late, but I do fear that Republicans have been allowed to do whatever they want with no consequences for too long.
I share your concerns friend.
It's even better than that, actually, because it also undermines one of the key fringe ideas that the alt-right is spreading: the independent state legislature theory. If the Supreme Court steps in to override Colorado's decision, it would preemptively utterly destroy one of the tactics the right is planning on: have red state legislatures deny victory to anyone but Trump despite whoever wins the election.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This one's easy. There's no constitutional right to run for president.
Wait until the stacked supreme court rules otherwise.
i agree with other posters.. their best option is throwing it back to the states. they can rule that the states each get to decide on 'is insurrectionist' that is then only removable by 2/3rds of congress, per the constitution. leaves them without having to actually make a decision.
NAL but isn't Constitutional law a federal issue the must be ruled on by SCOTUS? Otherwise it seems that SCOTUS would, in effect, be redundant if states can individually rule on constitutional matters.
right, the supreme court could absolutely decide that the states get to decide.
think of it this way.. its up to the supreme court to decide how the law was intended. the only specific roles mentioned in the constitution are where the 2/3rds of congress can 'remove the penalty of being an insurrectionist'.. this implies that the states (via congress) have the right to both decide who, and who does not get marked as 'insurrectionist'.
the house cant decide for individual states, and so each state could be left to decide for themselves... leaving it to an action of congress to undo.
They'd be negating any power they have if they did tho ... essentially making SCOTUS useless.
I mean it's why they've sided with citizens/groups who have challenged the state attempts at gun regulation, based on the 2nd Amendment.
its not like they are saying 'ok, from now on all laws are left to the states'.
were talking about the interpretation of a single clause here, which very specifically involves states rights ... and its like youre ignoring the part where it would take their ruling to allows the states to do it.
i dont understand how you think thats removing them from the process.
They won't. They will throw it to Congress since it will give the Pope what he wants.
How is this news? We already knew that they may have to rule on this issue...
I think it's because if he had just sat quietly and not pushed, they could have dithered and dallied and dragged it out. Now that he's pushing, it forces them to get off their arses and actually do their job.
While that's fair, the writing has been on the wall since the first article that Colorado republican party was going to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Particularly after they were quoted as saying that in the article. All this article does is reiterate and stoke the flames a bit. The only "interesting" thing in my opinion would be if SCOTUS said they weren't going to entertain the case.
Moving along, I'm interested to see if they do take this case, or if they use some legal tomfoolery to punt it.