Referencing Bush v. Gore is like they're just asking for the wrong decision.
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
218 points (98.2% liked)
News
23287 readers
4563 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
This corrupt court is going to make the wrong decision regardless.
"It takes a lot of money to have the constitution interpreted correctly."
Clarence Thomas' luxury vacations aren't going to pay for themselves!
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
-Upton Sinclair
Would not worry, they will make the wrong decision anyway.
Just going to have to accept that the Roberts Court is going to act like this until it is fixed. Don't assume good faith when you see red flags.
The only way to fix it right now is to increase members, get a majority, then set rolling term limits.
Or just appoint one new justice every two years, and have no fixed number of justices.
Lol that's a big court.
The average Supreme Court justice serves 16 years. If you add one every two years, you’d typically have about eight justices. (In recent decades the average tenure has stretched to 28 years; if that trend held you’d have about 14 justices.)
That doesn't seem like the modern term length.
Fairly clear in the chart here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
Average seems closer to 30.
From your link:
Historically, the average length of service on the Court has been less than 15 years. However, since 1970 the average length of service has increased to about 26 years.
This illegitimate "supreme" court is notoriously extreme-right and has a history of deciding in whatever way they think will benefit their political party. The opinions published by the conservative injustices do not need to be based in reality, and frequently are not.
Conservatives are not able to engage in any deliberation in good faith as honesty and equity are not conservative traits.
If this court believed they had the power to install a conservative into office, they would do it. I am confident they will not rule in a way that prevents Trump from being on any ballot.
*Supremacist Court
Damn. That's good. Thank you.
load more comments
(5 replies)
They failed the last one and they've only gotten worse since, so...
They did. They unconstitutionally directed FL to use the existing counts instead of recounting districts in a uniform manner. Roger Stone and the rioters got what they wanted.
Adults in 2000 should have done a massive protest, a general strike, something. Now here we are.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, was written to prohibit anyone who participated on the losing side of the Civil War from holding office. None of those prohibited were convicted of insurrection. This is very much like the age requirement for the President. It's a qualification - must not have committed insurrection or given comfort to those who did. You might argue that Trump himself did not directly participate, but he's certainly given plenty of comfort to those who did, with promises of a Presidential pardon.
As a qualification, it requires no judicial intervention unless challenged. Trump is free to challenge the grounds on which he is disqualified from the ballot, but being convicted for insurrection is not a requirement. These were things discussed during the ratification of the 14th, as was whether the amendment applied to the President (it does). I guess we'll see just how principled the "originalist" conservative judges are.
I'm not expecting much from them, but when I played devil's advocate with myself to find loopholes or excuses they might say he must remain, I can't find one. I suppose the only loophole is if they say it wasn't an insurrection, but everything else seems tighter than a drum.
-
it is up to Congress to rule that he did engage and since the second impeachment failed they did so already
-
The president isn't an officer of the US
-
Being on the ballet is a state level issue and the states have no mechanism for removal as the constitution is written
-
It wasn't insurrection it was a riot
-
He really isn't on the ballet, the electors are
See it is easy if the truth doesn't matter.
All of those things are wrong. They've been directly addressed and none of those arguments are winnable except maybe a definition of insurrection, but storming the Capitol violently qualifies by any laymen's understanding of the word.
Well, considering they've made rulings based on entirely fabricated evidence, I'm not very confident.
Cool so I am sure the Supreme Court cares that someone said that they were wrong and will do the right thing. Which is why a fetus has more rights than a woman does.
They could just say "fuck you" and rule 7-3 in Trump's favor. They don't need to actually make arguments.
The argumentation they do is mostly just propaganda to keep people from rioting about bad decisions.
Yeah. This. It's about what I expect.
There are a few choices they have in my eyes.
- A) he's not an insurrectionist.
- B) "it's too close to an election"
- C) the Constitution doesn't matter
- D) ???
- E) Profit.
I doubt they'll do the right thing.
- D) a quote from Revelations
The one major issue I see with this whole endeavor is who gets to make that determination that there was an attempt at insurrection. Yeah, I get it, we all saw it happen in real time. We know he's guilty.
But this court may say "if some is suspected of being disqualified due to Amendment 14, someone should challenge and have a court decide". And you know what will happen next. Some idiot Texas judge will declare that Biden and Harris are both leading an insurrection at the border. And Poof! Mike Johnson in now President.
He's off the ballot in CO because someone challenged and a court decided, and now the case has risen to the Supreme Court because an appeal was made. This is as judicial a process as possible.
Now if the Supreme Court accepts a lower court's ruling that Biden is ineligible, then it's a constitutional crisis and people will need to decide who they believe is faithfully executing their duties.
A court didn't decide when the amendment was created and applied. It applied to people without trial. However I agree with the chaos such a ruling could create and it would probably be worse than having Trump on the ballot.
The nice thing about the 14th Amendment is that nobody has to decide what insurrection is, because there is another option that was clearly breached on Jan 6th.
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
How dare you give me that much hope
Abandon that hope. Better to have a realistic expectation of a court that he practically got to pick.
I hate holding out hope, too. If it helps I'm sure I'm wrong. They will find some excuse, and it will be horrible precedent.
On the plus side, then Biden could organize a mob to storm the court. And no coy subterfuge this time. Man up and get shit done right.
/s of course
Here is one: the constitution says nothing about being on the ballot. Only about serving.
Having someone on the ballot who is ineligible to serve has already been tried (before Gorsuch before he was on the SCOTUS) and it turns out if you can't serve you ~~can't be on~~ may be excluded from the ballot. This from following legal blogs so apologies if I don't have that quite right.
Really? What about Nicaraguan-born Roger Calero who was the SWP nominee in 2004 (his VP candidate was a citizen by birth, but was only 28). Several states had the SWP run an eligible candidate instead, but at least 5 of them listed Calero/Hawkins.
Back in 2012, Gorsuch was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In that capacity, he wrote the panel opinion in Hassan v. Colorado. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, sued Colorado, arguing it was required to put him on the presidential ballot even though he was not a natural-born citizen and was therefore not constitutionally qualified to run for president. The Tenth Circuit ruled against him, with Gorsuch writing that states have “a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” and that because of that, they can “exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” It’s that quote that makes its way into the Colorado Supreme Court opinion.
I googled the situation and that's what comes up. I'm not qualified to explain it any better.
Edit: it appears my version was slightly wrong. It's not that he can't be on the ballot, it's that there is no requirement that he be on the ballot if the state wants to exclude him based on ineligibility.
Yeah the Bush v. Gore decision is such a flaming bag of shit, let’s compare this one to it, sure. Not tone-deaf at all.
Perhaps the corporate news outlet is unaware of the subtext. Sure, that’s it.
I’ve never been more confident
They will do the wrong thing
Everyone else has the serious threads of conversation handled, I'm just here to ask if it was entirely necessary to say "quarter-center ago" about something that to a lot of people wasn't THAT long ago. I was in highschool. Going to go oil my creaky joints now.
view more: next ›