phillipa
Valet
Posts: 79
Nov 14, 2022 12:55:00 GMT -4
|
Post by phillipa on Mar 5, 2024 7:00:41 GMT -4
Possible unpopular opinion here, but, it *should* be 9-0. He hasn't been convicted of a crime that disqualifies him from being on the ballot (yet) and it's a super dangerous precedent to remove a candidate from the ballot because of a subjective interpretation of what he/she has done in the past. Fair justice is about giving people a fair trial even when we don't like them. He has not been tried for insurrection (again, yet). The court was absolutely correct in saying that to have someone not on the ballot in some states but on the ballot in others because people in state #1 don't like him and those in state #2 do like him is a complete breakdown of the democratic process. Until he's actually convicted of a crime that disqualifies him from office, then he should stay on the ballot.
The way to defeat him is not to deny him the ability to run. That's not what we do in democracies. The way to defeat him is to vote against him.
|
|
|
Post by ratscabies on Mar 5, 2024 11:24:58 GMT -4
Possible unpopular opinion here, but, it *should* be 9-0. He hasn't been convicted of a crime that disqualifies him from being on the ballot (yet) and it's a super dangerous precedent to remove a candidate from the ballot because of a subjective interpretation of what he/she has done in the past. Fair justice is about giving people a fair trial even when we don't like them. He has not been tried for insurrection (again, yet). The court was absolutely correct in saying that to have someone not on the ballot in some states but on the ballot in others because people in state #1 don't like him and those in state #2 do like him is a complete breakdown of the democratic process. Until he's actually convicted of a crime that disqualifies him from office, then he should stay on the ballot. The way to defeat him is not to deny him the ability to run. That's not what we do in democracies. The way to defeat him is to vote against him. Well, he’s as convicted as Jefferson Davis was….
|
|
|
Post by granolamom on Mar 5, 2024 14:45:00 GMT -4
Possible unpopular opinion here, but, it *should* be 9-0. He hasn't been convicted of a crime that disqualifies him from being on the ballot (yet) and it's a super dangerous precedent to remove a candidate from the ballot because of a subjective interpretation of what he/she has done in the past. Fair justice is about giving people a fair trial even when we don't like them. He has not been tried for insurrection (again, yet). The court was absolutely correct in saying that to have someone not on the ballot in some states but on the ballot in others because people in state #1 don't like him and those in state #2 do like him is a complete breakdown of the democratic process. Until he's actually convicted of a crime that disqualifies him from office, then he should stay on the ballot. The way to defeat him is not to deny him the ability to run. That's not what we do in democracies. The way to defeat him is to vote against him. Well, he’s as convicted as Jefferson Davis was…. Yup, application of the 14th amendment does not require a conviction, possibly because it would have been difficult to get all those Confederates into court for fair trials. I did wonder what would happen if a small, non-swing state excluded T***p from the ballot but he won the general election anyway. Could the small state say, "You're not OUR president?" Then what? It's idle speculation about an edge case at this time. My current concern is that the "Say no to Joe" or "Vote Uncommitted" crowd is going to hand the election over to T***p. I'm hoping they are saving the protest for the primaries and will vote blue in the general, but you never can tell.
|
|
phillipa
Valet
Posts: 79
Nov 14, 2022 12:55:00 GMT -4
|
Post by phillipa on Mar 5, 2024 15:11:44 GMT -4
It doesn't technically require a conviction in a court of law the way we think of it (meaning in front of a judge), but what SCOTUS said, and I absolutely agree with, is that to bar someone from federal office, you do need a "conviction" at the federal level, by Congress. It's impeachment essentially, that's what impeachment is -- it's a federal trial by the legislature. The House indicts you, and the Senate convicts. So to have states "convict" individually is not their right, just as individual states can't impeach the president. It has to be done federally. For state office it's different, but the presidency is federal, and all decisions have to be made at the federal level.
And that's why removing a president from ballots at the state level is a terrible idea, because if it was allowed, you'd have blue states removing the republican and red states removing the democrat. It would be anarchy, and incredibly undemocratic. We can complain about how in our currently incredibly divided country this process breaks down, just as Trump's second impeachment broke down (I thought the first was kind of bogus), but that's not the fault of the process itself.
Yeah, you wouldn't have been able to get every Confederate into court. But you could have put their candidacy up before Congress, if they ran for federal office. Once again, it's Congress who convicts, not the states.
|
|
|
Post by ratscabies on Mar 5, 2024 15:31:03 GMT -4
So, as per the 14th, he is “convicted” unless a 2/3 majority forgives him for it, and undoes the disqualification.
SCROTUS didn’t rule he DIDN’T engage in insurrection, so doesn’t the lower court ruling on that stand? Does Garland have to wait until after the primaries to remind everyone that insurrection is the same as being born in Austria to nazi parents: that it disqualifies you?
Unless you can get a 2/3 majority to over rule it.
I mean, technically, the Congress after the Civil War wrote the 14th, in a sense, as a blanket conviction for any and all future insurrectionists.
|
|
phillipa
Valet
Posts: 79
Nov 14, 2022 12:55:00 GMT -4
|
Post by phillipa on Mar 5, 2024 15:41:54 GMT -4
So, as per the 14th, he is “convicted” unless a 2/3 majority forgives him for it, and undoes the disqualification. I don't think that's how it works, but I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar. I'm just going off of what I read in the ruling. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the bedrocks of American justice, and as I said in my first post, he hasn't been convicted of anything. (Well, anything related to insurrection anyway.) The fact that the vote was 9-0, and the Supreme Court justices *are* lawyers and Constitutional scholars, I think tells you something. This wasn't just Thomas being, well, Thomas. This was also Elena Kagan and the other liberal justices. They didn't agree with the entirety of the majority opinion, but they unanimously agreed that what Colorado did was not okay, was not Constitutional, and if allowed to stand would set a very, very bad precedent.
|
|
|
Post by granolamom on Mar 5, 2024 16:43:37 GMT -4
I wonder if those who wrote the 14th amendment envisioned the gerrymandering that has led to the House being held hostage by a small number of radical-right extremists PLUS the cravenness of "leader" McConnell in the Senate.
|
|
ahah
Landed Gentry
Posts: 629
May 18, 2021 10:34:59 GMT -4
|
Post by ahah on Mar 5, 2024 18:00:58 GMT -4
I wonder if those who wrote the 14th amendment envisioned the gerrymandering that has led to the House being held hostage by a small number of radical-right extremists PLUS the cravenness of "leader" McConnell in the Senate. The term dates back to only 24 years after the Constitution was ratified. So I don't think it was something they could not possibly imagine in the likes of cars of semi-automatic weapons.
|
|
|
Post by ratscabies on Mar 5, 2024 18:22:51 GMT -4
All *I* know is that this crooked-ass court better hurry up and give the President immunity, so Joe can stay in office and redesign the court as Politics Girl suggests!
|
|
tazmin
Landed Gentry
Posts: 744
Nov 11, 2016 23:03:28 GMT -4
|
Post by tazmin on Mar 5, 2024 23:03:28 GMT -4
All *I* know is that this crooked-ass court better hurry up and give the President immunity, so Joe can stay in office and redesign the court as Politics Girl suggests! I think Politics Girl has a brilliant idea, ratscabies. I'd almost wish she'd run for office but she's way too reasonable and the right-wing nutjobs' heads would explode.
|
|