|
Thranguy posted:Is there anything in the opinion that doesn't conclude that Elon could run and only be taken off ballots for not being a natural born citizen by and act of congress? Even trump's lawyer agreed that a state can refuse to put a candidate on their ballots who is unquestionably disqualified by birth or age or residence
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Thranguy posted:In 2021, Congress should have introduced a bill to rehabilitate Trump and have it fail to reach a 2/3 majority. (Narrow window to get it to the floor in both houses) In the oral arguments, most of the justices were drawing a line between objectively factual things like what country someone is born in or what date is listed on their birth certificate, vs much less objective things like the definition of an insurrection
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:01
|
|
|
Papercut posted:In the oral arguments, most of the justices were drawing a line between objectively factual things like what country someone is born in or what date is listed on their birth certificate, vs much less objective things like the definition of an insurrection Did the plaintiffs point out to the justices that Trump was impeached for his part in the Jan 6th insurrection and therefore it is a matter of fact that he engaged in insurrection? Or maybe point out to them that the textbook definition of insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government" and that Trump incited a crowd to do exactly that? Granted, the courts are very ok with (rightwing) stochastic terrorism so they'd probably be fine with this too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
If the Republicans wanted to create some sort of carefully-thought out legal test that would stand for decades, they would have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Did the plaintiffs point out to the justices that Trump was impeached for his part in the Jan 6th insurrection and therefore it is a matter of fact that he engaged in insurrection? "Impeachment" is simply bringing charges - Trump was acquitted by the Senate as they didn't secure enough votes to convict.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:40
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:"Impeachment" is simply bringing charges - Trump was acquitted by the Senate as they didn't secure enough votes to convict. An acquittal implies a judgment was rendered. The Senate simply failed to convict - it doesn’t have the power to acquit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could Congress not still pass a bill saying "all participants in x event on y date are declared insurrectionists under the 14th and barred from z class of offices"? That would be a pretty clear bill of attainder and possibly an ex post facto law, both of which are prohibited under the Constitution. All Congress needs to do is pass a law granting the power to disqualify and remove insurrectionists to someone. Just like the Enforcement Act, which tasked federal prosecutors with using a specific legal process to remove insurrectionists, while also making "holding office in violation of the Insurrection Clause" a federal crime by itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:48
|
|
|
Kaal posted:An acquittal implies a judgment was rendered. The Senate simply failed to convict - it doesn’t have the power to acquit. Wasn't a major part of the rationale for the failure to convict was that it wasn't congress' job to enforce the punishment, it was the courts? Since that rationale has been proven wrong by the SC, doesn't that make the failure to convict on those grounds make it a mistrial?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
MGDRAGOON posted:Wasn't a major part of the rationale for the failure to convict was that it wasn't congress' job to enforce the punishment, it was the courts? Since that rationale has been proven wrong by the SC, doesn't that make the failure to convict on those grounds make it a mistrial? That's the bullshit excuse the GOP gave because "we will never convict one of our own, gently caress you" wouldn't have gone over as well come election season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 00:05
|
|
|
MGDRAGOON posted:Wasn't a major part of the rationale for the failure to convict was that it wasn't congress' job to enforce the punishment, it was the courts? Since that rationale has been proven wrong by the SC, doesn't that make the failure to convict on those grounds make it a mistrial? It wasn’t a real trial to begin with. So the caveat there is that they could always redo the proceedings in the Senate. There’s no bounds on their conduct, and they have the sole power to try all impeachments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could Congress not still pass a bill saying "all participants in x event on y date are declared insurrectionists under the 14th and barred from z class of offices"? This supreme court would probably interpret that as a Bill of Attainder we have been genuinely left with no way to be constitutionally compliant on Amendment 14, section 3 I'm not kidding about that by the way. the opinion signed by four judges saying "yes, however," points out that the majority opinion does not specify/interpret the correct route. The majority 5 left the door open for other routes to be closed at their whim, rather than doing a complete job and offering what the actual remedy ought to be. go read the majority. it boils down to "well there's been scholarly and political controversy on this in the past, especially acutely after the Civil War, so who are we to say what the proper solution is." some of this is fairly nakedly insulting to anybody who can rub two brain cells together and understand why some of these power struggles and compliances issues existed just after the Civil War . there's no  big enough.like, guys, what the gently caress do you think a traitor is? what do you think a secessionist state is going to do when it's readmitted? Just more of Roberts' feigned ignorance -- legislative coitis through a hole in the sheet, in an attempt to hide his shame from God. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Mar 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
Conservatives: the electoral college and the Senate are very important for making sure that the political minority is not oppressed by the majority Also Conservatives: It's actually okay to attempt a coup, go oppress so long as you have a popular majority of a house behind you 🤡
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 01:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If the Republicans wanted to create some sort of carefully-thought out legal test that would stand for decades, they would have. I don't think it's possible to summarize this better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
I did read the opinion, which was pretty much what I predicted:Javid posted:a bunch of red states would find reasons to call something biden did "a treason" and summarily remove him from their ballots citing trump v colorado. Congress could try passing something, and see if it sticks. If they don't even bother (they won't), then it doesn't matter if they legally could or not to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
I have a legitimate question that I'd love all y'all's opinions on: It makes sense to me that having a candidate for president on some states' ballots but not on others is an undesirable situation. So on the face of it, I agree that disbarring candidates shouldn't be something that states do. Am I wrong? And if not, what do you think would be a reasonable way for the Court to have ruled out a patchwork but also make it reasonably possible to bar an insurrectionist from the ballot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
Unfortunately its unlikely 14 would ever apply to trumps conduct under this ruling and the firm precedent on ex post fact law. New federal law could be passed defining acts as insurrection and carrying the disqualification, though I suspect such law would be held with deep scrutiny. Its trivially easy to use simple definitions to say, mass disqualify protestors because someone beaned a cop with a rock. The court wants this to go through the whole process. Essentially, as they understand it, all 14 does is make disbarment from office exempt from cruel or unusual punishments. Actually applying it needs new sentencing guidelines, and thus new laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 02:26
|
|
|
I think the reasonable way is what they did - by clearly ruling "congress makes that call, not state officials"quote:For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section I disagree with the interpretation that there's no way for congress wield that power that SCOTUS won't slap down. I agree, however, that we will not find out in 2024, because congress won't even try. This results in a functionally identical outcome - that, barring a historic upset in the primary, trump is going to be on every ballot for the general and only there can he be prevented from taking office (again) More particularly, Potato Salad posted:This supreme court would probably interpret that as a Bill of Attainder Given the extremely thin precedent, and the now-explicit ruling that "congress has sole authority to enforce this provision, specifically" why would "j6 was an insurrection" be any less constitutional for them to decree than "that war we just had was an insurrection" back in the day?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
Presidential ballots already vary from state to state because candidates must independently file for inclusion in each state and rules vary. We just don’t notice because few people care about the third-party candidates that these rules affect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Unfortunately its unlikely 14 would ever apply to trumps conduct under this ruling and the firm precedent on ex post fact law. New federal law could be passed defining acts as insurrection and carrying the disqualification, though I suspect such law would be held with deep scrutiny. Its trivially easy to use simple definitions to say, mass disqualify protestors because someone beaned a cop with a rock If our courts refuse to accept that Trump's actions which fulfill the literal textbook definition of Insurrection means he's blocked by the 14th and no other politicians are willing to ignore such a bullshit ruling then I hope when Trump wins, which he probably will if Biden doesn't get his pudding-brained act together, his redhats at least kill those useless idiots before the rest of us. Javid posted:Given the extremely thin precedent, and the now-explicit ruling that "congress has sole authority to enforce this provision, specifically" why would "j6 was an insurrection" be any less constitutional for them to decree than "that war we just had was an insurrection" back in the day? Because the legal reality is whatever the SCOTUS majority says it is and nobody in a position of power will ever challenge them on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 03:20
|
|
|
Javid posted:Given the extremely thin precedent, and the now-explicit ruling that "congress has sole authority to enforce this provision, specifically" why would "j6 was an insurrection" be any less constitutional for them to decree than "that war we just had was an insurrection" back in the day? As far as I'm aware, Congress never actually passed a law saying that the Confederacy or the Civil War was an insurrection. The fact-finding of who counts as an insurrectionist was done on a case-by-case basis (not that anyone actually had any doubts about who the Republicans meant when they referred to "insurrectionists" in 1868). Declaring a specific past event to be a crime by Congressional fiat, with no due process or ability to appeal, is the very definition of a bill of attainder. And those are very unconstitutional, specifically because that was something the British courts used to do all the time and the American founders hated it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 03:37
|
|
|
werdnam posted:I have a legitimate question that I'd love all y'all's opinions on: It makes sense to me that having a candidate for president on some states' ballots but not on others is an undesirable situation. So on the face of it, I agree that disbarring candidates shouldn't be something that states do. Am I wrong? And if not, what do you think would be a reasonable way for the Court to have ruled out a patchwork but also make it reasonably possible to bar an insurrectionist from the ballot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
Javid posted:I think the reasonable way is what they did - by clearly ruling "congress makes that call, not state officials" Congress did make the call to to amend the constitution. Maybe you (and SCOTUS) are saying congress needs to pass a law, simple 50+% majority, to define an insurrection? How would that be better or less political or whatever than having the courts make that decision, same as they do every time there's a grey area? Given that we have a Congress willing to investigate Hunter Biden for ???, I think Congress could be willing to disqualify people from office if they are Muslims or support Black Lives Matter or encourage women to go out of state for an abortion. I think that's a lot less reasonable of a situation than SCOTUS saying, "Federal courts should make the ruling here, but yeah, encouraging people who are kicking down the door to Congress to stop you from leaving power counts as an insurrection"
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 04:40
|
|
|
So, going with, we can't just say "trump did a treason" or "all of j6 was a treason" - let Congress pass a bill that creates a specified process for determining qualification if a candidate's past actions are in question. Have hearings, introduce evidence, come to a conclusion. Then if scotus tosses THAT start yelling that they've made it impossible. In reality, I agree congress has already done everything they're going to do about Trump this election, so punting it to them is functionally final. That congress isn't going to act on a power they possess in one popular case is not cause to assign that power to someone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 05:13
|
|
|
werdnam posted:I have a legitimate question that I'd love all y'all's opinions on: It makes sense to me that having a candidate for president on some states' ballots but not on others is an undesirable situation. So on the face of it, I agree that disbarring candidates shouldn't be something that states do. Am I wrong? And if not, what do you think would be a reasonable way for the Court to have ruled out a patchwork but also make it reasonably possible to bar an insurrectionist from the ballot? I need you to cite the line in the Constitution that asks that our electoral system not be a patchwork in this manner, actually we already have a functioning patchwork: an applicant needs to qualify by 50 different rules in 50 different states in order to show up on 50 different ballots, why are we clutching pearls about States determining qualification now? If people so wish to find themselves accidentally arguing for strong Federal control of elections, be my guest and advocate for Shelby County v Holder to be reversed. Hell yeah, enforce the Voting Rights Act strictly again, and kill state control of gerrymandered districts while we are at it. I would happily see this era of minority rule by the American right wing put under the boot of popular, majoritarian power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 09:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:we already have a functioning patchwork: an applicant needs to qualify by 50 different rules in 50 different states in order to show up on 50 different ballots, why are we clutching pearls about States determining qualification now? Because this time, the states are punishing a Republican's crimes. Though as I said before, the only real upside to this ruling is that, in theory, it permanently kills the idea of the Independent Legislature Theory because if a state can't kick Trump off the ballot for violating the 14th, then state Legislatures definitely are not the ultimate authority on their state's elections because otherwise Colorado's legislature can kick Trump off the ballot instead of the court doing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:we already have a functioning patchwork: an applicant needs to qualify by 50 different rules in 50 different states in order to show up on 50 different ballots, why are we clutching pearls about States determining qualification now? Thanks for this, and the other posts that challenged the assumption that "patchwork is bad." That's at least one place I wasn't thinking deeply enough. Edit for phone posting
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 16:11
|
|
|
werdnam posted:I have a legitimate question that I'd love all y'all's opinions on: It makes sense to me that having a candidate for president on some states' ballots but not on others is an undesirable situation. So on the face of it, I agree that disbarring candidates shouldn't be something that states do. Am I wrong? And if not, what do you think would be a reasonable way for the Court to have ruled out a patchwork but also make it reasonably possible to bar an insurrectionist from the ballot? The constitution gave authority for determining how electors work to the legislatures of the states and this ruling is a massive abrogation of states rights. A bunch of mostly misogynist white supremacists posted:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. So *maybe* a case can be made that states can't keep people off of a ballot, but they can prevent any electors from being selected to vote for that person. But instead the supreme court decided the text of the constitution is irrelevant because they say so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:The constitution gave authority for determining how electors work to the legislatures of the states and this ruling is a massive abrogation of states rights. I'm sorry but I've been told that this court is an independent, non-partisan entity that calls balls and strikes only while adhering to the theory of originalism so you must be mistaken. You see if they did anything besides this ruling there would be so many other cases they would have to hear and that is, after all, what the original words say, "Don't make things inconvenient for us as a court that's just annoying". Not saying I disagree with it. I'm not opposed to a federal standard for federal elections, I'm just gonna shove their own words up their rear end every time they lie about the originalism bullshit. If something is inconvenient for other people by, say, taking away their right to control their own body or having access to the ballot well then go gently caress yourself you miserable creatures that's what we say the words say nobody cares get hosed and suffer. Inconvenience the courts by having many different standards that need to be reconciled? Well now that's just chaos and we'd have to do work. That's just not allowed so we're going to read between some lines over here and infer obvious conclusions there and consider hypotheticals going forward so we'll rule this way for ourselves get hosed you miserable creatures. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
So, lets say this happens: 2024 elections and Trump wins (I just threw up in my mouth typing that out) Also, the House flips back to the democrats, and the Senate sees a +2 democratic gain. Since congress is seated before January 20th, what would happen if the first order of the new House is to pass a law stating that Trump is declared ineligable for the office and the Senate passes it. They blow up the filibuster to do so. Trump, by this SC logic is now inelegible to become POTUS and his VP takes the seat instead? Or hell, how about this? 2024 swings to Biden, and in 2026 the republicans retake both houses. Their first order of business is to pass a law stating that Biden and Harris has engaged in insurrection and that they inelegible to be president. Suddenly the Speaker of the House is President. But you say, we already have a mechanism to remove the president, its called impeachment! Ahhhh, but according to this ruling simply declaring someone ineligible is enough. Are we basically backing into a parliamentary system where the house of Commons chooses the chief executive from their party?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So, lets say this happens:
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:That would be a bill of attainer and unconstitutional. But its not! The SC clearly stated the only way to evoke 14.3 is to have congress do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:That would be a bill of attainer and unconstitutional. So is the federal government determining who can be on a state's ballot, but here we are
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Why does it make sense to have a patchwork on women's medical privacy but not on who gets to have their name on the ballot instead of being a write-in candidate? Because the Constitution says there's some things states get to have a patchwork on with no opportunity for the federal government to have a say at all, some things that have to be decided nationwide by the federal government with no opportunity for the states to get any say at all, and some things that fall somewhere in between those two extremes. Also, having the states disagree on who is the legitimately-elected president of the United States is a bad thing. Very very bad. Bel Shazar posted:The constitution gave authority for determining how electors work to the legislatures of the states and this ruling is a massive abrogation of states rights. The Supreme Court's ruling would not prevent Colorado's electors from refusing to cast their votes for Trump. This ruling is not about "whether states can remove someone from a ballot", it's about "whether states can declare someone constitutionally ineligible to be president of the US". Bel Shazar posted:So is the federal government determining who can be on a state's ballot, but here we are This isn't the federal government deciding who can be on a state's ballot. This is the federal government deciding whether someone is eligible under federal law to be president of the federal government. Colorado still has the ability to remove Trump from the ballot. They just need to find a legal reasoning that isn't "Trump isn't allowed to be president under the 14th amendment", because the 14th amendment is fundamentally a federal rule to be enforced by the federal government, not the states. If Colorado wants to remove Trump from the ballot, they have to do so under Colorado law, not US federal law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/03/politics/texas-immigration-law-appeals-court/index.html Surely the fact that the SCOTUS in 2012(?) said that states are prohibited from passing their own immigration laws (US v. Arizona) and the recent ruling that states don't get to enforce the 14th and block an insurrectionist from the ballot means that they will take up this case and issue a quick 9-0 ruling against Texas, right? Main Paineframe posted:This ruling is not about "whether states can remove someone from a ballot", it's about "whether states can declare someone constitutionally ineligible to be president of the US". What? The case is literally about whether Colorado's allowed to remove Trump from their ballot (for violating the 14th) or not. The method of removal was his violation of the 14th amendment but if they were removing him because of any other reason it'd still be the same result. If Colorado had a law saying that dementia-riddled assholes couldn't be on their ballot for any office it'd still be struck down when they try to remove Trump or Biden. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
Cimber posted:But its not! The SC clearly stated the only way to evoke 14.3 is to have congress do it. Congress would have to pass a law that states how, when and why the 14th gets evoked then someone would have to do something after that law was passed that triggers it. It shouldn’t have to do that but that’s what SCOTUS is saying by my reading.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Congress would have to pass a law that states how, when and why the 14th gets evoked then someone would have to do something after that law was passed that triggers it. and then SCOTUS would apply the City of Boerne judge-made law to declare that whatever congress did was not congruent and proportional to what the 14th amendment allows. it's a shell game
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:What? The case is literally about whether Colorado's allowed to remove Trump from their ballot (for violating the 14th) or not. The method of removal was his violation of the 14th amendment but if they were removing him because of any other reason it'd still be the same result. If Colorado had a law saying that dementia-riddled assholes couldn't be on their ballot for any office it'd still be struck down when they try to remove Trump or Biden. This is 100% false, easily and verifiably so. The case is about whether Colorado is allowed to determine that Trump has violated the 14th and enforce consequences against him for it. Since the Supreme Court ruled against that, they reversed all of the consequences that Colorado had imposed for that purported 14th-violation, including (but not limited to) removal from the ballot. Just look at the very first page of the Supreme Court's ruling, summarizing it: quote:A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him. Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse. The decision is almost entirely written about the 14th Amendment Section 3 specifically, with ballot removal only mentioned in the context of enforcement for that clause specifically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
What gives SCOTUS jurisdiction in this case but not in the case where some arbitrary state law was offered as justification? “States can’t uphold the constitution” seems pretty spurious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
Stickman posted:What gives SCOTUS jurisdiction in this case but not in the case where some arbitrary state law was offered as justification? They have jurisdiction because they say they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Stickman posted:What gives SCOTUS jurisdiction in this case but not in the case where some arbitrary state law was offered as justification? I think it should be fairly obvious why the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction to review interpretations of the Constitution of the United States of America. Not really sure why it matters whether they'd have jurisdiction over a case where a state law was used as justification, because even if they did, that would be a completely different case that the legal reasoning offered in this SCOTUS ruling would definitely not apply to. A substantial chunk of the Constitution is in fact dedicated to laying out specifically which entities get to uphold, decide, or enforce various parts of it. And it would be fairly unusual for the 14th Amendment, which was passed specifically as a grant of power to the United States Congress for the specific purpose of restraining the states and reducing their power, to be interpreted as giving the states the power to decide federal law for the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 21:06
|
|