• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I am less concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that a national party nominee is disqualified from a ballot in a state he’ll almost certainly lose than I am with a ruling that some court in Florida or Arizona or Georgia can pull the same shit on Biden.

      Very easy to see this become one more trick one-party states can pull to remove popular opponents from the ballot in close election years. And I would be very concerned if an Alito court authored an opinion in which this kind of thing was normalized.

      • june@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        And so we decide to let tyrants through so that their party doesn’t have made up and twisted precedent to try to disqualify qualified candidates? It’s not like the GOP need or care about precedent anyway. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          And so we decide to let tyrants through

          We don’t decide. A few Ivy League JDs in robes get to decide. The decision on whether to list a particular candidate on the ballot is, inherently, undemocratic.

          If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it.

          State governments don’t need any more tools in the chest to decide who can and cannot appear on a ballot.

          Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do.

          I agree. But he’s not the only one who will get booted off under this rule. We both know it.

          • june@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? The one in the constitution? We should just ignore it so that the bad guys don’t try to use it illegitimately when we know they will anyway?

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              ‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment?

              “This rule” being the judicial decision that invokes the 14th amendment.

              We should just ignore it

              You’re free to do as you please, but it won’t matter unless you’re one of the Big Nine.

              What are you doing to do if the SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favor, other than pounding sand?

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m not afraid of bad faith attempts to ruin democracy as backlash from this decision because bad faith attempts to ruin democracy are coming regardless of the outcome of this particular case

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I have no doubt. But I’m not in a rush to open a new can of worms, when there’s no discernible benefit.

          Let me know if a court in Michigan or Ohio or Pennsylvania yanks Trump off the ballot. Then we can talk.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime – records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution – to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing.

              From “No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority” by Lyndard Spooner, discussing the fundamental failures of the document when confronting the horror of the antebellum South.

  • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    So, just to be certain, when USA today keeps giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and uses words in this article like, riot, and alleged role, they’re carrying water for him right? The man has been found to have had a role andtaken part in an insurrection in multiple cases now. They should just say it.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I watched it on TV. Doesn’t take a genius to watch the days events of January 6th unfold, and the months prior to know he attempted a coup to stay in power. Why it failed, I don’t have any insider knowledge.

        But it’s come out that it was a lot more coordinated behind the scenes than what we all witnessed on Jan. 6th. We don’t need a jury for that (although there is an ongoing criminal investigation for it)

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Literally the FBI said it wasnt at all coordinated. But that is a separate question to if Trump was responsible for what happened in any way.

          • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Donald Trump spent months telling people to come to the capital on January 6th, you really gonna try to say that wasn’t coordinated in anyway, hell?

            But, that’s not even what I was talking about, Trump fired generals, and had a whole fake electorate scheme, and there was a behind the scenes coup attempt that the public didn’t really know about. That’s the part I was saying was coordinated. Jan. 6th was a distract if anything for the real coup plot.

            And the only reason it failed is bcz there were a lot of high level officials in the government who wouldn’t go along with it.

            • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              What is wrong with telling people to come to the capitol? I understand your point, but he didnt do anything illegal or he would have been prosecuted already.

              • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Cost of living where I’m at is getting fucking expensive… I’ve always had hesitations about it but about how much does a nice rock to live under cost these days?

                • DaveFuckinMorgan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  You’d probably be able to more easily afford a place to live if a) the central bank didn’t print 50% of the money supply in recent years and b) if there weren’t millions of migrants competing with you for housing or c) people moving near you from places that are being overrun by migrants.