Yes please. Would love if they didn’t phrase it in a horse race kind of way, “it would be a boon to the Biden campaign” and instead “it would be appropriate because Trump tried to overthrow an election and we have a specific constitutional amendment prohibiting insurrectionists from running for office”
Yeah, people keep bringing up political strategy. Like Trump can’t win California anyway, or doesn’t need Colorado, so taking him off the ballot saves him money.
That’s not the reason states want him off the ballot. It’s not political machinations. It’s the fucking law.
Yeah, the headline could read something like, “49 States Have Yet to Follow the Law and Remove Trump from Ballots.”
And, quite frankly, I think Biden has a better chance of beating Trump than Nikki Haley. Don’t get me wrong, Haley isn’t much better than Trump. I don’t want her in the White House either, but she has a better “facade of reasonableness.” People know KNOW how bad she is and could assume she’s not as bad as Trump. The Biden campaign would need to work hard to prove to everyone that she’s bad. Meanwhile, everyone outside of MAGA knows Trump is bad.
So while Trump being booted from the election might be bad for Biden’s reelection chances, it would be good for the country.
No way does Haley have a chance of turning out the base the way Trump does.
Overturning Roe and ensures a strong turnout for the Democrats regardless of how lackluster everyone feels about Biden.
This is how he needs to lose. A systemic refusal to allow a traitor to America to hold power.
All we need is one defecting GOP SC justice to bar him from the entire country’s general election. Cross your fingers.
Sad that a SC justice can be labeled “GOP”
I’m ok with that. I think Joe Biden better step up his game or we will get one of those other crazy Republicans. Last time we only voted for him because we were voting against trump and the others don’t have that same sway.
Well shouldn’t the rule of law have a say? He hasn’t been convicted of anything that would bar him from office.
He definitely should not be president but even he needs to face justice before states start arbitrarily banning him as a candidate.
If more states bar him I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates and it will start an endless tit for tat chain of retribution. The only way it can be stopped is if he is convicted and then removed from ballot.
The 14th amendment doesn’t require a conviction. It was written in the wake of the civil war to unilaterally prevent any confederates from holding office, without needing to convict each and every one of them. The entire purpose was to preempt the need for a conviction.
The insurrection clause says NOTHING about a conviction. It was written so as to apply to virtually every confederate soldier and other supporters of the confederacy, without needing to drag each and every one of them before a judge.
If more states bar him I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates
If those hypothetical democrats staged an insurrection against the United States in attempt to stay in office after they were voted out, I would support those red state’s bans.
He’s a twice impeached convicted rapist. What more do you need to keep him off the ballot?
Not to mention a fraudster. His current trial in NY is just to determine damages for defrauding banks, insurers, etc.
For that to disbar from the office.
Fortunately, leading an insurrection does, and the post Civil War case law is very clear it doesn’t need a criminal conviction.
This, btw, is common knowledge at this point, so if you see some idiot screeching about the “rule of law” just tell them this is the law.
he isnt a convicted rapist. he was found civilly liable for rape. there is a huge legal distinction there
Sure, but we’re talking about a job application… I don’t think the difference matters there.
He is a rapist. It would not matter to the GOP if he had been criminally convicted so your point is pretty moot.
In is case- there is no difference.
Plus he’s a traitor to the United States and it was televised for all to see.
Tell me you haven’t read the constitution without telling me you haven’t read the constitution…
I have no doubt red states will start banning Democrat candidates
They didn’t ban him because they didn’t like him. There’s a constitutional amendment that precludes him from being on the ballot.
The US Supreme Court could rule against Trump, leading to similar lawsuits in additional states.
If SCOTUS rules that Trump is an insurrectionist, barred from office by the Constitution, wouldn’t that make him ineligible in every state?
They could rule that it’s a state law issue and not a federal decision.
Then I could guarantee at least one red state will take Biden off the ballot for a completely made up reason. They’re already trying to impeach Biden for… being a dad I suppose, so they don’t need to be imaginative in disqualifying Biden (which is convenient because they have no imagination).
Trump waa found to have incited insurrection by a court of law.
If they wanted to properly remove Biden they’d have to at least somehow get a judge and the state supreme court to agree.
Yes. They’re suggesting they will do that.
Some officials in Texas are already talking about taking Biden off the ballot.
There are some politicians in Texas who deny the Holocaust. It is a pretty low bar down there.
Yes, but those states are probably voting red anyway.
This is about the primaries. If enough states bar Trump from the primaries he won’t become the Republican nominee and would have to run as an independent.
Yes if the Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court than it would make him invalid to run for any office including Presidency across all 50 states. This can’t be challenged be states if that’s the case. But I suspect a 25% likelihood of that happening.
I think the likelihood is actually higher than some would suspect. The justices don’t owe him anything at this point. He made a big blunder, in that he put them in office and then expected them to protect him. At best, he has nothing more to offer them, but can do a lot to drag them down in the future if he’s back in office. So even the conservative justices have very little incentive to favor him. From a pragmatic standpoint, it actually makes a lot of sense for the conservative justices to stonewall, or outright refuse to let him hold office.
True I guess it’s just a constitutional question. The right doesn’t get that you don’t need to be convicted of insurrection in order to be ineligible for any Goverment position in section 3 of the 14th Amendment. If Trump did the same thing as a civilian if he lost to Hilary in 2016 the same principle would apply.
The fact of his eligibility for the Office of President is a Federal matter. Whether he goes on the ballots is a State matter. I have to admit, in all my readings of the text of the Constitution and the context around the drafting of the Amendments, never once have I seen anything banning a State from putting someone who can’t be President on their ballot.
Maybe the Framers thought there was no way a State government would be so stupid as to put an ineligible candidate on their ballots, but that if they wanted to waste their votes on that then they should be so allowed, God bless 'em.
This seems right to me. If he was a participant in an insurrection, he can’t hold the office of President. He can still be on ballots, he can still get votes in the electoral college, heck, he can still win, he just can’t be President. In my mind, it would kick over to his VP, same as if he died or otherwise became ineligible while in office.
And if they vote other way around they kinda open the doors for national popular vote don’t they? Since theyd be saying that federal government has authority over the election process of individual states
Ultimately they have to decide if he can hold an office, I’d argue this supercede any technicality about the election itself. At worst I guess this could be decided after he won, but this would break the country.
Are we nearing the average timeframe for a fallen empire already?
Pretty sure you passed it long ago. That’s one way in which the US actually IS exceptional: it’s managed to make itself the nation equivalent of “too big to fail”.
No matter how bad it gets, most of the world will continue to automatically side with the US bo matter what. Even if Trump wins and does everything we fear he might do and more, most of the world HAS to side with the US or face financial ruin.
Hell, Trump could form an official alliance with Putin’s Russia and start WW3 and The West would join on the side of fascism.
And if they vote other way around they kinda open the doors for national popular vote don’t they? Since theyd be saying that federal government has authority over the election process of individual states
They’d be more likely to rule that the states aren’t barred from disqualifying the President.
If they ruled that way, then yes. The 14th Ammendment would overrule any state law and bar him from office, unless 2/3 of Congress voted to exempt him.
I have family in Michigan that are big Trump supporters. This would piss them off and make me happy.
If only…it would be a Christmas miracle.
Get er done!
Do it. And when his adherents make their little death threats…
Take more things away from Trump, and say it’s a direct result of his adherents actions.Parental discipline™, coming soon to a political office near you!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Colorado might not be the only state to prohibit former President Donald Trump from being on the 2024 presidential ballot.
The decision does not go into effect until January 2024, giving Trump’s campaign weeks to appeal.
Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame’s Law School, told the Associated Press that the state supreme court’s decision poses a “major threat” to Trump’s 2024 campaign.
Colorado was the first state to bar Trump from being on the ballot, but it’s not the only one that’s seen similar legal challenges.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, for example, was presented earlier in the year with a similar opportunity, though it ruled in favor of Trump.
The state of Michigan also received a challenge from the same group behind Minnesota’s attempt: Free Speech For People.
The original article contains 297 words, the summary contains 134 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Turning Michigan dark blue this early in the election cycle would be YUGE. That’s a ton of campaign cash that gets to stay in the war chest. Granted, you still have to get past the US Supreme Court.
Traitors gonna trait.
Didn’t the Michigan Supreme Court already rule on this? I remember the Secretary of State saying she didn’t want to make that decision and was glad the court ruled as quickly as they did.
–Oh, I see, it was a lower court, now being appealed to the Supremes–
What’s the over/under on SCOTUS ruling in favor of Trump when these are eventually appealed?
The most proper thing for them to do is probably to say “this is a state election issue, not our place to get involved in”
Which is probably fairly likely, I don’t think they’ll really want to deal with this, it’s an easy way for them to wash their hands of it, leaves the door open for red states to try to find an excuse to remove Biden from the ballot, let’s them act like they’re respecting the intent of the founders, etc.
If they do decide to take it up, who know? The court is definitely packed with conservative assholes, but even among them, I don’t think most of them particularly like trump, and they certainly haven’t been as “loyal” to him as he would like, some of them would probably love to see him removed from the ballot in hopes that an actually competent Republican asshole might win.
I think it’s probably about a 50/50 shot of SCOTUS actually taking it up, and if they do it’s probably about 50/50 again for what the outcome would be.
I’m guessing they won’t hear the case
Either that or they’ll punt it. “We looked at the case and decided that it’s up to the states to decide who goes on the ballots and who doesn’t.”
This would let Colorado and other states kick Trump off the ballot, but it would also open the door to red states kicking Biden off the ballot for “all his crimes which we still have no evidence of.”
Then the Supreme Court will eventually need to hear a case on WHAT REASON is good enough to kick someone off the ballot. Is “they fail to meet the requirements” good enough? What about “we don’t like this guy and don’t want him to win?”
In Trumps case he was deemed to have incited insurrection and the constitution tells them he can’t hold office.
It’s going to be a lot harder for anyone to remove Biden and survive a court challenge unless they also find him guilty of insurrection somehow.
Hydras have multiple heads that need cutting off.
It’ll postpone the inevitable for another few years, but there’ll be another autocrat soon enough. Have enough people with bad jobs and in debt up to their eyeballs, and some minority scapegoating wannabe dictator will appear eager for the job.
Turning a purple state blue via court order rather than votes will have consequences down the line. While the stacked Supreme Court is almost definitely going to rule in Trump’s favor, them ruling against him isn’t something we should simply see as a boon with no strings attached.
You’re saying that states shouldn’t uphold the law.
Don’t put words in my mouth and re-read what I said, thanks!
Shut up, idiot. For one thing, the law is clear, this is literally using the Constitution as intended, for another the Republicans are free to nominate someone that isn’t a traitor.
I’m terribly sorry you snacked on paint chips as a child and are thus unable to see both my point and potential longterm consequences. Trump is a traitor, but if you think his base is going to quietly shrug and let constitutionality get in the way of getting their guy in power, I have a bridge to sell you.
So what, we should ignore the Constitution to appease Trump’s cult?
No we should not, as I am not saying that. I’m not in any way suggesting that he should get off scot-free for his poorly attempted coup, I’m merely pointing out the existence of consequences, which is apparently a controversial view.
But what if they are good consequences?
Then hurray for that! I’m not nearly optimistic enough to think that, but one can hope.
