509
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
509 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19080 readers
3518 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I’m all for disqualifying him from office, but when Colorado did, it was judges who made the call. A Democrat Secretary of State doing it is going to give ammunition to all the partisans who claim the whole thing is political. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, only that it’s complicated.
I mean, that is the job of the Secretary of State office. They determine who or what is qualified for the ballot.
In my state, they kicked off one of the candidates for Governor in 2022 because he didn't meet residency requirements.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/06/nicholas-nick-kristof-oregon-governor-candidate-qualification-ruling/
He sued, it went through the courts, surprise! He wasn't qualified due to residency requirements.
FTA:
"Among her reasons for deciding Kristof did not meet residency requirements, Scroggin cited his decision to vote as a New York resident in 2020 and his possession of a New York driver’s license in 2020. Both factors, she wrote, indicated Kristof “viewed New York as the place where you intended to permanently return when you were away.”
“In order to satisfy the three-year residency requirement, you must have been a resident in Oregon for the entire three-year period beginning in November 2019,” Scroggin wrote. “But the objective facts, including your decision to vote in New York, convincingly suggest that you resided in New York at least from November 2019 to December 2020.”"
Presumably there is a way to challenge this decision in court. And tbh I like this way of handling it better. Trump does not meet the basic requirements of being a president, which are:
If a 32 year old was frontrunner to become the candidate for either party, you wouldn't expect a court proceeding to disqualify them. Same here.
That's what I thought was funny about the dissent one of the judges wrote in the Colorado case. They said something like, determining if someone is over 35 is easy, but determining if someone engaged in insurrection is not so easy. Which was weird to me, because the insurrection was broadcast live on TV and seemed pretty easy to determine to me. But I guess that's why I'm not a judge.
Well, what is insurrection? What role did he play?
It's like pornography, generally you know it when your see it, but the borders are very vague
I'd certainly classify what Trump did as an insurrection, but it's not that simple. Where do you draw the line? It's a complicated question
Well ultimately, someone's age is (generally) a pretty easily verifiable fact with little room for argument. Whether or not someone's actions constitute an insurrection is not something you can read off a birth certificate - it relies on a subjective standard of what constitutes an insurrection. And given how many different forms that could take, I feel the 14th has to be as vague as a it is about what constitutes an insurrection. Jan 6 very obviously qualifies imo, but making a bulletproof legal argument to that effect is a whole other matter, especially considering how much scrutiny this decision will be under. Remember how wrapped in dog whistles this whole thing was - getting up on stage and vaguely suggesting to an angry mob to take their country back then going home and quietly muttering "nooo don't break the law or hurt anyone pls go home nooooo" gives a very annoying level of rhetorical wiggle room to those responsible. It's an intentional strategy to make this exact kind of argument as difficult as possible.
That on its own is no reason to not pursue invoking the 14th, because imo this is the exact situation in which it should be used, and it specifically does not require the same level of proof as in a criminal trial. But it is a significant complication we will be dealing with at all stages of this process and it remains to be seen how many are willing to stake their political careers on it.
Insurrection or rebellion. Insurrection might be vague, but he definitely rebelled.
The entire legal fight over this is going to be about who decides if that condition and what standard they have to follow to do so.
Republicans are going to piss and moan and riot no matter what. We must not delay or suspend justice because we're afraid of what they might do.
Not only will they piss and moan, but they have a clear cut script for whenever this happens. They claim the person or persons involved are "Biden-loving", "ultra left radicals", etc, etc. I'm 100% confident if the Trump campaign ever saw this thread, they would deem us all left wing plants working for Biden.
It is worth being strategic as we consider things.
GOP at least in Colorado has made it clear they will consider Trump no matter what, even if it means going to a private caucus. So these moves won't keep him out of primaries, but may prevent independents from participating in the Republican primaries.
So this would be valuable only with respect to the general election. Colorado and Maine aren't going to Trump anyway, so in those contexts it's worthless.
On the other hand, it feeds the persecution complex. It ends up provoking a "we'll show those Democrats by electing the guy they are trying to cheat out of his candidacy".
If you can pull it off in any vaguely Republican voting state, might be worth it. However signs point to that not happening, so it looks like a bag strategy.
Which makes it more important for the Supreme Court to rule one way or the other instead of stalling. He has legally been found to be an insurrectionist, so until the Supreme Court says otherwise, any state that doesn't allow traitors on ballots has a duty to the voters of their state to remove him.
From the article:
IANA political scientist, but I read that as a bipartisan challenge was made, a hearing was held, and the Sec of State sided with the challengers, deciding to remove Trump from the ballot. It doesn't appear to have just come out of nowhere or been initiated by her. That won't stop others from arguing against it in bad faith, but there was a process at least, and it seems it's within her duties to have made that decision. When it's challenged by Trump (and it will be), then it will be up to a judge or judges to uphold or overturn.
There is going to be oversight on this decision as well, they're just following the process. The Trumpets have 5 days to appeal and I don't see why they wouldn't.
This can of worms is open - every angle needs to be litigated. I'm not looking forward to random secretaries of state declaring eating tacos on the fourth of july to be insurrection.
Oh no, they might try to do something like an insurrection. They did that. Another insurrection? They have plans on the internet and a timeline.
But you're worried about setting a precedent for the democracy that they laid out plans stating that they're going to destroy and replace with a dictatorship? If they win. But if they lose, then they might have some sort of precedence in the democracy that still exists? Right? Because that's what you're saying. Think about what you're saying.
Are you okay? Everything's gonna be alright my dude.
They're going to pretend they can declare whatever they don't like an insurrection. The court cases will stabilize interpretation of the amendment, so I think the court cases surrounding this are going to be a good thing... I'm not sure where you were going with the rest of that.