137
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] festus@lemmy.ca 26 points 7 months ago

The US Supreme Court has some tough choices to make. On one hand you have a piece of the constitution that, at least to this layperson, would seem to clearly disqualify Trump - but absent any clarifying law from Congress it's really hard to figure out how to implement it. Do you let States do it? What if a Republican state official says Biden is an insurrectionist? How would Biden challenge that? What court would hear that challenge? If it's the state supreme courts, then what if one court disqualifies him and another doesn't? Do you allow for some states to disqualify candidates and others not, or does the Supreme Court have to take up these cases each election year? What's the threshold for insurrection? Should it require a criminal conviction? What if Trump were charged with insurrection and later acquitted - can he now run again?

Maybe they might punt it off to Congress and say that it's Congress' responsibility when counting electoral college votes to decide if a candidate is qualified or not, but now you've just given cover to Republicans to reject presidential election results they don't like if they happen to win enough seats in Congress.

Tl;dr - from my perspective they have to either ignore the constitution and invite the chaos of another possible Trump presidency, or acknowledge the constitution and invite (additional) chaos into the election system. If Congress functioned maybe a decent law could be written but fat chance of that.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Biden would go to court to challenge it. Just like Trump did. That's the answer. Not enforcing laws for fear of bad faith actors is appeasement and ends badly everytime.

Also states DQ people all the time. Not old enough, Not a citizen, etc...

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

but absent any clarifying law from Congress it's really hard to figure out how to implement it.

OK yeah but that's literally the supreme court's JOB.

But if they rule it as self executing (which it almost certainly is), we can expect a clusterfuck stateside for the foreseeable future from Republicans. Though, that may be a feature for them, not a bug.

Best case scenario, I guess, would be the SC deciding eligibility is a federal thing not a state thing, AND that trump is ineligible to run.

Though that'd make him a martyr... But allowing him to run after a coup attempt is a terrible precident as well...

I don't think we're winning no matter how this turns out, boys.

[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Allowing him to run after a failed coup attempt would invite others to attempt another coup. Good points.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago

It absolutely is self-executing. From the text of the 14th Amendment:

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

So it follows that Trump would be disqualified absent any action from Congress, since they can only vote to lift such a restriction, not on whether or not to impose it.

[-] winky9827b@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

This person pays attention folks.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

The US Supreme Court has some tough choices to make.

😂

You actually really think they give a shit?

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
137 points (97.9% liked)

News

22903 readers
3709 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS