this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
377 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3682 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 56 points 10 months ago (27 children)

So, how do you think the Court will justify keeping Trump on the ballot?

  • What Trump did doesn't qualify as insurrection.
  • Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection.
  • The insurrectionist ban is only for people who participated in the civil war
  • The ban doesn't apply because presidents aren't officers
  • The ban doesn't apply because presidents swear to protect the constitution, not to support it
  • Section 3 can't be enforced without congress passing legislation to enforce it.
  • It's a political question so courts can't touch it.
  • Trump being impeached but acquitted after the insurrection means he can't be punished for it due to double jeopardy (I hate that this is an actual argument being made... and that it's not even close to the stupidest one to come from team Trump)
[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think they can argue #1, because a lower court found that he had done insurrection, and my understanding is that they cannot overrule that finding. #2 won't stand because it never required conviction historically.

I really don't know how they're going to justify it, but I'm sure they'll find a way. Maybe it's on your list.

Edit: I have consulted a legal expert, and they said that the supreme Court can overrule "facts" determined in other courts, but it is generally only for egregious things and is generally frowned upon.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why could they not overrule that finding? That's literally what appeals to higher courts are for.

[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

It's their job to interpret the law and to determine if the law was applied correctly. They will not however dispute those findings. You will see, they will not debate that Trump is an insurrectionist.

load more comments (24 replies)