138
Live audio of the US Supreme Court: oral arguments to decide if Trump is eligible to run for president
(www.supremecourt.gov)
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
138 points (97.9% liked)
News
23296 readers
4083 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hm. So I'm guessing they are going to say that disqualification can only happen at the federal level by a law defined by Congress. They don't seem too concerned about an insurrectionist becoming president, not surprisingly.
That's certainly a strange new precedent. I hope Congress gets to work quickly writing legislation for all the other amendments before a president realizes there aren't laws spelling out how freedom of speech is defined or how to enforce it, etc. etc.
No matter what we might wish were the case, some amendments can be further defined by law. So this isn't a new precedent by any stretch.
Amendment III comes right out and says law can define the details.
So does XIII, section 2
And XV, section 2
And, most apropos, XIV Section 5.
So there it is right there.
Of course constitutional law is complicated. I don't know what I don't know. There are other solid arguments for and against, no doubt. But "unprecedented" isn't one of them, it seems.
There are mountains of case history on the other amendments. This one is truly new.
That doesn't mean Congress needs to define it before it's actionable.
Well, yeah, he's on team Naz...er Republican and can keep the tax breaks flowing to the top.
It should be a more fundamental question than that. The first issue with regard to any statutory authority regarding Section 3 must address whether the section itself is self executing.
Trump's lawyer made sure to argue that. But the text is clearly self executing. Congress can act like a pardon board to restore eligibility. It does not get powers to determine it in the first place. The intention was clearly that would be candidates with a bar would go hat in hand to Congress before campaigning.
In fact this just reminded me that any SCOTUS decision on this is another massive electoral over reach. They are again usurping Congress' power. Trump should be having friendly politicians advance a bill there to get the bar removed.
No mention of that being discussed in the summaries I've seen.
They’ll touch on it in the decision, I’m sure.
Cool, then let's put Ariana Greenblatt on the ballot and make them make a law on how to disqualify children.
Mostly because it's not SCOTUS' job to make laws ... they're simply there to interpret what Congress has passed. Which is pretty much how high courts operate everywhere, including Canada, the UK, etc
Right, but as it is their job to interpret laws and the constitutionality of lawsuits and this lawsuit alleges that dumps is constitutionality prohibited from office, this is exactly their job.
The problem is SCOTUS rules with original intent as the prime basis, so any in-depth ruling would take a long time for them to deliver. Kavanaugh said as much when he questioned what the word "insurrection" actually means.
Which is stupid since the original Colorado ruling went into the definition of insurrection in excruciating, originalist-style detail.
Well Bret, it’s nothing like playing quarters.
As a Canadian playing Devil's advocate, if he's blocked from running, you may have blood on the streets and a full on armed insurrection, which may be what's needed so those willing to overturn democracy in support of Trump, get stomped. But yeah, people might die no? Anyways it seems like a lose lose situation
I'd prefer a peaceful outcome, but there's a level of brain rot you just can't fix. I had almost daily political discussions with a coworker who was far right and listened to fox News every day and I genuinely saw progress with his critical thinking skills. But then he retired and went off the deep end and got banned from Facebook for his rants about the EVIL LIBERALS.
They won't go out en masse. A few might try something but that's already happening.
Why should I care that the MAGAt gravy seal wing of y'all qaida get drone striked into oblivion?
They're anti-american traitors, draping themselves in the American flag.
There are a number of armed, in shape crazies, they’re just better at staying low. Go shooting for the hell of it some saturday at a range, look for the “Molon Abbe” stickers and tattoos. They’ll lose… they always do. But they will be almost as violent as a normal day in the US
Most of them aren't aware of what the modern battlefield is like. That's great that they're in shape. It isn't going to save them from the Apache helicopter or Predator drone. If by some miracle they get a straight up fight with an infantry unit they're going to find the meaning of some terms the hard way, like Singing Machineguns, Shake and Bake, and Shift Fire.
The ones that are aware are either suicidal or will only show up long enough to see if they can split the military.