Politics

5 readers

1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 2 years ago

Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot (www.cnn.com)

submitted 10 months ago by DarkGamer@kbin.social to c/politics@kbin.social

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

top 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So much for upholding the constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. What good is it if not applied to insurrectionists?

The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state law doesn’t give election officials any leeway to police the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts.
His decision was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which said: “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot.”
The order from the Michigan Supreme Court was unsigned, and the court did not release a vote count.
Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan courts rejected the case wholly on procedural grounds. They never reached the questions of whether January 6 was an insurrection and whether Trump engaged in it.

Cowards, tacitly supporting anti-democratic fascism and not even signing their names to it.

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

The problem with section 3 is that it says nothing of running for a position, just that someone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion may not hold an office, elected or appointed. If we go with the strictest interpretation, Trump absolutely can run for president. He can even win. However, can he hold the office? That's another question. It could be sidestepped if the Republicans gain 2/3rds majority in both Houses of Congress as they can "remove such disability." If they don't, it will go to the Supreme Court most likely. And, well, barring several of them dropping dead or retiring, we all know how that is gonna play out(2000 all over again, basically).

What we really need to see in 2024 are states amending their constitutions to bar those who engage in insurrection and rebellion from being on the ballot or, better yet, from being certified or whatever it is in each state when deciding electors for the electorate college vote. This is something that should have happened after Jan 6th, but, well, here we are.

Regardless of what happens, any outcome other then Trump being made sitting president again is going to harm the Republicans going forward as it will further alienate Republican voters from the voting process. The likely violent backlash from a Trump loss will also likely alienate more levelheaded independents from voting for Republicans, as well. If he is refused to be seated, shit is going to be insane. This election is a hail Mary for the Republicans - if it goes any other way than in their favor they have likely hamstrung themselves for the foreseeable future. It could even blow up in their faces if it goes to them if Trump actually goes through with trying to make his senile self a dictator.