Elections Illinois judge removes Trump from ballot

[Lord_Impaler]

#protectourdemocracy

 

[nostradumbass]

There is no due process requirement for Section 3. There never has been.

Do I think drafters who were racist, didn't want black men and women in general voting, and didn't want reps elected directly were OK with a lack of due process? Why, yes, I do.

The 14th Amendment, as does the 13th, centralizes power. They literally fought a war where a stronger federal government emerged. You realize the Southern states were federally occupied and essentially occupied territory at this time period, right?

Allowing the disqualification of candidates is also not a matter of centralization or not. IT's a matter of what the drafters thought of fitness for power.

That's a fascinating story, but again, it's an argument FOR originalism, and are giving your 200 years later interpretation to shoehorn your tribalism into it despite what it actually says, then declaring "that doesn't count because it's several sentences earlier in the same amendment", and the ultimate tapout of "they're racists and it doesn't count". You turn the document upside down and pour lemon juice on it, and it still doesn't say "orange man bad, and whatever it takes to centralize power to a 1 party state is permissible to retain power". Sorry, but your argument is just crap by people who view themselves as rulers and not representatives.

 

[avenue94]

That's a fascinating story, but again, it's an argument FOR originalism

I mean...your words not mine. I've neither claimed to be an originalist nor supported Section 3.

and are giving your 200 years later interpretation to shoehorn your tribalism into it despite what it actually says, then declaring "that doesn't count because it's several sentences earlier in the same amendment", and the ultimate tapout of "they're racists and it doesn't count".

What the fuck are you prattling on about. From an originalist perspective, all that matters is how was the long interpreted at the time of its creation. And we know no one barred by the law was given due process, and also that the presidency is covered by this law. It's cut and dry.

I'll give you credit, your rotted brain is this close to realizing why originalism is such a bankrupt philosophy that can be more accurately described as originalism when I want that I'll discard as soon as it's troublesome.

 

[pv3Hpv3p]

Funny if true

That would be hilarious, if it's true... the first comment disputes it, for what that's worth... something about all new cook county judges start in traffic court, she's been transferred to election whatnot since.

Take all that with a grain of salt, I don't have the energy to look it up

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Take all that with a grain of salt, I don't have the energy to look it up

yeah, me neither, i just came across that tweet today and thought about the thread, that's why i was asking.

 

[nostradumbass]

I mean...your words not mine. I've neither claimed to be an originalist nor supported Section 3.

What the fuck are you prattling on about. From an originalist perspective, all that matters is how was the long interpreted at the time of its creation. And we know no one barred by the law was given due process, and also that the presidency is covered by this law. It's cut and dry.

I'll give you credit, your rotted brain is this close to realizing why originalism is such a bankrupt philosophy that can be more accurately described as originalism when I want that I'll discard as soon as it's troublesome.

Yeah, so you just don't know what "originalism" means, and think it means whatever you want it to say. Just give the examples of candidates in national elections that a single traffic cop has decided voters aren't allowed to vote for. You could done this several posts ago but for some reason try to pretend you're smart or even knowledgeable when you just aren't. Yeah, we already know what you emotionally want, which is very different from what words mean. We already knew that your interpretation was that a fucking traffic cop should appoint the president, as long as it's your "team", but the rest of us live in reality.

 

[PBAC]

his supporters are openly holding the country hostage threatening insurrection if Trump loses. So their claim is that Trump didn't incite insurrection but if they loses they will throw an insurrection.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

in a 9-0 unanimous decision, the scotus just ruled to keep trump on the colorado ballots. and apparently this extends to all states i'm surprised this whole thing made it that far. it was considered a hail mary and never supposed to go anywhere

In their decision, the US supreme court writes:

We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency

basically they were also even saying that congress should be in charge of enforcing who is disqualified. even though the states are in charge of their own elections. make that make sense. but i guess when you're dealing with presidency and other federal positions, somehow it's not supposed to be up to the states to actually enforce it.

it's really messy and they really bailed him out. but when it all comes down to it i believe this was probably the right thing to do. and an earlier comment from john roberts suggests they don't want this kind of shit to go on because it will likely lead to tit-for-tat disqualification filings between the two parties where they simply just try to disqualify the other candidate for any random partisan interests:


“What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big, plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” the chief justice, John Roberts, asked Jason Murray, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Colorado voters.

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts added.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

the traffic court judge got overruled? Didn’t see that coming.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

The L's are really stacking up for the Dems lately.

 

[Andy Capp]

The L's are really stacking up for the Dems lately.

Sure, whatever you say, Cope-a-long Cassidy. <45>

 

[HockeyBjj]

Supreme court ruling is out. Rogue judges can't arbitrarily remove Trump from their state's ballots, but the court specifically did not rule that trumps was or wasn't an insurrectionist- so that trial will still play out unaffected by this ballot decision

What happens after historic Supreme Court ruling that states can't ban Trump from ballot

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the state-level officials have no authority to disqualify Trump from the 2024 race under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

abcnews.go.com

glad to see a unanimous ruling on this. I side with liberal 3 that if a federal court convicts a person of insurrection, then they can be barred from future office under that statue in question. Leaving that authority to congress alone, when congress is supposed to write the laws while the courts enforce them, is clearly wrong

 

[Fedor>Cain]

These people love wasting tax dollars for attention.

Brought to you by the party of Jewish Space laser lady, Hunter Biden dick pics, and the weirdos who dress up like cat people at school board meetings