this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
180 points (97.4% liked)

News

23387 readers
2478 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
 

Former President Donald Trump's appeal of a Colorado ruling barring him from the ballot may force the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in directly on his 2024 election prospects, a case that legal experts said will likely pull its nine justices into a political firestorm.

That state was the first, followed by Maine, to rule that Trump was disqualified from seeking the Republican presidential nomination due to his actions ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an unprecedented legal decision that the nation's top court could find too pressing to avoid.

"I doubt that any of the justices are pleased that they're being forced into the fray over Donald Trump's future. But it seems to me that the court will have no choice but to face these momentous issues," said attorney Deepak Gupta, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

The justices, Gupta said, will have to act with "unusual speed and, hopefully, in a way that does not further divide our deeply divided land. That is a daunting and unenviable task."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 62 points 10 months ago (6 children)

This presents an interesting problem for Republicans, and by interesting I mean an unwinnable scenario.

See, if the conservative judges put Trump back on the ballot, they will instantly give more ammunition to people already screaming for court reform.

That's the one thing the conservative legal movement fears.

On the other hand, if they don't come up with some excuse to justify putting Trump back on the ballot, the maga mob will declare them traitors and might actually try to kill them.

The trick will be threading that needle, and I don't think it's possible.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I want to agree, but I think they can safely assume Dems are not capable of reforming the court. People (including me) will scream about it but no one will actually do anything about it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not unless we vote for people who actually want reform. Joe Biden doesn't want reform. I'm still going to vote for him, but I'm also voting for more progressive candidates in the downticket primaries.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I agree 100%. I should have clarified current Democratic party leaders, and it is definitely still important to vote for the better choice in every election even if the candidates aren't perfect.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Like all politicians, Democrats will recognize the self interest in having fair elections. If the court is going to hand the elections to Republicans against the rules, they will suddenly see the need to reform the court.

So, even from a pessimistic point of view, they either uphold the law as it clearly should be or face their end.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

Worst case scenario: the Trump Justices recuse themselves pretending to care about conflict of interest. This allows them to avoid the mob and get rid of Trump. When he gets a negative ruling based on mostly the non-Trump judges, the Republicans are able to campaign on getting the presidency and a senate super majority, in order to impeach all of them and we end up with a 9-justice right wing court.

The repbulican establishment would gladly sacrifice Trump to get the full court.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I assume the Republican establishment wants to get rid of Trump, but they also want to be able to blame it on the democrats so that it helps their preferred candidate and they don't anger their base.

Weirdly, I think some in the democratic establishment haven't learned their lesson, and want Trump to run. Arguably easier to beat for Biden. Super risky strategy though, given inflation.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They just rule it's within Colorado and Maine's rights to determine who's on their ballot. Like it is. Realistically this unfortunately probably helps Trump cause he was never gonna win either of those states and big bad liberals trying to keep Trump out plays great to the base and will get his supporters out to the polls.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They could choose to point out Trump has not been found guilty of a 14th amendment offense in a court of law and enforce innocent until proven guilty and say after a guilty verdict, maybe.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

This seems really obvious to me. I mean of course we all know he's guilty, but even I think it would be bad precedent to act before a conviction - from then on, every election the Republicans will immediately try to disqualify whoever the Democrat(s) opposing them are the same way (just with made up crimes)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I always assumed that was the strategy. Trump has a huge handful of lawsuits in the pipeline. None of them will technically prevent him from holding office. This specific ruling will make it clear, "Yes, he is disqualified."

I'm not confident it's necessary, but I understand the legal argument that it should be more clear, which is what this does.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what you are saying. The supreme court is clearly not going to rule that he's disqualified. Like the grandparent comment said - he's not convicted, so he'll stay on the ballots.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right. But without this case, what happens when he is eventually convicted of insurrection?

We would have to go through all the legal arguments we're going through now.

This case is being brought up now so that we already have the answer.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If they rule in favor of Trump that presidents are above the law: Biden should just blow up the court with expansion (as has been done before anyway) If they rule against Trump death threats incoming.

No win here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Expanding the court requires the approval of Congress, which Biden won't get.

If they rule presidents are above the law, he could (and perhaps even should) simply kill them himself without any possible retaliation, but seeing as he'd never actually do that they don't have to worry about it.

I hope it's not too late, but I do fear that Republicans have been allowed to do whatever they want with no consequences for too long.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I share your concerns friend.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's even better than that, actually, because it also undermines one of the key fringe ideas that the alt-right is spreading: the independent state legislature theory. If the Supreme Court steps in to override Colorado's decision, it would preemptively utterly destroy one of the tactics the right is planning on: have red state legislatures deny victory to anyone but Trump despite whoever wins the election.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, I was very very happy that day 🙂