politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This doesn't even matter. Unless he's barred from the general election ballot, he's already won the GOP primaries. Haley just won't cave until she's forced to.
Please read the article, it's for both the primary and general.
Still doesn't matter, Illinois is pretty solidly blue so a Republican wouldn't win those electoral votes in the general either way
It kind of does, in that when states see something blatantly unconstitutional they shouldn't wait for the Supreme Court to say it. Start the procedure and than wait if the Court says it needs to review it, sure.
Ugh...okay...
First I'll say I can't stand trump and I absolutely believe he participated in insurrection and as such should be barred from holding federal office.
*With that being said...*the fact remains that he's not yet been legally convicted/proven of having done so.
I believe it, you believe it, lots of people believe it, and it may well be fact...but there's been no legal decision that says he participated in an insurrection.
Without that legal ruling...and I can't believe I'm saying this...I don't think that states should be able to strike him from national elections based on a federal level law.
It's less a matter of how I feel about the actual subject and much more because of the legal precedent and implications. Basically, without a legal conviction here, these states are saying, "We (a nebulous definition here that could be as collective as the personally held opinions of a single judge) feel that this person did something so against the best interests of the country that it amounts to insurrection, therefore we're removing that person from our ballots."
And while I agree with them in this specific case, it's not difficult to imagine that, with a precedent like this, you get purple states with a GOP judge, state supreme court, governor, etc. that decide that the Dem candidate in a future election has acted so against their view of the best interests of the nation that they decide it amounts to insurrection and therefore that candidate will be removed from their ballot.
At that point, every single election will be about attempts to remove candidates from ballots in the courts, cheapening and perverting the intentions of 14-3.
To prevent that, IMHO, it needs to be up to the federal level of courts to make such a decision, to say for certain whether a person has violated 14-3, at which point that ruling decides their appearance on a ballot automatically.
Yes, it's unfortunate because in this case a ruling like that from a federal court is unlikely (and if it comes down, it's unlikely to withstand SCOTUS and/or get a horribly muddying ruling like "yes he did insurrection but no, we aren't going to enforce 14-3") but taking the long view of rule of law and judicial precedent, I just feel that states deciding this matter without trial or conviction is opening Pandora's box.
Cmon now, there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”
This is like arguing that we can’t punish a murderer with jail time because people will start trying to punish people they disagree with, with jail time.
A convicted murderer, sure we can.
Someone accused of murder? Even if it's by millions of people? Without a conviction, don't touch them.
I agree.
But without any official legal declaration of the latter, it's no more substantial than the former...and I'll give you one guess as to which side of the American political system is more willing to abuse that.
I'm not saying Trump should be guaranteed to appear on ballots no matter what...I'm just saying that before he's removed there needs to be something official. A legal finding that he did indeed participate in insurrection.
Once that's officially and legally established, then and only then, 14-3 should be invoked.
And for what it's worth, IMHO, at that point it should be invoked nationwide. As soon as that ruling comes down, Trump is, as a function of that ruling, prevented from appearing on any ballot for any national office, in all states, effective immediately. Any write-in votes for the ineligible candidate are also discarded.
The other side of that coin is judges deliberately dragging their feet on the matter to make sure he is able to be on the ballot.
We just had the Supreme Court say “yeah, maybe he does have presidential immunity” and delay the proceedings by 90 days instead of taking it up immediately, or just refusing to hear the case.
So our choices are “ignore the insurrection and let him be on the general ballot” and “hold him accountable at the state level.”
Basically, fucked if we do, and fucked if we don’t. But at least this way they are upholding the constitution.
That’s already happened. There was a finding of fact that Trump participated in insurrection by state of Colorado.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot
That’s in part why this is the case the USSC has taken up. It is now established legal fact that Trump participated in insurrection, but 14-3 isn’t super clear that it pertains to POTUS, unlike the clarity for Senators and Representatives.
So there’s no question of guilt. That’s established. It’s now a question of applicability.
There's still room for the USSC to also declare that the state courts finding of fact is incorrect. If I recall the legal analysis, I think that was the consensus as the likely outcome, that the state's finding is not substantiated. There seemed to be doubt that the "doesn't apply" argument will hold, but that will be moot if they say that the Colorado state court can't unilaterally make that finding.
My point was that I feel it should be decided at the federal level, not the state level. The ruling of a Colorado court as to what happened in an area completely outside their jurisdiction shouldn't really matter.
The SCOTUS ruling will be that decision, and while I'm not optimistic that they'll rule to disqualify Trump through 14-3, at least there will be an answer.
Problem being is that the federal system has shied away from declaring him an insurrectionist, and it's kind of weird to proceed without the backing of a federal ruling toward the end of enforcing a federal amendment.
It's a bit disheartening that the justice system spent 4 years with the most obvious evidence on the planet and did not proceed for fear of looking 'too political'. But as a consequence, I think the states deciding to act on that amendment are lacking the substance to justify their move.
It's maddening because everyone knows he worked to subvert the free and fair election (the insurrection in my mind is superseded by the whole fake electors/attempted election tampering). But the courts in a position to credibly do something directly on the issue have drug their feet too long.
States have always been the arbiters of eligibility. Taking that away would be novel and against precedent.
The threat of his base retaliating isn't a reason not to do it. That's just a large criminal conspiracy, just like if a cartel or gang threatened prosecutors.
Yes and no. It adds legitimacy to removing him from the ballot in purple states.
Haley is clearly staying in for the likely reality that Trump is found guilty and the small chance that the Republican party chooses not to have a convicted federal criminal as their candidate. She knows based on the numbers she has no shot, but she's angling to stay in so she can swoop in when Trump is disqualified.
How likely that is to happen to up to interpretation, but it's pretty clear at this point that's Haley's game plan.
And because Trump is old and unhealthy and could pass away
Also possibilities: -Trump passes away -Trump leaves the country -Trump runs but loses, and Haley gets "told you so" status as the GOP likely tosses Trump under the bus for delivering so many consecutive losses (2018, his own in 2020, and to some extent the weak 2022 performance can be attributed to his election denial and the party rallying behind that). If the GOP loses in 2024, then I could easily see the party decide they must go 'beyond Trump', and politicians that consistently looked 'anti-Trump' may be in a strong position in that scenario.
Seeing as she is in her early 50s, which is downright an infant by the standards of the presidential race, she can afford to run a long game of prepping for a likely 2028 race.
Of course if Trump wins in 2024, her political career won't go anywhere, but it's a fair bet to plan for the contingency of him losing.