Get rekt you fucking traitor.
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
490 points (97.3% liked)
politics
23594 readers
2936 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m all for disqualifying him from office, but when Colorado did, it was judges who made the call. A Democrat Secretary of State doing it is going to give ammunition to all the partisans who claim the whole thing is political. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, only that it’s complicated.
I mean, that is the job of the Secretary of State office. They determine who or what is qualified for the ballot.
In my state, they kicked off one of the candidates for Governor in 2022 because he didn't meet residency requirements.
He sued, it went through the courts, surprise! He wasn't qualified due to residency requirements.
FTA:
"Among her reasons for deciding Kristof did not meet residency requirements, Scroggin cited his decision to vote as a New York resident in 2020 and his possession of a New York driver’s license in 2020. Both factors, she wrote, indicated Kristof “viewed New York as the place where you intended to permanently return when you were away.”
“In order to satisfy the three-year residency requirement, you must have been a resident in Oregon for the entire three-year period beginning in November 2019,” Scroggin wrote. “But the objective facts, including your decision to vote in New York, convincingly suggest that you resided in New York at least from November 2019 to December 2020.”"
going to give ammunition to all the partisans who claim the whole thing is political.
Republicans are going to piss and moan and riot no matter what. We must not delay or suspend justice because we're afraid of what they might do.
It is worth being strategic as we consider things.
GOP at least in Colorado has made it clear they will consider Trump no matter what, even if it means going to a private caucus. So these moves won't keep him out of primaries, but may prevent independents from participating in the Republican primaries.
So this would be valuable only with respect to the general election. Colorado and Maine aren't going to Trump anyway, so in those contexts it's worthless.
On the other hand, it feeds the persecution complex. It ends up provoking a "we'll show those Democrats by electing the guy they are trying to cheat out of his candidacy".
If you can pull it off in any vaguely Republican voting state, might be worth it. However signs point to that not happening, so it looks like a bag strategy.
Presumably there is a way to challenge this decision in court. And tbh I like this way of handling it better. Trump does not meet the basic requirements of being a president, which are:
- Must be over 35. ✔️
- Must be born in the USA. ✔️
- Must not be an insurrectionist. ❌
If a 32 year old was frontrunner to become the candidate for either party, you wouldn't expect a court proceeding to disqualify them. Same here.
- Must not be an insurrectionist. ❌
The entire legal fight over this is going to be about who decides if that condition and what standard they have to follow to do so.
Which makes it more important for the Supreme Court to rule one way or the other instead of stalling. He has legally been found to be an insurrectionist, so until the Supreme Court says otherwise, any state that doesn't allow traitors on ballots has a duty to the voters of their state to remove him.
From the article:
Bellows, a Democrat, issued the decision Thursday after presiding over an administrative hearing earlier this month about Trump’s eligibility for office. A bipartisan group of former state lawmakers filed the challenge against Trump.
IANA political scientist, but I read that as a bipartisan challenge was made, a hearing was held, and the Sec of State sided with the challengers, deciding to remove Trump from the ballot. It doesn't appear to have just come out of nowhere or been initiated by her. That won't stop others from arguing against it in bad faith, but there was a process at least, and it seems it's within her duties to have made that decision. When it's challenged by Trump (and it will be), then it will be up to a judge or judges to uphold or overturn.
There is going to be oversight on this decision as well, they're just following the process. The Trumpets have 5 days to appeal and I don't see why they wouldn't.
Welcome to the club Maine - Love Colorado
Fuck the republican traitor filth.
Thanks, Santa
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Maine’s top election official has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, in a surprising decision based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
The decision makes Maine the second state to disqualify Trump from office, after the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its own stunning ruling that removed him from the ballot earlier this month.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, issued the decision Thursday after presiding over an administrative hearing earlier this month about Trump’s eligibility for office.
“Democracy is sacred … I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws … is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek,” she said.
Explaining her reasoning, Bellows wrote that the challengers presented compelling evidence that the January 6 insurrection “occurred at the behest of” Trump – and that the US Constitution “does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government.”
The original article contains 480 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I have a question. Can states legally remove Trump from ballots before he has been formally convicted of inciting an insurrection? Doesn't this just give the GOP ammunition and the option to turn around and do the same thing and remove Biden from red state ballots?
So the courts did find that he participated in an insurrection. But they also ruled that he had presidential immunity, and any prosecution would require an impeachment and trial in the senate. Basically, the courts said they didn’t have jurisdiction to prosecute him for it. They went “lol yeah he definitely did it, but we can’t punish him for it.” And the republicans haven’t actually challenged this. After all, why would they? They control congress, so they simply won’t try him for it in the senate.
But the 14th amendment doesn’t require a conviction. It only requires a sworn official to have violated their oath of office. Which includes participating in an insurrection. It doesn’t require a conviction or even prosecution; It only requires violating your oath of office.
The 14th amendment was written in the wake of the civil war, with the union looking to prevent confederates from holding office. The union feared that the confederates would attempt to seize power through the elections, even after the war was over. But they knew that taking every individual confederate to court would take way too long. It would also run counter to the reunification efforts, because no confederates would agree to rejoin the union if they knew it meant they’d be criminally prosecuted. So instead, the union circumvented the courts and simply barred anyone who violated an oath of office.
The ruling from the original court was that Trump engaged in an insurrection (but enjoys presidential immunity). The presidential immunity bit was then appealed to the Colorado supreme court, who overturned that. That is how we have arrived at (a) he was in an insurrection and (b) he does not qualify to be on the ballot. Trump and is team have never contested (a), so as far as this case goes there is no question about whether he engaged in the insurrection.
Yes to the first and no to the second, its complicated... And I am NOT a lawyer, so take this the way you would any response attempting to be helpful from the internet.
They are removing him due to section 3 of the 14th ammendment, which does not require one to be convicted of anything, just that you violated your oath of office and/or participated in an insurrection/rebellion. It does not really specify the legal mechanism for how this is supposed to works other than that they cant hold office anymore.
The wording is done this way due to southern states sending confederate politicians to washington during reconstruction. President Grant loosened the restriction in 1898 for the Spanish-American war, and since then its only been dusted off once in the 1920s.
Source: I went to the 14th ammendments Wikipedia page.
As for the second question, in theory it shoulden't give the GOP any ammo to turn around and do this to Biden. This is the reason its playing out slowly in the courts, the state AGs (just Colorado and Maine at this point) are waiting to see if that is a proper application of the ammendment. If the GOP did try turning around and doing this to Biden it would only take one federal judge to stop it. The supreme court could step in and clear this up quickly, but they appear to not want to be seen as a political body. So we wait.
Republicans came for the courts to pervert the system. They perverted the system so they can get rid of the Constitution. They want to get rid of the Constitution so they don't have to deal with petty shit like facing the music for an attempted coup.
Yes, more of this.
Why Trump isn't banned in all of the country's ballot is beyond me.