this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2302 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fcSolar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh look another illegal power grab by the supreme dipshits. 14th amendment section 3 states only Congress may remove an insurrectionist's inability to hold office, not SCOTUS.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That's not how the opinion works. The Supremes said states can't remove candidates from the federal ballot under the insurrection clause. They can remove state candidates. It doesn't rule on anything else.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The rest of their reasoning was basically "Congress can't do this shit, it'd be a mess, so we'll step up and reverse that clause."

They specifically said they will enforce the constitution as they see fit.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

This should be a surprise to nobody; the courts have been largely bending over backwards to accommodate Trump.

The supreme court just ruled that either the 14th amendment requires an act of Congress, despite no such requirement listed in the constitution.

Then you have Cannon, who has gone out of her way to rule in Trump's favor, up to and including the implication that Trump actually is above the law, and has shown she is hellbent on continuing to do so.

The supreme Court is also throwing Trump another bone by delaying his dc trial by 2 months, essentially giving Trump the win by running out the clock instead of ruling on presidential immunity.

The stormy Daniels case is of little legal and even less political consequence, as the case is weak already and Trump is not considered at significant risk.

The GA case is likely to get derailed because Willis couldn't keep her personal and professional life separate, and her handling of the affair puts her credibility in doubt.

At least we have the civil judgement. At least, until Trump finds another judge willing to throw that out too.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[–] bradboimler@startrek.website 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't like trump but if you read the wording it says Congress must act to remove him so that's why he is allowed on the states are trying to remove him when only Congress has the authority so a act of Congress could remove him but unlikely to happen sadly.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It does not clearly say only Congress has the power to disqualify. It does clearly state that Congress can remove a disqualification of this type with a 2/3 vote.

The court here has ruled that because of that Congress must act in order to disqualify someone in the first place. Which makes sense to me, I suppose. It's certainly better than the alternative argument that the presidency is not an officer of the United States. The court seems mostly concerned with the balance of power between the states and federal government in the ruling.

But most importantly, it's making it clear that this is not self-executing or self-evident in the same way the constitutional qualifications for the office are (eg age).

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[–] ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Unanimous. Something we are missing?

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They were probably all afraid that banning Trump on the ballot would tear so violently at the fabric of the country that it could end in a civil war with armed members of Trump's base roaming the streets creating chaos.

This ruling is very unsurprising to me. I'd been very surprised if they had gone the other way.

The US is a very unhealthy country.

Edit: Spelling

So they’ve traded almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as a direct result of their decision, for…

checks notes

…almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as an indirect result of their decision, and also get a fascist government.