198
submitted 1 year ago by Rekhyt@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rebul@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Does anyone seriously think this will pass Supreme Court scrutiny? I expect an 8-1 decision that will stop this silliness. As much as you hate Trump, surely you can think forward enough to see what an awful precedent would be set which would come back to bite you later?

[-] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 64 points 1 year ago

No, the precedent is needed. When you lead an insurrection against the USA, you shouldn't be allowed to run for ANY office.

[-] Cyv_@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

Just don't do an insurrection and you won't be barred from office based on the insurrection clause. I get some conspiracy theorists will try to paint everything as an insurrection now but if were at the point where that shit would fly I'm not sure whats stopping them from doing it already.

We've been begging the dems to stop playing fucking nice with these idiots for years. I'm all for consequences for actions. Jan 6 was definitely an attempt at subverting our elections. Trump definitely participated in it and encouraged it. To not enforce the constitution would open the doors for worse.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Do you think people will just accuse candidates of insurrection willy nilly? I mean I bet Republicans would since they're trying to impeach Biden for literally nothing. But I don't think those will pass scrutiny. But Trump absolutely committed actions that could be considered aiding insurrection. Hense the 14th amendment cases.

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

The precedent of following US Constitution? That would be indeed a horrible thing.

[-] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

an awful precedent would be set

The precedent was already set by the 40th United States Congress.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

how so? I see from your link that such an entity did exist.

[-] Skua@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

They passed the 14th amendment and used it to bar a number of senior Confederates from office after the civil war

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Thank you. I see it in section 3. I was vaguely aware something like that happened after the civil war but did not realize it was part of an amendment. Its blows my mind to think the republican party did all this back then.

[-] theforkofdamocles@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah, the old ‘60s/‘70s repub-demo switcharoo!

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

The irony here is that Trump and the Republicans worked really hard to stack the SCOTUS with originalists, because that tends to play well with a conservative Republican agenda.

But it also upholds the Insurrection Act. Remember that SCOTUS may be conservative, but they’re not all Republican lackeys. In order to decree this unconstitutional, SCOTUS would have to make a majority decision that what Trump did doesn’t fall under insurrection. I can see them wanting to stay out of THAT one completely, refusing to make a finding that would create SCOTUS precedent; that means they would leave these decisions in place in order to preserve future flexibility.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

In order to decree this unconstitutional, SCOTUS would have to make a majority decision that what Trump did doesn’t fall under insurrection.

No, they wouldn't. They would just have to accept a due process argument, essentially that the opinion of a CO state judge is not the appropriate venue or process for determining if someone is an insurrectionist. Probably calling for either Congress or criminal courts to establish that.

This is notably different than the CSA, as CSA officers were openly and publicly members of an organization that openly and publicly waged a war against the US.

[-] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

This is notably different than the CSA, as CSA officers were openly and publicly members of an organization that openly and publicly waged a war against the US.

What do you call storming an election certification and killing a cop?

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

This argument only works if you assume that Trump did nothing wrong, and that this is all just some partisan stall tactic.

But he did, and it isn’t.

this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
198 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10192 readers
108 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS