this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
875 points (98.7% liked)

News

23014 readers
8 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.


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
 

The trial over an effort in Minnesota to keep former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot began Thursday at the state Supreme Court as a similar case continued in Colorado.

The lawsuits in both states allege Trump should be barred from the 2024 ballot for his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. They argue Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says no one who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution can hold office.

A group of Minnesota voters, represented by the election reform group Free Speech for People, sued in September to remove Trump from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment provision. The petitioners include former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former state Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (8 children)

This will go to the corrupt supreme court, which will determine that this part of the constitution doesn't count

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Technically Minnesota doesn't have to allow anyone on its ballots, if they have legal justification to prevent them. And there is precedent for this. Alabama kept Harry Truman off their ballot in 1948, even though he was the incumbent president.

If Trump is convicted in Georgia he would run afoul of Minnesota fair campaign section of the state constitution (211B), or hell, I think he has already been fined for infractions that qualify as legal justification to remove him from the ballot in MN based on both campaign finance laws and the fair campaigns section of the MN state constitution.

As the GOP has been doing for the last decade, they have been eroding the federal ability to monitor and manage states' elections (reducing the voting rights act, etc) current precedent is that the state has the right to handle matters with regard to elections with near impunity.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

While the court has its issues, it doesn't seem to care to side particularly with Trump. They've had a few opportunities and have so far mostly sided against or at least failed to side with Trump in matters that either made it that far or tried to make it that far.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is the one part about lifetime appointments... They don't need to be loyal to Trump the second after they're appointed. They don't need to be loyal to anyone except their own judgement on the issues and Congress (which can in theory remove them if they have bad behavior).

They really don't have any reason to not throw Trump to the wolves if the legal argument stacks up, unless there's some other kick back going on behind the scenes, or they personally are a huge fan of Trump... Which maybe his own appointments are, at least most of them, but I don't think the entire conservative block will join those guys and may very well side with the liberal block.

Still, I'm not going to hold my breath, and I fear the implications of this trial either way. The cleanest thing to do would be to just not vote for Trump and beat him in the ballot box. This feels both appropriate and underhanded in a way that might result in violence from the right... But maybe that's just where we're at.

[–] jeremyparker 1 points 1 year ago

And why would they - if you let someone like Trump off the leash, he would disband the SCOTUS. (To say that another way: You can't weild supreme executive power with some watery tart out there having the final say.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Or, even better, that this part of the constitution doesn’t count for this specific person, in this specific case, at this specific time.

But that it counts for anyone else, at any other time.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Coming up with some asinine excuse to let him off, would in fact be providing aid and comfort to an insurrectionist. That person should also be removed from office (if office counts as any public service beyond presidency and congress)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That person should also be removed from office (if office counts as any public service beyond presidency and congress)

Who will do the removing?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hmm, does the supreme Court have jurisdiction over how states conduct elections?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Of course, just look at how they dictated how states could hold their elections during covid

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

And with each corrupt ruling, the legitimacy of the federal legal system weakens. Recently polls show faith in SCOTUS (by the public) at 15%

The Weird Sisters have flown in from Scotland to watch.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

You see though this 17th century witch burner once wrote a speech that said our laws don't matter.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

They won't even have to do that. They'll just invoke due process and rights of the accused and argue that there is a significant difference between doing a thing and being accused of a thing and thus it has to wait on the courts to decide whether or not he did what he was accused of (and thus whether or not he is barred from holding office).

Then you all will yell about how they're ignoring that part of the constitution just because he's Trump. While either arguing that anyone accused of that sort of thing should be barred from running (you really don't actually want this) or engage in special pleading regarding Trump.