514

A judge has rejected three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this month.

A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. But the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce the ban, and it has been applied only twice since the 1800s.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 40 points 1 year ago

The same. If the Supreme Court acknowledges the validity of this law then criminals like Jim Jordan could be removed from Congress.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

And Gaetz and Tommy Tube and 100% human senator Ted Cruz, amongst others.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lovely as that sounds I can't imagine this Supreme Court ruling against Trump. Maybe if you could somehow erase their memory so they make a ruling without consideration of current politics.

[-] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

The interesting bit is that it's members of the federalist society arguing that Trump shouldn't run.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html

Trump doesn't really understand law, and it's the federalists that provided him with a list of right-wing judges to pick from, and it's really federalists rather than Trump supporters who ended up capturing the supreme court.

Normally they're both extremely right-wing so the gap doesn't matter, but if the federalists turn on Trump you could see some supreme court judgements go against him.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

Sadly, I'm forced to agree with you. In spite of their claim to be "Originalists" they have a curious habit of ignoring both law and precedent whenever it suits them. I don't trust them to accurately name the color of the clear sky at noon.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

Also issuing rulings and then saying "but don't use this as precedent" which just means "we reserved the right to rule differently when it is politically expedient," or perhaps, "we already know this is a bad ruling but we really want this person to win in this case."

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

don't trust them to accurately name the color of the clear sky at noon.

Yeah, just like they cited a 1600s witch hunter to justify ending Roe, they'd cite a misinterpretation of Homer as proof that the sky isn't blue if it would help them politically and therefore economically..

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Originalism just means making up whatever they want and pretending it's really what the framers wanted.

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
514 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19082 readers
3499 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.
  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 1 year ago
MODERATORS