this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
548 points (97.7% liked)

News

23627 readers
2910 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 165 points 9 months ago (23 children)

Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 54 points 9 months ago (12 children)

This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying "Trump did nothing wrong", this is specifically saying "States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots", which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.

The SC could come out tomorrow and say "We're disqualifying Trump", this doesn't preclude that.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 108 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (28 children)

States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it's never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 76 points 9 months ago (43 children)

States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.

load more comments (43 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] Erasmus@lemmy.world 150 points 9 months ago (4 children)

States rights only apply when not direct conflict with conservative views’

  • John 22:16
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 106 points 9 months ago (21 children)

The states explicitly have that determining power according to the constitution, specifically for insurrection.

Fuuuck the Supreme Cowards.

Unanimous? How?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 59 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Because the liberal justices are being consistent in their rulings, while the conservatives justices all of a sudden forgot that they think these things should be deferred to the states.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 78 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Fascists use institutions to secure and entrench power. They are not restricted by them.

The question for those cheering this decision as a win for the rule of law or the institution is: how aware of this are you?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] derf82@lemmy.world 74 points 9 months ago (7 children)

A nonsensical ruling.

The section specifically says congress can allow someone to hold office with a 2/3rds vote. How does it make any sense that it also takes specific congressional action to disqualify someone? A simple majority could stop that.

They even noted on a footnote a case where a 2/3rds majority voted to seat a former confederate. Yet they didn’t bother to outline how he was disqualified to start with. It wasn’t congressional action.

And they exceed legal thoughts as the suppose there needs to be uniformity so the president is president for all. History is filled with candidates that didn’t appear on the ballot is some states. Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in some southern states. Like it or not, that is how it works.

And while the majority was rightfully chided for going beyond the question presented, shame on the liberals for ruling to protect their federal power rather than protecting the integrity of elections. I hated the oral arguments where they were all saying it “feels” like a federal question. If you want it to be a federal question, amend the constitution so the feds are in charge of elections. Until then, states have the right to decide who is on their ballot.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 55 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

What happened to State's Rights? Oh, they only matter when they didn't benefit you. Got it.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 36 points 9 months ago

What happened to upholding the constitution? He is literally barred from office for his crimes, and his legal defence was that he did those crimes but it shouldn't disbar him (even though it very clearly does).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 44 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

It's so wild that the 'but the people have democratic rights to choose among candidates' crowd invoke that argument to make the candidate that's promised to end democracy and rights one of the options they can vote for

You know, because democracy

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (6 children)

And also, he never won on the people's democratic right to choose among candidates. Hillary did. He won because the president is chosen by the states, not the people. Don't like it? Abolish the electoral college.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 40 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I thought a president can do anything with full immunity. So Biden could make it so, according to Trump’s own rules.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Does this case not also show that they will infact say he has immunity as well unless Congress impeaches him and the Senate agrees/dismissed the person. Aka the president has immunity to do anything they want so long as one of the legislative departments will not act. Aka, they can be run by fear of death as well unless they can pass the impeachment and dismissal faster than the president can hear about it or act to stop it.

Theoretically wouldn't it be legal for the president to blow up Congress in session because they couldn't impeach him for doing so until a new Congress is elected.... Which of course cannot happen without them all being scared for their lives. Legal dictatorship. : /

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago

States rights only applies when it benefits the GQP

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago (39 children)

What I don't understand about the ruling is that congress has already exercised their power. Donald Trump was impeached by congress in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. The states are only enforcing the law based on the ruling a of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate.

load more comments (39 replies)
[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago (15 children)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 30 points 9 months ago

States rights!!!!! Sometimes.

[–] whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

I mean, the whole argument hinges on the fact that the procedures around Section 3 are ambiguous, but clearly since states haven't tried to do it themselves before, that means they obviously don't have the authority. So, the precedent exists not because it has actually been set, but because it can be inferred to exist by the fact that it hasn't been set.

May as well have signed it in crayon, too. OH WAIT THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

"It's not for us to decide. It's up to the Republican controlled Congress to decide to allow Trump and any other Republican candidate and not allow Democrat candidates the same luxury."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] esc27@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Short term this is disappointing, but long term I think it is for the best. Being unanimous makes it less likely a state will ignore the rulling, and had they ruled against Trump, then we would have seen decades of retaliation from red states removing all democrats for any reason.

The root of the problem remains that nearly half our voting citizens support electing a violent and hateful criminal.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Guess we really are going the route of states ignoring federal rulings and laws. This might get scary in the next few years.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

It is already scary now.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›