• rebul
    link
    fedilink
    51 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
      link
      fedilink
      581 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_
      link
      fedilink
      301 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
      link
      fedilink
      171 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
      link
      fedilink
      141 year ago

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

        • Skua
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

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

          • HubertManne
            link
            fedilink
            31 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.

    • Em Adespoton
      link
      fedilink
      71 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.

    • @4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      11 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.