• bedrooms
    link
    fedilink
    291 year ago

    Conservatives on Reddit are saying they have to do the same to Biden. In their mind, it’s pure tribalism…

    • Neato
      link
      fedilink
      311 year ago

      They’re trying to impeach Biden for literally nothing. They said they’ll figure it out as they go. It’s a literal witch hunt. They’re trying to make impeachments mean nothing so that twice-impeached Trump can shrug his off.

      • HubertManne
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        it is ironic that trump continually used the term witch hunt but it actually applies with biden being there is no real basis for their investigation. Trump literally told a foreign leader he would not release aid without quid pro quo which again ironically was to get false info to go after biden. Its just crazy to think about (as pretty much everything with trump is)

      • HubertManne
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        it is ironic that trump continually used the term witch hunt but it actually applies with biden being there is no real basis for their investigation. Trump literally told a foreign leader he would not release aid without quid pro quo which again ironically was to get false info to go after biden. Its just crazy to think about (as pretty much everything with trump is)

  • TheForkOfDamocles
    link
    fedilink
    121 year ago

    SCOTUS is going to have to weigh in real quick if they don’t just stay out of the whole thing.

    • Neato
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      They already declined Jack Smith’s request to take this question up early. They clearly don’t want to touch it. Unsure if appeals will cause these removals to be stopped or allowed to continue or not. If an appeal stops his removal, I’d bet that would be their goal.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      We could call them the Buchanan Court.

      Shout out to my fellow history nerds for getting that reference

    • Melkath
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Agreed.

      And I feel like the biggest thing the people are seeing at this point is how different each states voting practices are.

      I remember getting perplexed by the concept of a caucus when my state just had 2 parallel primary elections.

      Maine has a dude who can just decide that?

      • @Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They’re the secretary of state. Every state has one. Their primary job is administering elections in the state. This includes applying rules for eligibility of candidates. For instance if you were 30 and applied to be put on the ballet for president, it would be the secretary of state who says no, you must be at least 35, we’re not putting you on. Of course their decisions about various things can be challenged in court and often are.

        In the Colorado case the decision first came from a judge, because there the secretary of state declined to take him off the ballot. Colorado voters sued their secretary of state for neglect or breach of duty for allowing Trump on the ballot in violation of the fourteenth amendment.

        Here’s the ruling from that case where you can see it was technically the secretary of state for Colorado who was sued:

        https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Anderson-v-Griswold_Verified-Petition_2023.09.06_01.pdf

        In Maine no one had to sue the secretary of state first, the secretary of state just said straight up, hey trump you’re not eligible, 14th amendment applies, just like they would have if he didn’t meet other qualifications like being a natural born citizen or being at least the age of 35. Now likely Trump will sue the secretary of state in Maine to try and get the courts to put him back on. They also became involved in the litigation in Colorado after it started, since he had an interest in the case.

  • 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.