In a surprise move, an Illinois judge has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s so-called “insurrectionist ban.”
The decision is paused, giving Trump a short period of time to appeal.
Wednesday’s unexpected decision comes as a similar anti-Trump challenge from Colorado is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is widely expected to reject arguments that Trump is barred from office.
Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter heavily relied on the prior finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, calling Colorado’s “rationale compelling.”
It is still crazy to me, he is responsible for an insurrection and still gets the option to run for President. Every time I’ve talked about it on twitter some right-winger will bring up it was mostly peaceful and some other event that has nothing to do with anything lol.
because at no time since this nation was founded was it considered possible for a president of this country to be under the thrall of a hostile foreign power and want to overthrow it.
I dunno. I think that impeachment probably considered this in a time when there were still many who supported the British.
Yup. They clearly thought individuals could be compromised. Their falling was in not considering the possibility that more than half the people leading the 3 branches of the federal government could all be in cahoots.
They thought the self interest of the individual states would keep them independent.
Ah yes absolutely non-violent, the guys going around with cable ties just wanted to do some cable management.
Nothing says “peaceful” like stealing a cops riot shield and using it to bash through a security window, or using bear spray on the cops trying to protect the lawmakers.
That’s how you handle traitors.
No it’s not. There’s something else we’re supposed to do to traitors.
“You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now”
-Donald Trump, advocating for his own execution
We literally didn’t hang most of the leaders of the Confederacy after the civil war. We just gave them back their land and citizenship. Big mistake
Compassion should not seen as a weakness after war. Traditionally it make long term allies. This time it did not work out. But many other times it has.
See modern Germany, agreed. See post WWI for the wrong way to treat the enemy afterwards
There was at least an attempt to denazify Germany, in the South the racist could just carry on.
Yes but after WW2 we had the Nuremburg trials and the Nazi leaders were hanged. Show compassion to the society as a whole, but the leaders must still be held accountable in these situations.
A conservative is not capable of entering into a negotiation in good faith.
Compassion at the end of the civil war was the wrong move. A conservative will always see compassion as weakness to exploit. They truly are unable to perceive compassion as anything other than a weakness. That is just who they are at their core.
Fun fact, the last person drawing a pension from the Civil War died in 2020.
Interesting take, but such an absolutist stance suggests that you also see compassion as a weakness. Fact is, as evil as the GOP may now be… they are not the whole of conservative thought.
If you want to see an example of where your desired approach leads, look at post WW I Germany and what Europe’s need for vengeance gave birth to.
I agree and I think it’s important to review why that didn’t work, because I think it’s relevant today.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree that compassion is the best course of action. However the Confederacy largely left the union and then went to war over the ability to own people, claiming it was a “right”. There was a whole world doing away with the practice, with abolitionists saying their peace for a long time up until war broke out. And rather than change tact, and do away with the inherently immoral practice of slavery, these guys doubled-down. To me, that’s exactly the kind of situation where you must withhold compassion, because it demonstrates both a track record and a potential future willingness to break the social contract.
A lot of Americans seem to think their civil war was a long time ago. It was pretty recent, it may work out better soon.
Better late than never
We really should have hanged Bobby Lee
deleted by creator
Yep. Should have burned their wealth into the ground and only then let them back in.
This is called irony
I’m glad it’s happening. However, I am almost sure SCOTUS will not allow it no matter what and will find some spurious reason that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump.
Also, I wish it wasn’t a state that Trump was pretty much guaranteed to lose anyway. Oh well, I guess it’s a start.
I’m not so sure. SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low (18%). Even if Trump was re-elected I don’t think there is more he can offer them. They already have the job. They need confidence back or the states are going to start ignoring them.
Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the “plebes” think of them for that to make any difference.
You know for all our checks and balances the Supreme Court is surprisingly left out of them. Congress can supposedly tell them they can’t hear a case but that’s it. But it’s fine cause the courts will never be able to change laws or enforce anything right? Right?
The court was supposed to be the main arbitrator of the checks and balances, because it was initially believed that they weren’t corruptible. That’s obviously not the case, and we’re all screwed because of it
Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the “plebes” think of them for that to make any difference.
Does the SC have any recourse if confidence from the public gets so low that states start ignoring them?
Not really, and it’s happened before. Heck one of the worst presidents we ever had famously stated, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let’s see him try to enforce it.”
SCOTUS caused the civil war this way. You should remain vigilant.
States are going to start ignoring them
Already happening, see Hawaii ruling.
SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low
Maybe, but the more important questions are “do they care”, and also “does it improve their behavior”?
Not only has he nothing more to offer them, but he has promised to be a dictator from day one, if reelected. A dictator threatens the power of judges in all courts. That’s not something they should take lightly.
Hey, they’ve got Ethics guidelines now, so they’ve solved whatever trust issues the public may have had, so they don’t need to hear any of this malarkey anymore. It’s full steam ahead for the Christo-nationalist fascist takeover.
I hope you’re right.
SCOTUS knows that Haley polls better against Biden than Trump does. It’s in the interest of their owners that they block him from running.
Oh gimme a break. Those must be the same polls that showed Hillary by a landslide in 2016.
I don’t think SCOTUS has any incentive to allow him to run. They got what they wanted, control of the courts. Disallowing him to run normalizes the practice, gets them support, and sets precedent. Now they can go after any candidate later on. Another Trump presidency would be extremely unfavorable to Americas business interests, especially now.
He’s not against business interests when the cheapest labor is slave labor and we have 3 massive companies arguing that the NLRB and FTC protections are unconstitutional.
META is currently suing so that they can track and deliver ads to minors. That’s their lawsuit. That they deserve the right to openly admit they are courting minors in their platforms.
Trump is a yes man and I’m sure they want him back.
I agree domestically, but internationally trump is bad for american power projection, including economic. A second trump term would convince the world this is our new norm, and there is no value in a promise made by a country whose president will ignore them to serve short term needs. And while business also seems caught in the cycle of “short term gain for long term misery,” I hope the larger institutions see the cost long term… unless ducking out of the US is part of their plan.
The business interest thing is definitely a big factor, but I don’t know if it will be enough.
States don’t have to obey the supreme court.
The supreme court is a suggestion body more than anything else.
As soon as we stop taking them seriously, they stop having power.
That’s certainly what Alabama thinks and why they won’t draw districts that aren’t racist.
The question is why you’re on their side that state law takes precedence over federal law.
Because federal law isn’t always just.
Look at the war on drugs.
Unjust federal laws means that the South should be allowed to be as racist as they want to be? Really? Plessy vs. Ferguson can just be ignored?
Try looking at things on a case-by-case basis then life will start to make more sense.
After that, look into the concepts of “civil disobedience” and the “social contract.”
Come back when you’ve educated yourself more on the subject matter.
Who decides which SCOTUS cases can be ignored? Because right now, Alabama is ignoring a SCOTUS ruling to stop their racist gerrymandering. No one is able to stop them from doing it. Insulting me will not change the fact that ignoring a SCOTUS ruling is, right now, allowing official state racism to stand. And there has been no civil disobedience enough to stop it.
So, without insulting me- how do you ensure the South doesn’t just ignore Plessy vs. Ferguson?
how do you ensure the South doesn’t just ignore Plessy vs. Ferguson?
They already are. What did Illinois following rulings by an illegitimate court do to change that?
Federal law has never controlled state elections.
Why do u think scotus has any power over how state elections are run here? Plessy v Ferguson doesn’t even apply here.
Why don’t you just make your own thread to talk about your specific case instead of trying to hijack my comments?
You clearly can’t understand the words being put in front of you, so why would I continue this discussion?
Goodbye.
My boy’s getting absolutely SWAMPED with legal action
I think he’s at like $470,000 now for his fraud case
*edit LOL my b dudes $470 MILLION
you’re missing 3 zeroes in that number.
My third world mind literally couldn’t comprehend that many zeros
3 numbers so far…
Do you really want him to be your boy?
Nahh honestly not looking to be bros with someone constantly asking for handouts (or is into NFT’s)
Good, just in time for it to not matter. Glad they’re being so quick about it. Great judicial system.
How many states does that make total?
Up to 3 now. Which is funny because the central point the Supreme Court made during the hearing of the Colorado case was “why would a single state get to decide the election for the rest of the country?” Would be nice if a few other states stepped up to show it’s not just a “single state.”
That’s so weird, I could have sworn in 2020 we were seriously about states’ rights to conduct their elections as they please. But now states do not have rights to enforce laws for themselves? I must be misremembering because otherwise it would mean all Repubs are deceitful and without integrity.
…it would mean all Repubs are deceitful and without integrity.
Say it ain’t so.
“It only matters when it’s advantageous to me.”
God I mean look at Arizona’s election procedure now. No one in the GOP questioning the state being able to ignore their citizens to push whoever they want. No complaints in fact the GOP keeps trying to get even less voters.
I’m just worried Magats will start trying to remove dems from the ballot, just cause.
‘Insurrectionist ban’, also know as the law and order this jackass bloviates about.
One of the reasons SCOTUS won’t let this stand is they don’t want the fracturing of ballots state by state. But that’s actually kind of an interesting proposal to fix Presidential systems.
Parliamentary systems can be better because the power is in the People’s House, you can’t have a Jan 6th in the UK because the Prime Minister is not their own branch of government they are the leader of Parliament.
If there’s a patchwork of ballots, it makes it more likely nobody can get to 270 and it goes to Congress to decide who gets elected. Pretty big change in power structures in Washington if that became the regular way we elect a president.
When someone still didn’t read what he actually tweeted. I hate this timeline.
I enjoyed not really hearing about this dumbfuck clown for the past few years and here comes election year, so we’re going to hear about every little detail of this stupid shit for the whole year. If you people would stop engaging with content featuring him, then he wouldn’t get as much press. Now every time he takes a shit, it’s front page news.
“Man, if we just ignore the nazis they are sure to go away.”
Removed by mod
It doesn’t fucking matter, the Supreme Court is going to make all this go away for him.
Demoralized people will try to demoralize others so they feel more confident in their own opinions. Don’t listen to people like this.
Educate, Organize, Act.
I agree with you in general, but education, organization and action will not change the current makeup or ideology of the Supreme Court.
That’s fine. Organizing to vote in November does matter.
Whooping and hollering when a meaningless, soon to be overturned legal decision occurs is false hope and a distraction.
Civil disobedience is making a comeback, thanks in no small part to this illegitimate supreme court.
They don’t have any power, anyways. States do not have to obey supreme court rulings.
You are right, of course. It may come to simply ignoring this court. But we are in for a bumpy ride when that happens.
