https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/18/trump-supreme-court-barring-from-office-us-constitution
If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy
He's not rich mathematically, but according to the system specifically built to protect anyone who's ever been rich, he still is. Powerful too.
So yeah, the only way he ever sees the inside of a jail cell is if he fucks over a lot of other extremely privileged people and they acknowledge it.
The US political system has countless weaknesses, but Trump has shone a light on one of the deepest weaknesses inherent to all democracies — what happens if/when the majority support fascism, authoritarianism, a holy war to genocide X, etc (not the case atm, but Trump having more than 1% of the vote is insanity).
You could argue that moral citizens should take up arms against tyranny, but that appears to be what the majority of MAGA's believe they are doing, and would be anti-democratic, so you're ultimately just hoping that the more moral and ethical are better at slaughtering the least moral and ethical — not much of a failsafe if you ask me.
I guess my point is that I'm not surprised we have no evidence of other intelligent life, and the great filter preventing universal colonisation seems to simply be life itself...
The majority don't support it. Fascists never do. They get by with about 20% of the population directly supporting them, another 10-20% having reservations but being more afraid of leftists removing their cushy position in a stratified society, and a final 10% or so centrists who vote for their side because they voted for the other side last time.
Trump lost the popular vote both times, and only got in once because of a poorly conceived electoral college system. The German Nazi Party got 44% of the vote in 1933--much of that with voter intimidation--and then an old guy with a family title handed him the chancellorship. Mussolini never had a vote in his favor at all--his party led violent protests against the existing Prime Minister, and the King handed the job over to Mussolini.
They don't win at democracy. They win by exploiting holes in the democratic process and the failure of liberalism to make things better for people.
It's like the Paradox of Intolerance. In order to remain free and democratic, we need to disqualify candidates who would take away that freedom and would void our democracy. Not even counting all the myriad of crimes he's been guilty of, just based on his words and his platform, he should be disqualified. We have to be intolerant of intolerance.
Philosopher Rainer Forst resolves the contradiction in philosophical terms by outlining tolerance as a social norm and distinguishing between two notions of "intolerance": the denial of tolerance as a social norm, and the rejection of this denial.
I think viewing tolerance as a social contract perfectly sums up this situation. We allowed Trump to run for president when he had said some crazy shit, but hadn't yet tried to overthrow the government. As soon as that happened, the social contract was off. No do overs.
This is my thing. I feel like barring anyone shouldn't be necessary. I would imagine if a giant, annoying sack of shit runs for office, they just wouldn't even come close to winning. They should be able to run given virtually any circumstance and if they're a terrible person or a criminal, the voters (ideally) would just not vote for that person. The situation we're currently in is just wild.
No, they shouldn't. It's a privilege to run for president, not a right. If you engage in trying to overthrow the government, you lose all privileges to run for ANY office. If regular jobs can bar you for being a criminal, then the highest office in the country should even be more rigorous. You apologists will be the end of us.
lmao who in the holy hell am i apologizing for? I'm just saying you would think the american voters would never in a million years vote for someone like trump. You would think that it wouldn't matter if he was on the ballot because he is so far from adequately filling the station of president that the american voters wouldn't even give that candidate a second thought on account of... well pretty much everything but let's go with criminality. the fact that he needs to be barred otherwise he would win the election or come very close is absolutely bonkers. Also, the fact that you not only disagree with the fact that the crux of the problem is the american voter simply cannot be trusted while also calling that apologizing for trump is so crazy
What is this hypothetical eutopia you're conflating with the US? Anyone paying attention over the last decade knows how troubled this country really is. There's a seriously fucked up portion that fluctuates between 20-33% of the country. There's also roughly 10-15% in addition to that that are so ignorant they'll let just about anything happen.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the American voter can't be trusted"... We voted Trump out in 2020. The problem is conservative voters can't be trusted not to burn the country down in the face of losing power. I'm not even a Democrat, that's how clear this has become.
i feel like we are in complete agreement here but for some reason you don't think so. I agree the country is troubled. I agree there is a big portion of the voter base that will vote for someone unfit for presidency. I agree there's also a decent portion that are ignorant or don't really care what happens. I agree conservative voters can't be trusted and may cause issues if they lose power.... which means they can't be trusted... unless you're saying conservatives aren't American voters somehow?
I would imagine if a giant, annoying sack of shit runs for office, they just wouldn't even come close to winning.
2016: giant annoying sack of shit is elected
haha yup. now it's like a shitty sequel where everything is worse but it still gets made somehow and somehow people pay to see it.
Law has to be universally applied to all candidates.
Otherwise dems risk being kept from office.
Are you legitimately saying it's illegal to vote for a candidate on the ballot if they are a convicted criminal? This is factual incorrect. A candidate must be at least 35 years old, born in the US and have lived there for at least 14 years. I think some states don't allow felons to run for state and local positions but there aren't any limitations based on your character or criminal record to run for federal office. Hell you can run from president WHILE in prison if you want. Tiger King did it last election and i believe is planning to run again this year haha. so not only can you run, obviously just voting for and electing them is not illegal...
Per the 14th amendment, he was found to be an insurrectionist, so he disqualified himself. Why the fuck is that so hard for you to understand?
lol it's not me. I feel like i'm taking crazy pills here. It's the law of the US. There is NO disqualification of a candidate based on criminality. Again, criminal conviction does NOT affect eligibility or candidacy. Do you think i made the law or something? All i'm saying is any person can run regardless of their criminal record according to the constitution. I'm not quite sure why you are mad at me here...
Do you even know what the fucking 14th amendment is?
Here you fucking dunce
it banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.
We aren't speaking about a criminal record, nor is that the issue at hand. Learn the fucking difference.
good lord. yes, i know about the 14th amendment. that's why he's not on the Colorado ballot. The problem is (like a ton of things in the constitution) it is outrageously vague. It doesnt clarify who is supposed to invoke it, or when, as in before or after a person is elected. the state court could use it, or congress. If the state uses it, it can easily be appealed to supreme court (which it already has in this case, and more than once). The supreme court since 1866 has still never ruled on the meaning or application of the insurrection clause. It has been used before, but (to my knowledge) only three times prior. One was via impeachement, one was just after being elected, one was barred from running. The impeached guy was a judge and never tried to run again. The other two appealed the 14th amendment ruling to the supreme court, they both won, and both ran again and both took office. All that to say, it is not a sturdy leg to stand on and certainly doesn't make it automatically illegal for someone to run. If it did, he would not be running. If the supreme court votes that the 14th should be invoked then it would be illegal. Lastly, i would urge you to calm the fuck down man. Damn. You all are ornery as fuck around here. I don't like the man any more than you do but i am just stating the law. As it stands at this very moment, the idiot can legally run.
If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy
And they will be among the first up against the wall if that day comes, you can bet on it. I wonder if they have the slightest shred of self-preservation. If they are more afraid of maga now and not what maga will become, then their self-preservation instinct is badly flawed. We'll see.
I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They're already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they'll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further.
Well, when democracy dies they're not needed at all. Not being necessary is a dangerous position to be in. People who aren't necessary are easily eliminated. And of course, there's no incentive to pay off people who aren't necessary.
I say if they have an ounce of self-reflection, they would know this is true and it would make them nervous. But you're right, they probably don't.
Roberts doesn't. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court's authority.
It's in the constitution! That sacred document that was divinely inspired. Granted it's an amendment so it wasn't part of Jefferson's initial creation, but it's been in there for 150 years.
How dare you suggest the Constitution was written by a person! It was written by God himself!
That's a terrible argument against it.
If there's a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law?
If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we'd be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself.
The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don't, then the rule of law truly has no meaning.
Definitely seems like he hurt himself gripping something. Caught a falling knife would make sense if he ate anything that required cutting. Maybe held a frozen railing and lost skin?
It's from digging his nails in with a clenched fist.
Looks like he had to reposition a few times, given the numerous ruts.
It's the same group of dopes who have latched onto the ignorant "we're not a democracy, were a constitutional republic!" who are now arguing that disqualifying candidates that the cotus disqualifies is denying them their right to vote for whom they want.
Always tell those people that we are a federal presidential constitutional republic or fpcr for short. Then tell them that is a form of democracy.
I've debated it plenty, it appears they either cannot grasp the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy. I've even had plenty try to argue that directly electing the president (effectively a representative for the whole US on the world stage) would make us a democracy and no longer a representative democracy. lol
If we literally follow the Constitution, Trump is already barred from office & needs Congress to vote to remove that disability.
Wow, I was surprised to find out that you are right, it really does. Not in the same quantities as the examples I can find, however.
This is pretty similar, right down to the location. I thought it was more likely to be blisters from golf or something it is awfully like secondary syphillis.
I love Steven Greenhouse. 'Beaten down worked up' set the groundwork for many discussions I had with my coworkers on worker rights. Also, he warns us against Niki Haley and her high heels.
With that being said I think she is a larger threat to labor rights than any other candidate for the GOP. Trump being the largest threat to democracy.
Unfortunately, I think Project 2025 is the equalizer when it comes to who is worst and why. As long as the Republicans are dead set on forming a christofascist dictatorship it may not matter which Republican dictator we hypothetically get for domestic issues. And I'm not confident that any of them would be better on international issues either.
If you're not worried about the 2025 stuff, look at the Supreme Court, how little it took to quickly and fundamentally shift that to a broken body with absolutely zero integrity - now times that dangerous transition with every single aspect of government.
Your relatives who vote for trump are literally voting for the end of American democracy. They've had there's, they are going to die sometime soon, and they are tossing a match over their shoulders into the gasoline soaked mass they created behind them.
Imagine leaving the White House like Trump did, and to live in a place where this orange guy is a serious contender to occupy the presidency once again after four years.
Maybe this democracy is not worthy of protection. With all due respect, American democracy may need way more than stopping Trump's second term.
That's not much of a solution, either. Don't like what American democracy is doing now? Just wait until it doesn't care about having pretenses to invade other countries, or even use nuclear weapons.
Sure as hell I will not try to fix the thing. It's sad, but maybe Americans will have to do it to truly learn something this time. It's not like the rest of the world feels safe with America's attitudes towards war anyway.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Right now, however, I worry that the supreme court’s rightwing supermajority, in its anticipated rush to prohibit states from kicking Donald Trump off the ballot, will turn the constitution into a suicide pact.
When the court considers that case, the six conservative justices might focus on their concerns about infuriating rightwing voters, their political soulmates, if they rule that the constitution requires that Trump be disqualified as an insurrectionist.
He unarguably gave “aid or comfort” to the January 6 assault on the Capitol, which was essentially a coup attempt that sought to prevent the rightfully elected president, Joe Biden, from taking office.
If the supreme court’s six rightwing justices allow Trump to stay on the ballot, they can do so only by turning their backs on the methods of constitutional interpretation that they have repeatedly trumpeted: textualism and originalism.
But the two constitutional scholars who led the way in arguing that Trump should be disqualified – William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen – are highly regarded conservative members of the Federalist Society.
In decades past, the US supreme court did not shrink from issuing decisions that offended and angered millions of Americans, whether it was enraging many white southerners by barring school segregation in Brown v Board of Education, or infuriating millions of women by overturning Roe v Wade, or angering a wide swath of Democrats by cutting short the vote count to deliver victory to George W Bush over Al Gore.
The original article contains 1,569 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The title of this post is dumb. How about...get more voters. I don't want to hear the bitching when the other side tries it.
I'm getting to a point with liberals.
Its literally anti-democratic. I dunno what definitions of democracy anyone here is using, but its a system by which people decide via votes.
It's not anti-democratic to force candidates to abide by existing law.
For example: AOC couldn't run in 2020 because the Constitution states you have to be 35 to be President and she would not have been old enough.
That's not anti-democratic, that's the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" rule.
For the same reason, removing an insurrectionist from the ballot is not anti-democratic. They've proven they can't be trusted and so aren't qualified for office, and the 14th Amendment disqualifies them.
You vote for representatives that make laws on your behalf. Everyone has to follow those laws. If you are a president and also a traitor, you will run afoul of those laws. If the law says you may not run for president if you break it, then that is what it is. Democracies can have laws and still be democracies.
So far he hasnt been convicted of any treason, or any other crime. Right now its entirely one party subjectively deciding to deny candidacy to the opposition party, as Russia and North Korea both do.
We ALL saw that traitor incite an insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the United States, and good thing the 14th amendment does NOT require a conviction to keep a traitor off the ballot.
Spare me the Russia North Korea bullshit, the anti-americans are the ones trying to destroy democracy and anoint their rapist god as king of America. Just like Russia and North Korea.
Fuck right off.
"Democracy"
"Democracy" Isn't a replacement word for, "dictatorship." You are very well aware that removing his name isn't democratic; the man hasn't been charged with a crime. Pointing a finger and claiming he did some things he didn't do, and your congress hasn't said he were guilty, and using your offended feelings to remove him is fully wrong.
But, you derranged lot will take any angle to cry about Trump so have at it. Nothing else rises your endorphins.
Cry some more. The constitution was used to remove him. If you have problems with that, then take it up with the founding fathers. Per the 14th amendment, NO CONVICTION is required. Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY.
Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY following the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic.
All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.
Not if you're a fucking insurrectionist. Refer to the 14th amendment. No conviction is required. Plain and simple.
Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is
DEMOCRACYfollowing the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic. All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.
So, per your own logic, the fundamental principles of Democracy require people to have representation and are subjected to the rule of law. So, with Trump being removed from the ballot using the 14th amendment, which, in your own words he is being subjected to the rule law. Which makes his removal Democratic? No?
Yes, I'm being nit-picky. All I was trying to say was the original phrasing was "democracy at large says an insurrectionist cannot run for office" which is untrue. It is a US implementation of democracy specific case.
Another country could have no restrictions on candidates and it would be completely democratic for an insurrectionist to run for office.
Why do you think Trump did nothing wrong? He's been charged with a bunch of felonies over his shenanigans.
You're literally just ignoring the people who tell you he's been charged with a crime. You posted a similar message in another thread yesterday, and just like this one you're just posting and leaving.
We all saw everything that happened. The man tried to steal an election he lost and incited an insurrection. If you don't believe that you're captured by propaganda.
the man hasn’t been charged with a crime.
He's been charged with 91 felonies and been found guilty of Insurrection in two courts in Colorado. He is not an innocent little snowflake.
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ruling
Pretending he has not been charged is misinformation, and I'm removing this comment based on that.
