An Illinois state judge on Wednesday barred Donald Trump from appearing on the Illinois’ Republican presidential primary ballot because of his role in the attack at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but she delayed her ruling from taking effect in light of an expected appeal by the former U.S president.

  • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
    41·
    10 months ago

    A convicted murderer, sure we can.

    Someone accused of murder? Even if it’s by millions of people? Without a conviction, don’t touch them.

    there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”

    I agree.

    But without any official legal declaration of the latter, it’s no more substantial than the former…and I’ll give you one guess as to which side of the American political system is more willing to abuse that.

    I’m not saying Trump should be guaranteed to appear on ballots no matter what…I’m just saying that before he’s removed there needs to be something official. A legal finding that he did indeed participate in insurrection.

    Once that’s officially and legally established, then and only then, 14-3 should be invoked.

    And for what it’s worth, IMHO, at that point it should be invoked nationwide. As soon as that ruling comes down, Trump is, as a function of that ruling, prevented from appearing on any ballot for any national office, in all states, effective immediately. Any write-in votes for the ineligible candidate are also discarded.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      11·
      10 months ago

      The other side of that coin is judges deliberately dragging their feet on the matter to make sure he is able to be on the ballot.

      We just had the Supreme Court say “yeah, maybe he does have presidential immunity” and delay the proceedings by 90 days instead of taking it up immediately, or just refusing to hear the case.

      So our choices are “ignore the insurrection and let him be on the general ballot” and “hold him accountable at the state level.”

      Basically, fucked if we do, and fucked if we don’t. But at least this way they are upholding the constitution.

    • CarrierLost@infosec.pub
      11·
      10 months ago

      I’m just saying that before he’s removed there needs to be something official. A legal finding that he did indeed participate in insurrection.

      Once that’s officially and legally established, then and only then, 14-3 should be invoked.

      That’s already happened. There was a finding of fact that Trump participated in insurrection by state of Colorado.

      https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

      That’s in part why this is the case the USSC has taken up. It is now established legal fact that Trump participated in insurrection, but 14-3 isn’t super clear that it pertains to POTUS, unlike the clarity for Senators and Representatives.

      So there’s no question of guilt. That’s established. It’s now a question of applicability.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        1·
        10 months ago

        There’s still room for the USSC to also declare that the state courts finding of fact is incorrect. If I recall the legal analysis, I think that was the consensus as the likely outcome, that the state’s finding is not substantiated. There seemed to be doubt that the “doesn’t apply” argument will hold, but that will be moot if they say that the Colorado state court can’t unilaterally make that finding.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        11·
        10 months ago

        My point was that I feel it should be decided at the federal level, not the state level. The ruling of a Colorado court as to what happened in an area completely outside their jurisdiction shouldn’t really matter.

        The SCOTUS ruling will be that decision, and while I’m not optimistic that they’ll rule to disqualify Trump through 14-3, at least there will be an answer.