The justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow Colorado to bar the former president from the state’s primary ballot. The justices offered different reasons, but the decision was unanimous.

  • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m honestly flabbergasted by the people, including the justices, who make the argument that Colorado betting allowed to disqualify Trump would lead to a landslide of other states disqualifying other people for partisan reasons.

    He was being disqualified for aiding an insurrection! If that would apply to any other candidate, then yes, disqualify them too! That’s the fucking point!

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      The part that’s troublesome is the “giving comfort of aid to the enemy”. Florida was in the process of crafting such an argument to the Florida Supreme Court which, given their friendliness to the current governor, would have removed Biden from Florida. I’m sure Texas would have had something similar related to give aid and lax border policies (at least lax in their eyes).

      Without a higher power specifically defining what rises to disqualification status, each State would get to set the bar and lots of States would have set that bar super low.

      I mean hell, given Alabama’s Supreme Court recently used the Bible for justification in a ruling. Biden giving aid an comfort to the devil doesn’t seem far fetched for disqualification.

      No. This is absolutely something we don’t want States to start getting creative about. If Trump violated Federal law, which we’ve got a Federal law the pretty much says Trump should be disqualified, then it’s the Federal Courts that need to rule that, which the Supreme Court indicated that yeah if Trump is guilty under 18 USC 2383, then he can’t be President.

      States being allowed to interpret giving aid to the enemy is very dangerous door to open.

      • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I mean ultimately, I just think it’s kind of weird for a state to decide somebody’s guilty while the investigation is ongoing, and I am 100% convinced he started the insurrection. But be hasn’t been convicted of it so like…what? My state can bar me from things because it claims I’m guilty of a federal crime I haven’t been convicted of?

        The whole Colorado thing was flimsy and they knew it. I think he totally deserves it. I think Colorado is correct in that they should not allow an insurrectionist on their ballot and I would want Trump removed yesterday. But again, he has not been found guilty of insurrection. So it’s kind of moot.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The argument is that only federal court can do that, not state court. Which means there souls be a federal case to do so. Why there is no such case? Or is there one?