this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
840 points (98.3% liked)

News

23633 readers
3577 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 48 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

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

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

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."

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

SCOTUS caused the civil war this way. You should remain vigilant.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

States are going to start ignoring them

Already happening, see Hawaii ruling.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

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"?

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I hope you're right.

[–] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Sami_Uso@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Oh gimme a break. Those must be the same polls that showed Hillary by a landslide in 2016.

[–] GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Not to mention that if he is off of any 1 ballot and loses, he has ammunition for another Jan6. If he has a "fair shot" and loses, there is less plausibility and (hopefully) fewer followers in the repeat.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 25 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I get what you're saying, but we need to stop hand-wringing what Trump and his supporters will do if we actually have consequences for him.

  • We didn't force him to hatch a plan to send in fake electors
  • We didn't strong-arm his VP to not certify the election
  • We didn't pressure states to "find" him more votes
  • We didn't encourage the Jan 6th insurrection

Not only are repercussions for him smart politically, they are the right thing to do. Dude's a fucking traitor to his country, of course he should be ineligible to hold office, no matter what Party! Lastly, these Trumpets are basically a cult at this point. "Nothing Dear Leader does is wrong, and if it was, the dems and minorities deserved it." They will say the election was rigged no matter what. Many still believe the last one was, despite Trump losing all his court cases about it and the majority of Republican leadership admitting it was a free and fair election...

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 14 points 9 months ago

we need to stop hand-wringing what Trump and his supporters will do

They are going to do whatever malicious thing they want, regardless of what the rest of us do.

We can't allow the potential threat of whatever thing they might do push us away from continuing to strive for better outcomes.

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The difference is we control the military this time.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Yeah, but every R in the house voted against a bill that would have investigated how deep the white supremacist infiltration of the military and law enforcement has penetrated. (Which FBI has been warning of for a decade or more.) I'm a veteran, and decades ago I'd have confidently stated no one I worked with would take action to support an insurrection, no matter on whose behalf. Today I'm less sure, but I've also been out of the military for quite some time.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago
[–] crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Oh I hadn’t thought of that, goodness you’re right.

[–] maness300@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] maness300@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because federal law isn't always just.

Look at the war on drugs.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Lol, someone skipped basic civics class

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 9 months ago

I mean actually they explicitly don't have the right to enforce their judgements or the ability to change laws (which has since been ignored and not challenged when they do).
Their purpose was to just make judgements and pass them to the appropriate branch. The supreme Court is a bit of a mess. I think the founders just wanted a room of smart lawyers to ask questions to on payroll.