Key note, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to look at the case. They ruled they didn't have jurisdiction.
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
176 points (94.4% liked)
politics
19170 readers
5938 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Do I smell capitulation?
No jurisdiction within their own state, within their own state. State Supreme Court. No jurisdiction. Within their own state.
This is correct, and everyone who is "disappointed in Michigan" should really try harder to understand the laws they're talking about. The party primaries here are not under the authority of the state, the court was just following the rules.
The court has however left the door open and is willing to hear this case regarding the general election ballot, which is under the state's purview. I suspect they will rule against Trump personally but this is just rage bait for the moment.
So if Michigan does not have an explicit law defining age requirements, could a 12 year old run in a political parties primary for president and get on the ballot? Or could Schwarzenegger get on the ballot for POTUS?
Am I correct in understanding their opinion of the primary election as having nothing to do with federal constitutional requirements for POTUS?
Yes, in Michigan you can be a 12 year old French citizen and run for President of the United States in their primary. The court said it only covers the primary and not the general election. Their ruling essentially said it wasn't up to the court to decide qualification.
In Colorado the court reviewed the case and followed the law.
That seems stupid but at least they followed a legal process (unlike the mofos on Jan 6)
So I guess MI will revisit the topic in the general election if (when) Trump wins the primary. Don't forget to stock up on 🍿
Not sure about MIchigan in particular, but other states have, in relatively recent history, given ballot access to presidential candidates who were unambiguously constitutionally ineligible for the office. It doesn't make much sense to me either, but apparently neither the 14th amendment, nor any other federal law restricts who can run for president, merely who can hold the office if elected.
Here's where we stand (pieced together) on all of the state cases trying to get him off the ballot: https://sh.itjust.works/post/11569127
This is Castro from the NPR link: Nine states have active federal lawsuits brought by John Anthony Castro, a tax attorney and longshot Republican presidential candidate who filed challenges in more than two dozen states seeking to block Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. In October, the Supreme Court declined to hear Castro’s case. Afterward, judges in three states dismissed his lawsuits, and Castro voluntarily withdrew his cases in several others.
⚪ Alaska - lawsuit filed by Castro and pending - https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Arizona- case dismissed https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-rejects-bid-keep-trump-ballot-arizona-rcna128239
⚪ California - a call to the secretary of state, but unlikely. Also, Castro withdrew challenge - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secretary-of-state-downplays-call-for-removal-of-trump-from-california-ballot/ar-AA1lWNv6
✔️ Colorado - Trump ruled to be not on ballot - Won by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Also, Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Connecticut - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Delaware - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Florida - dismissed & US supreme court refused to take it up- https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Idaho - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Kansas - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
⚪ Maine - not decided yet - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.html Also, Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Massachusetts - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Michigan - State supreme court denied to look at it: https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-colorado-b5a5d9ffa75efa63ab4780b04329e2a2 - brought by Free Speech for Free People - https://www.businessinsider.com/michigan-could-remove-trump-from-ballot-next-2023-12?op=1
⚪ Minnesota - state supreme court ruled the republican party can decide who they want on the primary ballot, but left the case open for another filing for the main ballot- brought by Free Speech for Free People, says they will bring more suits in the future- https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Montana - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
⚪ Nevada - Lawsuit filed by castro
⚪ New Mexico - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
⚪ New Jersey - pending Bellochio filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
⚪ New York - pending 2, Castro & Dewald filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
❌ North Carolina - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Oklahoma - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
⚪ Oregon - going to the state supreme court - Free Speech for Free People brought suit - https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Pennsylvania - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
❌ Rhode Island - dismissed - https://www.tampafp.com/federal-judge-in-rhode-island-tosses-trump-2024/
⚪ Texas - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
❌ Utah - Castro withdrew challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220769191/colorado-trump-candidacy-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection
⚪ Vermont - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
⚪ Virginia - filed by Roy L. Perry-Bey of Hampton https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-news/motion-filed-to-remove-trump-from-virginia-ballots/
⚪ West Virginia - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
⚪ Wisconsin - pending Castro filed suit https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
⚪ Wyoming - pending Newcomb v Gray (?) https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker
Has anyone considered that Biden might have an easier time beating trump than he would Nikki Haley? Yes, the trumpers want their orange-over-lord, but if given no other choice they'll vote for anothwr GOP candidate. Some republicans only voted for Biden because they also hated trump. Given someone who aligns more with their belief they'd chose them instead. A woman might also ease their abortion fears because some GOP women might be hoping that Haley secretly supports abortion (because they, too, secretly support it)
Banishing trump from the ballot will only backfire
Didn't the Hillary campaign follow this logic? Even helping trump win the primary? I don't have a source admittedly but remember reading something like this.
I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not talking about actively promoting him over other candidates. Rather, prosecute him to the full extent of the law but don't try to take him off the ballot. Let his own actions tank him
Plus he has already lost to Biden before. Hilary wasn't an ideal candidate, given everything tacked onto her by the GOP
ETA: There are few things that'd be funnier than watching him try to run a campaign from inside a jail cell (though I doubt it would come to that)
Gotta agree with you completely thanks for sharing your thoughts
If anyone other than Trump wins the Republican primary, Trump will run as an independent candidate. This will split the stupid bigot vote and make things easier for Biden.
Definitely a possibility
Nikki Haley scares the ever loving shit out of me for this reason. Right now she's saying all the right things about "finding a consensus" on topics like abortion.
Meanwhile while a legislator in S.C., she backed quite a few very strict abortion ban bills. One of them was even a "no exception" policy.
But, right now she "appears moderate" to "moderates", and the Republican party gets to point at her and be like "Of course we don't hate women! We voted for one!"
Ugh....her name gives me a nasty feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Yeah, she makes me nervous. She has a brain
Personally, I feel Trump's actions put democracy at it's core at risk, or at least the greatest risk we've had for a long time. He's done major damage to the faith in elections based on zero evidence, and he incited his supporters to attempt to overthrow an election. I honestly don't get why there isn't a bigger deal made out of it. But for those reasons, I would not want to see Trump even have a chance at election again. Also, about the abortion thing; I used to think maybe a part of their supporters were rational and were only wanting an adjustment on the allowed abortion in regards to amount of weeks of pregnancy...but then republicans just outright banned it completely where they could. They already exposed themselves on this point, anyone still thinking republicans have any reason here is giving them too much credit. They need to earn that credit back. It will come when the Millennials and the next generations overwhelming vote again them.
That's how we ended up with President Trump in the first place.
Circumstances were different at that time than they are now. I've already written in another comment about it, but briefly: Biden has already beat him once, Hilary wasn't the ideal candidate, Trump now has charges and lawsuits against him. Most of the people who were complacent in the 2016 election realized their mistake and voted for Biden, and if trump is running again they'll likely do the same
It also sets a dangerous precedent for states to disallow presidential candidates from the ballot. Sure, it's easy to swallow with Trump and all of the investigations swirling around Jan 6 (and everything else) but in 50 years will it be easy to swallow when the State Supreme Courts want to guide a candidate that's promised to fund their own initiatives into office?
As an aside, has anyone asked about whether the electoral college can vote for a guy that's not on their state's ballot but who is still running?
I'm kind of on the fence about this, myself. On the one hand, it's party business who they want to nominate for seats on the ballot in general elections so I see why the rulings are going the way they are. If a party wants to run a candidate that stands a fair chance of being disqualified, that's between the party leadership and its voters. It's not really the court's job to protect voters from themselves.
On the other hand, you could make the argument that the primary candidates should at least be vetted and qualified to hold the office for which they are running so as not to disenfranchise voters, should that candidate win the nomination and only later be disqualified. Add to this my own lack of confidence that court cases could even be decided in the short time between primaries and when official ballots would be printed.
It all comes down to whether there's even that "fair chance" Trump could or would be disqualified. The GOP either doesn't think so, or they're saying "prove it" with the loudest bullhorn they can find while at the same time kicking up dust and touching off culture wars to keep everyone else off-balance. It's cynical and disingenuous to be sure but you gotta look at what they do instead of what they say. They're playing HARD for this, harder than the stakes might suggest, and you have to wonder why.
None of the ways through this quagmire are clean anymore. Never were. Gonna be a rough election.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The ruling contrasts with Dec. 19 decision by a divided Colorado Supreme Court which found Trump ineligible to be president because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The plaintiffs in Michigan can technically try again to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the general election, though it’s likely there will be a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the issue by then.
“We are disappointed by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision,” said Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People, the liberal group that filed the suit to disqualify Trump in the state.
Trump pressed two election officials in Michigan’s Wayne County not to certify 2020 vote totals, according to a recording of a post-election phone call disclosed in a Dec. 22 report by The Detroit News.
Attorneys for Free Speech for People, a liberal nonprofit group also involved in efforts to keep Trump’s name off the primary ballot in Minnesota and Oregon, had asked Michigan’s Supreme Court to render its decision by Christmas Day.
But a Michigan Court of Claims judge rejected that group’s arguments, saying in November that it was the proper role of Congress to decide the question.
The original article contains 611 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Boo Michigan! We hate your pussy!
Michigan the bitch again, while Maine the brings the pain