• jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        11 months ago

        States don’t, mostly because racists Democratic states wouldn’t let POC vote.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        No. States don’t have full autonomy. They have regulations as well as everyone else. SCOTUS has final say if the law is constitutional.

        Not a lawyer but the issue I see he hasn’t been convicted of anything close to rebellion.

        • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Not a lawyer but the issue I see he hasn’t been convicted of anything close to rebellion.

          The 14th specifies no requirement for conviction. And historical precedent* has been set such that it does not require conviction.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              11 months ago

              Autocorrect is the bane of the world. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it’s a lethal weapon.

          • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Is there precedent? I’m not aware of anyone else who’s been banned from elections for insurrection, but this also isn’t my area. I kind of assumed it would follow the ‘innocent until proven guilty in a court of law’ thing, but I also don’t know how much of a hard and fast rule that is for this type of crime.

            I am genuinely curious. I kind of assumed he would never actually be charged and the amendment could never be invoked as a result.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            11 months ago

            Not sure what you mean by historical presidents. Did you mean precedence ? Prior cases we people who actually formed a new country. I’m not aware of anything other cases where there was a riot alone. Can you cite a prior case where they were not in a state that rebelled ?

            • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I do not accept your attempt to move the goal posts. Your claim was about whether conviction was necessary. It is not.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                It’s not moving the goalpost.

                I suspect because he was never part of a rebellion, has not been charged with it or convicted of it, scotus will reject the courts opinion. The previous cases didn’t need a conviction because it was considered de facto

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            28
            ·
            11 months ago

            I dislike Trump. I met him in person when he was a liberal democrat. He’s not a conservative. That said, I do not think he tried to overthrow the government and I agree. It’s a dangerous precedent. Let the voters decide. I think of Trump had left with grace, he’d stomp Biden in the next election. Instead he’s thrown a childish shit fit and that turns a lot of people off. I won’t vote for Biden but that doesn’t mean I’lol vote for Trump. In 2016 I didn’t vote because both were garbage.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      11 months ago

      I suspect scotus will overturn it. There have been no charges, much less a conviction that would trigger the clause in the 14th amendment.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        54
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It’s pretty telling how far the left will go, it shows how terrified the establishment is of another Trump presidency.

        It already exposed corruption at the highest levels.

        Funny how the left screams “insurrection” over Jan 6 (where these victims were verbally nvited in by security, we have video of them unlocking doors to let people in, and the lies upon lies told about things such as the only death that day was a murder perpetrated by a security guard), but doesn’t see the hundreds of people storming congress years ago as an insurrection because their side did it.

        • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Enforcing the 14th amendment is not corruption.

          Attempting to overthrow an election is an insurrection.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          28
          ·
          11 months ago

          Remember recently when people were storm state capitals? I think Thomas Jefferson said it best.

          I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

          Trump isn’t the problem. He’s the result of problems unsolved.

    • PrincessEli@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      50
      ·
      11 months ago

      According to some judges in Colorado, an insurrection is whenever the democrats get pissy and don’t like you

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      letting the loser of a free and fair election stoke violence without consequence is bad precedent. enforcing the law is good precedent.

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        Copied from another comment you didn’t read.

        No it’s bad precedent.

        Colorado barely had a majority on the decision, three other states ruled differently and Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything yet in Congress or in court.

        Do we want the pre-election period filled with both sides trying to disqualify the other side’s nominee just because they have a majority in their state’s Supreme Court?

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          depends, did the other side’s nominee engage in an insurrection in flagrant violation of the constitution?

          • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            His point was that Trump hasn’t been convicted yet. Even though he obviously invited an insurrection, legally he hasn’t until he’s convicted.

            If we set this precedent pretty soon Republicans will be flooding Democrats with bullshit “insurrection” allegations to get them off of ballots. If they have enough control in their state’s supreme Court they might even succeed.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              11 months ago

              Republicans are already talking about it.

              It’ll turn into the impeachment fiasco where they try to impeach every president.

              Also every time the democrats do stupid shit. Trump becomes more popular

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I think it is more that Biden temporarily loses support and Trump stays the exact same.

                He doesn’t gain support.

                Republicans need to start talking about policy and how they will govern but that’s typically where they fall apart.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  That is the big flaw of the Republican Party right now. Their policy is stop the democrats. That’s a stupid policy.

                  I want to see each party create a policy then meet In the middle. I fully support abortion and it irritates me the republicans for the most part have taken a radical stance on it.

                  Compromise isn’t weakness. It’s strength.

    • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      He had his many days in court, with his own appointed justices, was unable to find any evidence of significant election fraud, and still he chose to lie about it anyways. To this day. He tried to subvert the people’s will himself and refused to exercise a peaceful transfer of power, threatening and manipulating state leadership and his vice president to alter the results.

      Just because he was unsuccessful, and he managed to brainwash a large enough group of people with his lies to maybe get elected again and to avoid conviction, doesn’t mean we give him a chance to try again. That is a perfectly fine precedent to set.

      That’s not even counting the voter suppression that a state court probably wouldn’t even consider, and his base absolutely refuses to hear. Encouraging voter intimidation, lying about well-established voting methods that are more likely to be used by the other party in some states, priming his base to reject the results with his “its me or its fraud” rhetoric leading up to the election, daring voter fraud within his own party and his followers to turn out and “stop the count” or “count the votes” wherever the results are turning out of his favor. The way I see it this is just beating him at his own game. He already set the precedent, we are mitigating its consequences.

    • ByteWizard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Let the voters decide.

      The left has decided after 2016 ‘the voters’ cannot be trusted. So they will rig elections and feel smug about it while committing treason.

      • dtc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Smells like copium for backing the side of the aisle that can’t generate popular/functional ideas for governing.

  • PrincessEli@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    11 months ago

    Democrats care about protecting American democracy so much they’ll use every lie and dirty truck in the book to keep people they don’t like off the ballot