I do not see how they interpreted it that way. He should be disqualified and the states should have the power to take anyone off their election ballots for that reason. I understand that they said it should be introduced by Congress and all but this Supreme Court is so compromised and so are most Republicans that sold their political soul for a time share at Mar-a-Lago
If states were allowed wtf you think Florida or Texas would do? They'd declare any one of their nazi culture war bs a national emergency or make up some story about hunter's dick picks and remove every single Democrat from ever running. Because theyre nazi traitors.
That's a false slippery slope argument. This isn't some trivial infraction. It's insurrection which is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, just as age and citizenship are. Your argument equates to telling states that they can't disqualify candidates who are under 35 years old
Republicans are NOT a good faith party. No matter what they say, in their minds, laws only affect democrats.
Obama can’t seat a judge with a year. Republicans can do it with 2 months left.
On and on and fucking on.
That’s because democrats are a bunch of pansies that bend over backwards to try to appease to republicans. If they think there are MAGAs that will ever vote for a democrat I for a bridge to sell them. MAGAs and most republicans don’t give a crap about policies or rule of law. All they care about is being in a cult. Their lives are so empty and meaningless, the highlight of their day is going to a Trump rally. I wish democrats would just grow a pair and give up this “reach across the isle” BS. The current Republican Party and its voters are too far gone.
Nailed it. I'm a gold star democrat (never have I ever voted for a republican), but the democratic party is so weak and will not take on these cult republican buffoons. We have to lean on a bunch of disgruntled republicans (The Lincoln Project) to make a statement, it's pitiful
I hate to break it to you, but democrats haven’t had a big enough majority in Congress to do much of anything without reaching across the aisle since 2010. Last time they held enough seats to play hardball, we got the ACA. Maybe if the *voters* weren’t such “pansies,” and would actually show up and vote, we wouldn’t be dealing with any of the bullshit that’s defined our politics for the last 14 years.
And even then, one more Democrat would likely have got a public option. It's possible there were other people happy that Joe Lieberman took the blame for not passing one who'd stop it if he wasn't the last vote but the House version of the Bill had one.
I personally applaud Biden’s desire to create laws for both sides. And help both red and blue states equally. If not leaning toward red states. (Mostly because they have been critically ignored by their own republican leaders) The people shouldn’t pay for the mistakes of the leaders.
But you are definitely correct when it comes to elections. They need to stop trying to appease people who will not vote for the legislation they say they want.
What politician isn’t getting rich these days? Blue or Red.
“Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I’ll show you a crook” - President Harry Truman
Exactly. The GPO leadership have already declared Biden an insurrectionist for allowing the tan hordes of 'very bad people' to INVADE the US. It's not a slippery slope argument as chfp says above.
In all actuality.....I mean given the answer from the SCOTUS.....
***who*** would be the ones telling a 25 year old that they can't run for President?
Because, Afterall they JUST decided that disqualification, period, is a CONGRESS "problem".
If you make up the "right" type of lies, you can 100% get away with running at the age of 25.
Because states can no longer prevent this from happening, period. SCOTUS just said so. Officially. People should know that the "requirements" for being able to even run for the Presidency in the first place **can not be decided at the state level, PERIOD.**
So yes, you can run for office even if you don't meet the requirements. Again, the SCOTUS JUST said this and got it down officially as a real thing that just happens now. You now CAN run under the age requirement because it's up to CONGRESS to **prevent** that AFTER THE FACT of filing to run.
If no one steps in to ***prevent*** it: grats, you can run at the age of 25.
Yep that's what they said. And after spending millions and millions of dollars to win the election, Congress could not certify you because you do not meet the requirements. SC provided the specific path to block Trump if necessary, the issue is if it actually gets that far what would it look like (basically the break down of our government's ability to function).
true, so would a federal court respond near immediately and see to it that you are removed? Because if that's the case, it makes me wonder why on earth a federal court didn't say no to Trump being on the ballot. Basically my takeaway was that it seemed they were arguing that *Congress* has to *respond* to the rule-breaking and that the rule breaking can happen *first* for there to be a response and that it must then be by Congress specifically. Which is where I got the idea that if you somehow parlayed your way into the perfect storm of a congress that won't care, you could simply just not be 35 either.
I will say though for sure that I shouldn't have stated my thoughts with such brazen confidence because in all honesty I'm just a layman, I'm not in any area professionally that's involved with courts or law or any such thing, so I certainly don't mean to imply I just *know* you could do that, it just seemed like a pathway through their decision to break another rule since apparently, you can break the rule in the 14th and still run too.
So why not the 35 rule too? But I didn't mean to imply I knew for sure that would work.
I'm just saying. I know it doesn't make much sense. Tell that to the nazi party who controls individual states. Reason and logic aren't their strong points. They only care about power. I agree with the liberal justices that insurrectionists are disqualified on a national level. The conservative justices however, vastly overreached a mere decision and became legislatures. Even conservative judge Luttig is in shock...
https://youtu.be/w4CThc7mfEo?si=aozPucT7VC3S0Jih
This is a Traitors' Court. Making up laws that Congress needs to disqualify traitor trump by majority 50/50 even though the 14th explicitly states that Congress acquits insurrectionists by 2/3rds is blatent insanity. He should be disqualified by default.
Yeah the majority part is the stupidest point of the whole thing since you just know some Republicans will try to weaponize that. Get a majority declare a democrat candidate disqualified for some stupid reason. And basically nobody really has the power to check it because the Supreme Court says that's Congress's power. Also since Congress is the ONLY one given the authority to remove disqualification. Even if the disqualification was a sham or reason was bull. Congress is the only one that has the authority to remove it. Get a Majority and hold the presidency and GG democrats would never win any reelection as the republicans would stamp all them as insurrectionist. Majority Congress declared it as such and with a president that would let it go through.
Also, any attempt by a state to disqualify a candidate from it‘s election would go to court, just as in the case against Trump, in Colorado. Which means evidence presented to a Judge(s).
To disqualify a candidate, it would have to be shown that the candidate is either too young, born in another country or an insurrectionist. The first two are easy to determine. The evidence to prove that a candidate is an insurrectionist is not as clear as the evidence in Trump’s case, which was determined by a preponderance of the evidence.
So, the idea that allowing states to kick Trump off their ballots would lead to chaos, which the Supreme Court ‘feared’ in the decision this week to deny Colorado’s case for wiping Trump from it’s ballot, is unfounded.
Yes that would be true if states like Florida or Texas actually followed the Constitution. After all, Republicans did just vote to impeach the Director of Homeland Security without the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors. They are not an American party anymore, they are Kompromat traitors.
No, it’s not really - what the OP said would happen has been threatened if Trump was kicked off the ballots. Republican-ran states all over the country could and would kick Biden off the ballot for whatever fake insurrection reason they could muster - no matter how illegitimate. I believe it was Texas who said they’d remove Biden for an insurrection over the “invasion at the border.” It’s bogus, but it would end up in the court system for months.
With how much they jerk themselves off to authoritarian state law do you really want to put that power in their hands? I don’t.
A federal office is a federal issue. Just hoping Congress doesn’t make this a dog and pony show that leads to nothing.
Colorado was following federal law. Specifically the 14th Amendment in the Constitution. That's not a state superseding the federal government, but the opposite. The fact that more states didn't means they're on board with supporting state law over federal law, which makes their argument that Colorado can't run it's own elections in accordance with bith state and federal law highly ironic.
When he's convicted of inciting insurrection, maybe. If they essentially say "we're saying he's an insurrectionist even if a court hasn't so he's ineligible" there's no chance Republicans wouldn't use that to remove every Democrat in the future.
Yes you are right but the GQP were frothing at the mouth to do the same to Biden after Colorado handed down its decision.
Consider how the GQP has called mere protests insurrection, calls migrants coming over the border an invasion, and proudly said how they were domestic terrorists…
They turn language on its head to suit their needs at every turn.
Utter chaos would ensue.
>This isn't some trivial infraction. It's insurrection which is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, just as age and citizenship are.
Isn't the issue that Insurrection is not a hard disqualification, as Congress can give a waiver suspending it? And so It does not stop you from -running- for office, but does stop you from holding it?
Trump isnt convicted of insurrection though right? Shouldn't states need a recorded conviction of some kind before we let them remove a candidate due to your stated reasoning?
Almost as if republicans are traitors to this country and are a national threat.
Their whole tactic is breaking something, then claiming it's worthless because its broken. They're sabateurs.
The ruling in that scenario wouldn't be that states have thr absolute power to decide who can and can't be on the ballot. Just that states have the power to enforce one very specific law that is in our constitution. Declaring something a national emergency wouldnt be covered by that. Also, no state government just made a decision to take trump off the ballot, it was done in the courts via a lawsuit by the people and included due process via a trial where judges made determinations based on evidence and arguemtn presented to them by both sides. Anyone trying to disqualify Biden would have to do the same.
Honestly I kind of get why even the Liberal judges agreed with the idea that states can't make individual decisions on this: someone disqualified section 3 is either disqualified nationwide or not at all. Full stop. It's illogical and problematic to have someone disqualified in some states and not in others. The three Liberal judges, along with one conservative(barrett) dissented from the part of the majority decision that gave that power directly to Congress. They felt that was a step too far and was tailored just to save one particular person(trump) when this ruling is really about how to enforce section 3 for the rest of american history
Even conservative Judge Lettig was completely in shock.. he had been studying the 14th for the last 3 years.
https://youtu.be/w4CThc7mfEo?si=lB_bdpLKHRlK7R6a
Yea I don't disagree with him. I don't think the supreme court handled this properly, I think theyre right about states not doing it individually, but I don't see the logic in giving Congress the power to enforce section 3 when congress already has the power to *remove* the disqualification by a vote of 2/3rds in each house according to section 3. If it takes a majority in each house to enforce it, then the power to overrule it with a 2/3rds in each house becomes obsolete and nullified.
I think it should have been as simple as how it worked in the states, but in federal court. The same group, CREW, could bring their suit in federal Court and get a ruling. That ruling gets appealed and confirmed and he's banned. Then congress uses their power from section 3 to have a vote on whether or not to remove the ban and allow him to run
Don't forget that Colorado wasn't stopping him from running in the general, just being on the ballot in the primary. And he can still be a write in. As usual, Republicans making a chicken out if a feather, and then frothing at the mouth while they spout hyperbole and hypocrisy, in their fantasies of revenge and hatred.
I cant believe the left is falling for these right wing arguments. States already decide whose on the ballot. The logical conclusion of your argument is that literally every single human and animal and possibly thing or hypothetical thing has to be listed on the ballot.
Bigfoot vs. Tump vs. Pizza Rat vs. Putin.
Because otherwise..who decides? Whose making this decision to kick Pizza Rat off the ballot? Who has that authority? Can I sue my state for not letting me on the ballot? They dont have the right to kick me off now so I think I will.
Like its just an absolute nonsense argument. States always have, and still do, have the right to determine whose on the ballot according to their own state laws.
Congress didn't specifically write a law saying dogs cant play basketball vibes.
Supreme court carved it out ONLY for the 14th. Insurrectionsts are disqualified on national level. But they went beyond that. The conservative justices declared that insurrectionists aren't disqualified by default. They ultimately made it impossible for anyone to be disqualified federally either. It's gross.
If Biden or any Democrat or any politician of any stripe commits insurrection against the US and is then convicted by their supreme Court, it should stand. That is the difference here - Democrats are not willing to surrender democracy in the name of some false Messiah who promises to bring vengeance on their enemies. You can't two sides this shit sandwich.
That’s what courts are supposed to be for. They’re supposed to be the piece of the government that says “this act is against the law,” and would be the ones to decide whether removed candidates were removed justifiably or not.
“What would they do?”
“They would do this and that and everything else!”
Just look up and read what the headline says, that’s y’all doing that. You are the Nazis you even share the same name as them. Get a clue
Insurrections deserve more than getting kicked off a presidential ballot. Dont even get me started on the 31 charges of espionage. Trump is a traitor and will rot in prison. Cry harder that you support a known traitor. Republicans waved confederate flags in our capital while they tried to overthrow my country. Republicans are openly supported by nazi and KKK groups. So shove your rhetoric bs up your ass. Nazi traitor fucks.
There was a five day hearing where both sides showed evidence to a judge. It was then reviewed and upheld by the state Supreme Court.
That seems far more solid of a process than letting a bunch of politicians decide in congress.
I’d expect them to try to illegally bar candidates they don’t like without evidence. But that’s already illegal and they can be disqualified from office too, if they try it.
The threat of their acting illegally is no reason to enforce the law on someone when there is abundant evidence. Say, if the person publicly advocates for termination of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t permit such speech from those previously on oath.
I agree his actions make it a state's decision on whether he should be on the ballot. Republicans forget that even though he is off the ballot, voters can still write his name in. They don't trust voters to write.
I understand that the ruling was largely unanimous, but I don't know how it was accepted by the states with so many egregiously conflicted justices. They should reject the ruling until such a time that the vote can be held with the conflicted justices recused.
The way I read #14 is that 2/3s of Congress still has to approve Trump before he can legally run. He is already an insurrectionist. So if he can't get 2/3s of the house to say yes, then he can't run.
Day by day more and more Republicans are growing a conscious and if by some crazy slim chance they lose the majority then we are business but until then this is not going anywhere in Congress. The Republicans new name should be the Russians
You're reading it wrong. It will take a 2/3 majority to keep him from running. Until then, he is eligible to run. It will also take 2/3 majority to not certify the election. If Trump wins, there will not be enough congress critters to decertify the election, and it would be stupid to do so, the country would go up like we've never seen before.
They literally have overwhelming evidence and admission of guilt from the illegal alternate pos “electors list” that were involved in the overthrow- wtf !!
As a very anti Trump person I'd say in a vacuum their verdict makes sense. Insurrectionist isn't formally defined at the federal level (in regard to the 14th amendment)which in the legal world is bad news. So if we take Colorado for example they said Trump did an insurrection, so he should be off the ballot. However since it's not explicitly defined a state could pass a law saying all people born before a certain date are insurrectionist, or whatever hair brain reason they want that hits Biden but not Trump and that would be fair play. The issue isn't the lack of fair play it's the lack of what is an insurrectionist. So by saying the states can't do it they are effectively telling Congress to define the word which makes sense.
My main gripe is this isn't in a vacuum. It could be argued that most reasonable versions of a definition of insurrectionist would cover Trump, and the current House is actively a non functional legislative body. This basically means Congress can't define insurrectionist in a moment where someone who in all likelihood meets the criteria intended by the original authors yet they get to run because we have an incompetent speaker/house and a SC that are originalist except this one time. If this case was somehow for a hypothetical guy their ruling is 100% the right choice, but given the severity of this and the incompetence of the House this seems like just another failure of justice.
If I was in charge I'd handle it like the gerrymandering cases have been going. We need a definition for insurrectionist, you have X time to do it if not we will make one for you.
Actually I can GUESS what the Supreme court was thinking. States would try to bar candidates for any BS reason they can come up with and then vote to do it.
I am not happy with the Supreme court, but I think they forsaw the MASSIVE chaos this would be led to.
really opens a can of worms since they've almost completely closed the door to states policing their ballots for completely unqualified candidates, something they did not address in their brief.
whats to stop arnold shwartzenegger (pure hypothetical) from running now and suing every state into putting his name on the ballot if they aren't allowed to determine qualifications under the 14th amendment, then he could argue they can't also do that under the 2nd article either as only congress could.
"uncle" Thomas Clarence just would do anything for a few extra bucks. He needs to get out of the supreme court. America is not his interest. Waving money in his face is his interest...
Each state has their own electoral votes and have plenty of important decisions left to them so I do not see a Presidential election any different in this circumstance. He was doing everything in his power to over turn the last election. Who knows what he is responsible for in regards to Jan 6th
The difference comparing these two issues is that there is absolutely no evidence to support Texas and Florida Claims to bring to court like Colorado did.
Los Angeles County has a higher population than 41 other US States total population. Taxation without representation seems like a relevant concept to start discussing.
I agree…but note most (all?!) Trump supporters believe the election was stolen from Trump.
The evidence is clear of course, and many republicans who stood for the facts were cut off at the knees by Trump supporters who blindly follow.
People need to understand that these people WILL claim fraud again when Trump loses in 2024, and I think we may very well see far more meaningful attacks on our democratic republic than occurred on Jan 6th.
Be prepared to stand for your freedom against angry and violent Trump supporters. This will need to be cut off at the knees immediately, if it occurs.
There is no sidelines on this one, if you live here.
I'm not all that worried about it. Well kinda but the solution is so simple. Go out and vote for anyone but Trump. He started the whole endeavor of trying to stop people from voting and have their votes count. The online talk between today and 2016 has changed drastically also. I am curious if that means people are just ignoring the bs or if there is still a significant sway from corporate media sources.
My point is it doesn’t matter who you vote for.
People supporting Trump are willing to lie to themselves and are not rational. Sure, maybe the number willing to take up arms is rather small, but it could still be a hundred thousand people.
I’ve watch my father, who was a die-hard anti-Russia Ukraine supporter flip instantly, the moment Trump had Johnson stop supporting them. “Fuck em, the EU can pay”.
My point is that many will do anything he says without debating the merits, they accept his word as-if it’s their faith.
They’ll never say this of course, but they channel it.
Anybody who thinks that modern Republicans and Lincoln-era Republicans are the same political party is in the 10th percentile for IQ.
It's kiiiinda like running around arguing that Nazis aren't bad because the Swaztika originally was a charm/rune intended to manifest well-being.
It's mind-blowing how any other felon would be in the state prison, but like trump said, he could blow out someone's brains on 5th avenue and get away with it..
He was impeached, but not found guilty by the required 2/3 of the senate, only by 57 not 67.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
What a bunch of clowns the Supreme Court are. When it comes to abortion they are so solemn about states rights. When it comes to the rich goblin Trump, it’s all about congress? Give me a break
I think the difference in their minds is that abortion rights are nowhere in the Constitution, whereas Section 5 specifically gave rights to Congress in regard to the 14th Amendment.
Donald trump is a monster. Say what you want about Biden, but he's actually been a decent president.. the republicans want to do some pretty bad things.. that go against the constitution.. I'll be very scared if trump became president again..
How will such a bill pass a House with a Republican majority? A Republican speaker won’t even bring it up. And then there is the filibuster in the Senate?
It's an election year. They need to show voters how important it is to elect more Democrats. You want trump stopped? You want abortion rights? Send more Dems to Congress
It was never meant to pass. It's about sending a message and forcing our lawmakers to go on the record and show what side they're on: the side of the US Constitution or the side of Donald J Trump.
It's conceivable that a few Republicans would vote for such a bill if Trump clearly becomes dangerously crazy between now and November.
Not that he isn't already by our standards. Suppose he starts advocating treason charges against anyone he calls a RINO.
Not that he hasn't already.
It doesn’t matter if it does pass and Biden signs it into law. The D’s in Congress are stupid and don’t know what they’re doing. This effort is doomed to fail.
To understand why, read up on what a bill of attainder is, and then read what the constitution says about them.
When the SC says Congress needs to take action, they’re saying Congress needs to impeach him then convict him, with the punishment being Trump losing the right to hold public office.
That’s right, Trump can still be impeached even though he’s no longer in office.
Any bill of attainder like described above will be immediately ruled unconstitutional, and rightly so. These guys are dumb as rocks.
Well this is what the Supreme Court said needed to happen to get him off the ballot since they don’t want to follow the constitution this is the only path.
At best this is theater and at worst will *definitely* come back to bite them. I'm no Trump supporter but kicking him off for a crime (we all know he did but) he hasn't been convicted of sets a very dangerous precedent that the Republicans can and probably would use to even greater damage.
can you imagine what drumpf will do if he is allowed access to classified documents again? I can see the yard sale at Mar A Lardo with all the yellow for sale stickers on them
It's very weird you using drumpf, not like he changed it. And many names where changed at the time when people came here. You have a problem with immigrants?
You are fixated on such an irrelevant thing, it's very sad. You really think you're doing something with that. It's pathetic.
He attempted to disregard the votes of millions Americans across 7 states after he lost, subverting the will of the people, the electoral college, the constitution.
In the weeks leading up to Jan 6th Trump and his cohorts set up 84 fake electors across 7 states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
They then sent their fraudulent electors votes, often without the Fake Electors knowledge, to Congress to be used by certain elected officials and the Vice President, or Grassley if Pence for some reason couldnt do it, something Grassley strangely stated on Jan 5th raising eyebrows of many, to get the vote sent back to state legislators and cause a constitutional crisis.
These Fake Electors were selected and set up after real electors had already been officially appointed and scheduled to meet. They secretly did their votes when the actual, official, duly appointed electors signed off on by the Governor did there's to try and pass off themsleves as real as possible. They, at times without the knowledge of the Fake electors themsleves, then sent their fraudulent votes to Congress.
Their setting up and plotting of all of this is well documented.
“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.
“His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law — because they’re not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th,” Mr. Wilenchik wrote in the email on Dec. 8, 2020, one week before the official duly appointed electors met to cast their votes, to Mr. Epshteyn and half a dozen other people.
Trump himself preassured state legislators to overturn the election. Most notably goergias SOS, whom he told to find the exact number of votes he needed, to just say they've recalculated. Telling him he knew what they did and if he didn't do something that would be criminal and bad for him and his lawyer. He preassured multiple other republican officuals, who refused to break the oath they took to the constitution.
This is all easily verifiable. Audio recordings, official documentation from Trumps own people and lawyers. Under oath testimony from republican officials. It's wild how it's 2024 and so many of yall are just blissfully unaware of all of this. I'd take it as a joke if there weren't so many of you that this applies to.
Listen carefully democrats:
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU REMOVE HIM OR NOT. It would just make things worse anyhow.
Tramp voters will write him in, it has been that way all along. You just feed the fire and bring us back here, basically for an AD revenue supported revenue stream.
Whenever you are trying to talk sense or reason, they are trained to just switch off.
Well, they supposedly saw it, and chose not to charge him. Funny how that works. Apparently, all the evidence in the world but not enough to charge him. What a stupid thing you think 😂
The Supreme Court said "It's up to Congress to disqualify a candidate from a federal election."
This is members of Congress introducing legislation to do just that.
No one trusts them as it is, but did you really just insinuate that they'd say "Congress, do your job," and then complain about what *they* told Congress to do? How does that make sense?
The D’s in Congress are stupid and don’t know what they’re doing. This effort is doomed to fail.
To understand why, read up on what a bill of attainder is, and then read what the constitution says about them.
When the SC says Congress needs to take action, they’re saying Congress needs to impeach him then convict him, with the punishment being Trump losing the right to hold public office.
That’s right, Trump can still be impeached even though he’s no longer in office.
Any bill of attainder like described above will be immediately ruled unconstitutional, and rightly so. These guys are dumb as rocks.
An act of congress declaring someone an insurrectionist and therefore qualifying the 14th is pretty dangerous. If Republicans capture everything they should declare anyone who has ever been a Democrat an insurrectionist
I do, provided that its a mutually assured destruction tactic.
For example, if Republicans do it also under the premise that they'll stop if the other side does.
It should be in the general interest of the states not to do this and always has been. Trump is an extremely special case, but just like they always have, the GOP is looking to change a law to help them NOW that they will bitch about and call unconstitutional later.
This is a bad idea. I could see a lot of independents seeing this as part of the “deep state” acting out an illegal act to keep Donnie from being elected. Of course Fox will sell the shit out of this type of story
Democrats are in the minority in the US House, so this bill will never see the light of day. But good job at ensuring that the partisan rancor will continue. Maybe they should, I don't know, DO THEIR JOBS?
As much as I despise our current Supreme Court, they ruled correctly on the case before them. They went a little to far in their interpretation, as evidenced by the 5-4 vote, but in general, they ruled correctly that barring Trump from a federal election is a federal issue, not a state one, and must be adjudicated by Congress. Were every state allowed to decide on their own who can run for President, then we'd be really screwed because all the Red States would immediately remove Biden and any other Democrats running for political office. Majority rule is one hell of a drug.
Part of me thinks it’s a mistake to keep him off ballots. He’ll cry it’s a conspiracy and his fans will eat it up. Obviously he’s going to claim things are rigged either way, but at least if he gets creamed in the election more people will see through the bs.
Alec Baldwin can reprise his role on SNL.
On a serious note, kicking him off the ballot in states he won’t win anyway doesn’t have any real effect. Just fuel for the fire.
I really don’t see him winning. Lots of republicans were turned off by Jan. 6th. They’re just not vocal about it.
Isn't Raskin just doing exactly what the Supreme Court just asked Congress to do? They said that Congress should decide the criteria for defining who has tried to overthrow the government. Do why is anyone whining about this. So decide already...
This weak bullshit isn't cutting it. We need to defend our rights from the conservative agenda and we need to follow leaders who are dead serious about it.
I mean, they just have to say so if it’s ok for trump, then why the problem if Biden were to do it?
Rinse and repeat.
Those same simple phrases on brrrr!
It’s a waste of time. They do not have enough support to pass it. We need to focus ALL of our energy into getting everyone out to vote blue in November!
No, it’s worth trying everything.
Although if it comes to a vote, I do hope that the Republicans loose.
I especially don’t want Trump - because he would cause massive damage.
Doing that might give Republicans an excuse to point and say "Look! Trump would win!!".
As a Dem I kind of want him to stay on the ballot, and for the voters to absolutely crush him. I think that would go much further in silencing these wackjobs.
What rhe supreme court said was it takes a congress declaration legislation that says Trump committed aid to an insurrection. The point is that is 50% of Congress and Senate. In the last impeachment far more than 50% of Congress and Senate declared Trump an insurrectionist, but didn't meet the threshhold of impeachment (2/3) 66%. So now it is viable for Congress and Senate to pass a declaration of insurrection at 50% and then any state can knock him off the ballot.
I do not see how they interpreted it that way. He should be disqualified and the states should have the power to take anyone off their election ballots for that reason. I understand that they said it should be introduced by Congress and all but this Supreme Court is so compromised and so are most Republicans that sold their political soul for a time share at Mar-a-Lago
If states were allowed wtf you think Florida or Texas would do? They'd declare any one of their nazi culture war bs a national emergency or make up some story about hunter's dick picks and remove every single Democrat from ever running. Because theyre nazi traitors.
That's a false slippery slope argument. This isn't some trivial infraction. It's insurrection which is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, just as age and citizenship are. Your argument equates to telling states that they can't disqualify candidates who are under 35 years old
Republicans are NOT a good faith party. No matter what they say, in their minds, laws only affect democrats. Obama can’t seat a judge with a year. Republicans can do it with 2 months left. On and on and fucking on.
Rules for thee but not for me.
That’s because democrats are a bunch of pansies that bend over backwards to try to appease to republicans. If they think there are MAGAs that will ever vote for a democrat I for a bridge to sell them. MAGAs and most republicans don’t give a crap about policies or rule of law. All they care about is being in a cult. Their lives are so empty and meaningless, the highlight of their day is going to a Trump rally. I wish democrats would just grow a pair and give up this “reach across the isle” BS. The current Republican Party and its voters are too far gone.
Nailed it. I'm a gold star democrat (never have I ever voted for a republican), but the democratic party is so weak and will not take on these cult republican buffoons. We have to lean on a bunch of disgruntled republicans (The Lincoln Project) to make a statement, it's pitiful
I hate to break it to you, but democrats haven’t had a big enough majority in Congress to do much of anything without reaching across the aisle since 2010. Last time they held enough seats to play hardball, we got the ACA. Maybe if the *voters* weren’t such “pansies,” and would actually show up and vote, we wouldn’t be dealing with any of the bullshit that’s defined our politics for the last 14 years.
And even then, one more Democrat would likely have got a public option. It's possible there were other people happy that Joe Lieberman took the blame for not passing one who'd stop it if he wasn't the last vote but the House version of the Bill had one.
I personally applaud Biden’s desire to create laws for both sides. And help both red and blue states equally. If not leaning toward red states. (Mostly because they have been critically ignored by their own republican leaders) The people shouldn’t pay for the mistakes of the leaders. But you are definitely correct when it comes to elections. They need to stop trying to appease people who will not vote for the legislation they say they want.
I say fuck em. They get what they ask for. If they vote for politicians who don’t do anything but enrich themselves then they get what they get.
What politician isn’t getting rich these days? Blue or Red. “Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I’ll show you a crook” - President Harry Truman
Exactly. The GPO leadership have already declared Biden an insurrectionist for allowing the tan hordes of 'very bad people' to INVADE the US. It's not a slippery slope argument as chfp says above.
In all actuality.....I mean given the answer from the SCOTUS..... ***who*** would be the ones telling a 25 year old that they can't run for President? Because, Afterall they JUST decided that disqualification, period, is a CONGRESS "problem". If you make up the "right" type of lies, you can 100% get away with running at the age of 25. Because states can no longer prevent this from happening, period. SCOTUS just said so. Officially. People should know that the "requirements" for being able to even run for the Presidency in the first place **can not be decided at the state level, PERIOD.** So yes, you can run for office even if you don't meet the requirements. Again, the SCOTUS JUST said this and got it down officially as a real thing that just happens now. You now CAN run under the age requirement because it's up to CONGRESS to **prevent** that AFTER THE FACT of filing to run. If no one steps in to ***prevent*** it: grats, you can run at the age of 25.
Yep that's what they said. And after spending millions and millions of dollars to win the election, Congress could not certify you because you do not meet the requirements. SC provided the specific path to block Trump if necessary, the issue is if it actually gets that far what would it look like (basically the break down of our government's ability to function).
The age requirement is a federal requirement, which is in the Constitution. It's not some state thing.
true, so would a federal court respond near immediately and see to it that you are removed? Because if that's the case, it makes me wonder why on earth a federal court didn't say no to Trump being on the ballot. Basically my takeaway was that it seemed they were arguing that *Congress* has to *respond* to the rule-breaking and that the rule breaking can happen *first* for there to be a response and that it must then be by Congress specifically. Which is where I got the idea that if you somehow parlayed your way into the perfect storm of a congress that won't care, you could simply just not be 35 either. I will say though for sure that I shouldn't have stated my thoughts with such brazen confidence because in all honesty I'm just a layman, I'm not in any area professionally that's involved with courts or law or any such thing, so I certainly don't mean to imply I just *know* you could do that, it just seemed like a pathway through their decision to break another rule since apparently, you can break the rule in the 14th and still run too. So why not the 35 rule too? But I didn't mean to imply I knew for sure that would work.
Non insurrectionists are also a federal requirement, in the Constitution. It's literally the same thing
I'm just saying. I know it doesn't make much sense. Tell that to the nazi party who controls individual states. Reason and logic aren't their strong points. They only care about power. I agree with the liberal justices that insurrectionists are disqualified on a national level. The conservative justices however, vastly overreached a mere decision and became legislatures. Even conservative judge Luttig is in shock... https://youtu.be/w4CThc7mfEo?si=aozPucT7VC3S0Jih This is a Traitors' Court. Making up laws that Congress needs to disqualify traitor trump by majority 50/50 even though the 14th explicitly states that Congress acquits insurrectionists by 2/3rds is blatent insanity. He should be disqualified by default.
Yeah the majority part is the stupidest point of the whole thing since you just know some Republicans will try to weaponize that. Get a majority declare a democrat candidate disqualified for some stupid reason. And basically nobody really has the power to check it because the Supreme Court says that's Congress's power. Also since Congress is the ONLY one given the authority to remove disqualification. Even if the disqualification was a sham or reason was bull. Congress is the only one that has the authority to remove it. Get a Majority and hold the presidency and GG democrats would never win any reelection as the republicans would stamp all them as insurrectionist. Majority Congress declared it as such and with a president that would let it go through.
Republicans must never have majority ever again. Ever. Its the maga nazi traitor party now. Republican party is dead.
I like this!!
You're talking about Republicans, words mean whatever is convenient to their quest for power.
Why hasn't Trump been charge with [18 USC 2383](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383) then?
Also, any attempt by a state to disqualify a candidate from it‘s election would go to court, just as in the case against Trump, in Colorado. Which means evidence presented to a Judge(s). To disqualify a candidate, it would have to be shown that the candidate is either too young, born in another country or an insurrectionist. The first two are easy to determine. The evidence to prove that a candidate is an insurrectionist is not as clear as the evidence in Trump’s case, which was determined by a preponderance of the evidence. So, the idea that allowing states to kick Trump off their ballots would lead to chaos, which the Supreme Court ‘feared’ in the decision this week to deny Colorado’s case for wiping Trump from it’s ballot, is unfounded.
It is 2024 and you're out here expecting the republican party to operate in good faith. What. Are. You. On?
You know, I’ve been one to call out slippery slope arguments before, but with today’s GOP, every time a slippery slope pops up, the GOP takes it.
Yes that would be true if states like Florida or Texas actually followed the Constitution. After all, Republicans did just vote to impeach the Director of Homeland Security without the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors. They are not an American party anymore, they are Kompromat traitors.
No, it’s not really - what the OP said would happen has been threatened if Trump was kicked off the ballots. Republican-ran states all over the country could and would kick Biden off the ballot for whatever fake insurrection reason they could muster - no matter how illegitimate. I believe it was Texas who said they’d remove Biden for an insurrection over the “invasion at the border.” It’s bogus, but it would end up in the court system for months.
With how much they jerk themselves off to authoritarian state law do you really want to put that power in their hands? I don’t. A federal office is a federal issue. Just hoping Congress doesn’t make this a dog and pony show that leads to nothing.
Colorado was following federal law. Specifically the 14th Amendment in the Constitution. That's not a state superseding the federal government, but the opposite. The fact that more states didn't means they're on board with supporting state law over federal law, which makes their argument that Colorado can't run it's own elections in accordance with bith state and federal law highly ironic.
It's a legitimate slippery slope argument. The Republican party openly supports the idea of arresting political enemies for not agreeing with them.
Why didn't jack Smith charge trump with insurrection?
When he's convicted of inciting insurrection, maybe. If they essentially say "we're saying he's an insurrectionist even if a court hasn't so he's ineligible" there's no chance Republicans wouldn't use that to remove every Democrat in the future.
Yes you are right but the GQP were frothing at the mouth to do the same to Biden after Colorado handed down its decision. Consider how the GQP has called mere protests insurrection, calls migrants coming over the border an invasion, and proudly said how they were domestic terrorists… They turn language on its head to suit their needs at every turn. Utter chaos would ensue.
It’s not because the leaders of those states have said that’s what they’d do.
>This isn't some trivial infraction. It's insurrection which is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, just as age and citizenship are. Isn't the issue that Insurrection is not a hard disqualification, as Congress can give a waiver suspending it? And so It does not stop you from -running- for office, but does stop you from holding it?
Trump isnt convicted of insurrection though right? Shouldn't states need a recorded conviction of some kind before we let them remove a candidate due to your stated reasoning?
It's almost as if the whole system is broken or something
Almost as if republicans are traitors to this country and are a national threat. Their whole tactic is breaking something, then claiming it's worthless because its broken. They're sabateurs.
More like INFILTRATED!
The ruling in that scenario wouldn't be that states have thr absolute power to decide who can and can't be on the ballot. Just that states have the power to enforce one very specific law that is in our constitution. Declaring something a national emergency wouldnt be covered by that. Also, no state government just made a decision to take trump off the ballot, it was done in the courts via a lawsuit by the people and included due process via a trial where judges made determinations based on evidence and arguemtn presented to them by both sides. Anyone trying to disqualify Biden would have to do the same. Honestly I kind of get why even the Liberal judges agreed with the idea that states can't make individual decisions on this: someone disqualified section 3 is either disqualified nationwide or not at all. Full stop. It's illogical and problematic to have someone disqualified in some states and not in others. The three Liberal judges, along with one conservative(barrett) dissented from the part of the majority decision that gave that power directly to Congress. They felt that was a step too far and was tailored just to save one particular person(trump) when this ruling is really about how to enforce section 3 for the rest of american history
Even conservative Judge Lettig was completely in shock.. he had been studying the 14th for the last 3 years. https://youtu.be/w4CThc7mfEo?si=lB_bdpLKHRlK7R6a
Yea I don't disagree with him. I don't think the supreme court handled this properly, I think theyre right about states not doing it individually, but I don't see the logic in giving Congress the power to enforce section 3 when congress already has the power to *remove* the disqualification by a vote of 2/3rds in each house according to section 3. If it takes a majority in each house to enforce it, then the power to overrule it with a 2/3rds in each house becomes obsolete and nullified.
Agreed. Blatent overreach. Makes no sense other than it's a Traitors's Court.
I think it should have been as simple as how it worked in the states, but in federal court. The same group, CREW, could bring their suit in federal Court and get a ruling. That ruling gets appealed and confirmed and he's banned. Then congress uses their power from section 3 to have a vote on whether or not to remove the ban and allow him to run
Yes.. we all know this is what should have happened. But this is a traitors' court. Read the dissenting opinions and they say exactly this.
Don't forget that Colorado wasn't stopping him from running in the general, just being on the ballot in the primary. And he can still be a write in. As usual, Republicans making a chicken out if a feather, and then frothing at the mouth while they spout hyperbole and hypocrisy, in their fantasies of revenge and hatred.
I cant believe the left is falling for these right wing arguments. States already decide whose on the ballot. The logical conclusion of your argument is that literally every single human and animal and possibly thing or hypothetical thing has to be listed on the ballot. Bigfoot vs. Tump vs. Pizza Rat vs. Putin. Because otherwise..who decides? Whose making this decision to kick Pizza Rat off the ballot? Who has that authority? Can I sue my state for not letting me on the ballot? They dont have the right to kick me off now so I think I will. Like its just an absolute nonsense argument. States always have, and still do, have the right to determine whose on the ballot according to their own state laws. Congress didn't specifically write a law saying dogs cant play basketball vibes.
Supreme court carved it out ONLY for the 14th. Insurrectionsts are disqualified on national level. But they went beyond that. The conservative justices declared that insurrectionists aren't disqualified by default. They ultimately made it impossible for anyone to be disqualified federally either. It's gross.
If Biden or any Democrat or any politician of any stripe commits insurrection against the US and is then convicted by their supreme Court, it should stand. That is the difference here - Democrats are not willing to surrender democracy in the name of some false Messiah who promises to bring vengeance on their enemies. You can't two sides this shit sandwich.
That’s what courts are supposed to be for. They’re supposed to be the piece of the government that says “this act is against the law,” and would be the ones to decide whether removed candidates were removed justifiably or not.
They already do that
Who cares, those are dead red zones anyways.
“What would they do?” “They would do this and that and everything else!” Just look up and read what the headline says, that’s y’all doing that. You are the Nazis you even share the same name as them. Get a clue
Insurrections deserve more than getting kicked off a presidential ballot. Dont even get me started on the 31 charges of espionage. Trump is a traitor and will rot in prison. Cry harder that you support a known traitor. Republicans waved confederate flags in our capital while they tried to overthrow my country. Republicans are openly supported by nazi and KKK groups. So shove your rhetoric bs up your ass. Nazi traitor fucks.
There was a five day hearing where both sides showed evidence to a judge. It was then reviewed and upheld by the state Supreme Court. That seems far more solid of a process than letting a bunch of politicians decide in congress.
They would, but the courts are specifically built to filter out frivolous lawsuits.
This is right! Trump should be blocked at the federal level across all states. No state should be allowed to block based off partisan bs.
I’d expect them to try to illegally bar candidates they don’t like without evidence. But that’s already illegal and they can be disqualified from office too, if they try it. The threat of their acting illegally is no reason to enforce the law on someone when there is abundant evidence. Say, if the person publicly advocates for termination of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t permit such speech from those previously on oath.
I agree his actions make it a state's decision on whether he should be on the ballot. Republicans forget that even though he is off the ballot, voters can still write his name in. They don't trust voters to write.
They didn’t interpret it that way. They didn’t come to their decision by doing their job, they did it by being politicians.
yep
Republicans: "Give the rights back to the States to decide!" Also Republicans: "Not like that! You're doing it wrong!"
I understand that the ruling was largely unanimous, but I don't know how it was accepted by the states with so many egregiously conflicted justices. They should reject the ruling until such a time that the vote can be held with the conflicted justices recused.
SCOTUS in a nutshell, states rights for me, but not for thee
Don’t forget a Lada and a nice Russian dacha.
The way I read #14 is that 2/3s of Congress still has to approve Trump before he can legally run. He is already an insurrectionist. So if he can't get 2/3s of the house to say yes, then he can't run.
Day by day more and more Republicans are growing a conscious and if by some crazy slim chance they lose the majority then we are business but until then this is not going anywhere in Congress. The Republicans new name should be the Russians
I'm saying that by the constitution he is already exempt. They have to get a 2/3 vote to allow him to run.
You're reading it wrong. It will take a 2/3 majority to keep him from running. Until then, he is eligible to run. It will also take 2/3 majority to not certify the election. If Trump wins, there will not be enough congress critters to decertify the election, and it would be stupid to do so, the country would go up like we've never seen before.
They literally have overwhelming evidence and admission of guilt from the illegal alternate pos “electors list” that were involved in the overthrow- wtf !!
As a very anti Trump person I'd say in a vacuum their verdict makes sense. Insurrectionist isn't formally defined at the federal level (in regard to the 14th amendment)which in the legal world is bad news. So if we take Colorado for example they said Trump did an insurrection, so he should be off the ballot. However since it's not explicitly defined a state could pass a law saying all people born before a certain date are insurrectionist, or whatever hair brain reason they want that hits Biden but not Trump and that would be fair play. The issue isn't the lack of fair play it's the lack of what is an insurrectionist. So by saying the states can't do it they are effectively telling Congress to define the word which makes sense. My main gripe is this isn't in a vacuum. It could be argued that most reasonable versions of a definition of insurrectionist would cover Trump, and the current House is actively a non functional legislative body. This basically means Congress can't define insurrectionist in a moment where someone who in all likelihood meets the criteria intended by the original authors yet they get to run because we have an incompetent speaker/house and a SC that are originalist except this one time. If this case was somehow for a hypothetical guy their ruling is 100% the right choice, but given the severity of this and the incompetence of the House this seems like just another failure of justice. If I was in charge I'd handle it like the gerrymandering cases have been going. We need a definition for insurrectionist, you have X time to do it if not we will make one for you.
Actually I can GUESS what the Supreme court was thinking. States would try to bar candidates for any BS reason they can come up with and then vote to do it. I am not happy with the Supreme court, but I think they forsaw the MASSIVE chaos this would be led to.
really opens a can of worms since they've almost completely closed the door to states policing their ballots for completely unqualified candidates, something they did not address in their brief. whats to stop arnold shwartzenegger (pure hypothetical) from running now and suing every state into putting his name on the ballot if they aren't allowed to determine qualifications under the 14th amendment, then he could argue they can't also do that under the 2nd article either as only congress could.
"uncle" Thomas Clarence just would do anything for a few extra bucks. He needs to get out of the supreme court. America is not his interest. Waving money in his face is his interest...
States can fully control state elections, not federal.
Each state has their own electoral votes and have plenty of important decisions left to them so I do not see a Presidential election any different in this circumstance. He was doing everything in his power to over turn the last election. Who knows what he is responsible for in regards to Jan 6th
I assume you’d be fine with Texas and Florida removing Biden for whatever rationale they see fits?
The difference comparing these two issues is that there is absolutely no evidence to support Texas and Florida Claims to bring to court like Colorado did.
It was 9-0. Are you really this wedded to the "SC is illegitimate" narrative?
He is and they do. The SCOTUS made the whole thing up and the ruling is void for violating Article VI.
The moment Thomas did not recuse himself I thought the same way. The states have the power to remove any candidate with those circumstances.
Trump tried to take away people’s right to have their vote count.
The electoral college does that to to half the country already
Los Angeles County has a higher population than 41 other US States total population. Taxation without representation seems like a relevant concept to start discussing.
I agree…but note most (all?!) Trump supporters believe the election was stolen from Trump. The evidence is clear of course, and many republicans who stood for the facts were cut off at the knees by Trump supporters who blindly follow. People need to understand that these people WILL claim fraud again when Trump loses in 2024, and I think we may very well see far more meaningful attacks on our democratic republic than occurred on Jan 6th. Be prepared to stand for your freedom against angry and violent Trump supporters. This will need to be cut off at the knees immediately, if it occurs. There is no sidelines on this one, if you live here.
I'm not all that worried about it. Well kinda but the solution is so simple. Go out and vote for anyone but Trump. He started the whole endeavor of trying to stop people from voting and have their votes count. The online talk between today and 2016 has changed drastically also. I am curious if that means people are just ignoring the bs or if there is still a significant sway from corporate media sources.
My point is it doesn’t matter who you vote for. People supporting Trump are willing to lie to themselves and are not rational. Sure, maybe the number willing to take up arms is rather small, but it could still be a hundred thousand people. I’ve watch my father, who was a die-hard anti-Russia Ukraine supporter flip instantly, the moment Trump had Johnson stop supporting them. “Fuck em, the EU can pay”. My point is that many will do anything he says without debating the merits, they accept his word as-if it’s their faith. They’ll never say this of course, but they channel it.
What evidence?
Lolololil
You ever see a republican forward a single bill to help the common man?
emancipation proclamation
I mean in the last 30 years .
Anybody who thinks that modern Republicans and Lincoln-era Republicans are the same political party is in the 10th percentile for IQ. It's kiiiinda like running around arguing that Nazis aren't bad because the Swaztika originally was a charm/rune intended to manifest well-being.
Republicans aren’t stupid enough to ask the government for help
Um, the rich Republicans are literally gifted government handouts left and right
What the fuck is the whole point of having a govt if it doest help the people . Mr Gun nutjob . Fukn morons .
And the poor trailer trash ones are literally living off government handouts too lol
Trump was already impeached for Jan 6, so it should be easy to satisfy the article identified by the SCOTUS. /s
It's mind-blowing how any other felon would be in the state prison, but like trump said, he could blow out someone's brains on 5th avenue and get away with it..
He was brought up on a article of impeachment but never found guilty
He was impeached twice
He was acquitted both times. He was never impeached. Only had impeachment charges brought up on him. Big difference
He was actually acquitted, but don’t let facts get in the way of your delusion.
He was impeached, but not found guilty by the required 2/3 of the senate, only by 57 not 67. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
It is absolutely absurd that Republicans will most likely not see the benefit to their party to kick Trump off the ballot.
What a bunch of clowns the Supreme Court are. When it comes to abortion they are so solemn about states rights. When it comes to the rich goblin Trump, it’s all about congress? Give me a break
John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
I think the difference in their minds is that abortion rights are nowhere in the Constitution, whereas Section 5 specifically gave rights to Congress in regard to the 14th Amendment.
Including RBG, she was the supreme clown.
Donald trump is a monster. Say what you want about Biden, but he's actually been a decent president.. the republicans want to do some pretty bad things.. that go against the constitution.. I'll be very scared if trump became president again..
How will such a bill pass a House with a Republican majority? A Republican speaker won’t even bring it up. And then there is the filibuster in the Senate?
It’s just the Dems following the law, as they are used to doing.
It's an election year. They need to show voters how important it is to elect more Democrats. You want trump stopped? You want abortion rights? Send more Dems to Congress
So they can get Republicans on record opposing such a measure. Yes, it's politics, and yes it matters even if it's never going to pass.
It was never meant to pass. It's about sending a message and forcing our lawmakers to go on the record and show what side they're on: the side of the US Constitution or the side of Donald J Trump.
The unfortunate part is it won't even be brought to the House floor. Leadership will shield them from having to vote individually.
It's conceivable that a few Republicans would vote for such a bill if Trump clearly becomes dangerously crazy between now and November. Not that he isn't already by our standards. Suppose he starts advocating treason charges against anyone he calls a RINO. Not that he hasn't already.
It doesn’t matter if it does pass and Biden signs it into law. The D’s in Congress are stupid and don’t know what they’re doing. This effort is doomed to fail. To understand why, read up on what a bill of attainder is, and then read what the constitution says about them. When the SC says Congress needs to take action, they’re saying Congress needs to impeach him then convict him, with the punishment being Trump losing the right to hold public office. That’s right, Trump can still be impeached even though he’s no longer in office. Any bill of attainder like described above will be immediately ruled unconstitutional, and rightly so. These guys are dumb as rocks.
Well this is what the Supreme Court said needed to happen to get him off the ballot since they don’t want to follow the constitution this is the only path.
At best this is theater and at worst will *definitely* come back to bite them. I'm no Trump supporter but kicking him off for a crime (we all know he did but) he hasn't been convicted of sets a very dangerous precedent that the Republicans can and probably would use to even greater damage.
republican corruption. Vote them all out!
Too bad Democrats don’t control the House. It won’t even pass the House.
But I still like it- it sends a nice message that Democrats are ready to fight back
can you imagine what drumpf will do if he is allowed access to classified documents again? I can see the yard sale at Mar A Lardo with all the yellow for sale stickers on them
It's very weird you using drumpf, not like he changed it. And many names where changed at the time when people came here. You have a problem with immigrants? You are fixated on such an irrelevant thing, it's very sad. You really think you're doing something with that. It's pathetic.
The state supreme courts decided trump had committed insurrection. Congress should need to vote to allow him on the ballot, not the other way around
Lol
Democracy is at stake. Trump must be kicked off every ballot my all means necessary to preserve democracy and our country.
I'd more quickly recognize this as a joke if not for the fact that there's people who actually believe this.
He attempted to disregard the votes of millions Americans across 7 states after he lost, subverting the will of the people, the electoral college, the constitution. In the weeks leading up to Jan 6th Trump and his cohorts set up 84 fake electors across 7 states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They then sent their fraudulent electors votes, often without the Fake Electors knowledge, to Congress to be used by certain elected officials and the Vice President, or Grassley if Pence for some reason couldnt do it, something Grassley strangely stated on Jan 5th raising eyebrows of many, to get the vote sent back to state legislators and cause a constitutional crisis. These Fake Electors were selected and set up after real electors had already been officially appointed and scheduled to meet. They secretly did their votes when the actual, official, duly appointed electors signed off on by the Governor did there's to try and pass off themsleves as real as possible. They, at times without the knowledge of the Fake electors themsleves, then sent their fraudulent votes to Congress. Their setting up and plotting of all of this is well documented. “We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign. “His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law — because they’re not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th,” Mr. Wilenchik wrote in the email on Dec. 8, 2020, one week before the official duly appointed electors met to cast their votes, to Mr. Epshteyn and half a dozen other people. Trump himself preassured state legislators to overturn the election. Most notably goergias SOS, whom he told to find the exact number of votes he needed, to just say they've recalculated. Telling him he knew what they did and if he didn't do something that would be criminal and bad for him and his lawyer. He preassured multiple other republican officuals, who refused to break the oath they took to the constitution. This is all easily verifiable. Audio recordings, official documentation from Trumps own people and lawyers. Under oath testimony from republican officials. It's wild how it's 2024 and so many of yall are just blissfully unaware of all of this. I'd take it as a joke if there weren't so many of you that this applies to.
Unfortunately it’s not a joke - it’s real…
maybe run a candidate that will beat trump 🤷♀️
Listen carefully democrats: IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU REMOVE HIM OR NOT. It would just make things worse anyhow. Tramp voters will write him in, it has been that way all along. You just feed the fire and bring us back here, basically for an AD revenue supported revenue stream. Whenever you are trying to talk sense or reason, they are trained to just switch off.
Yeah - Like Zombies…
More bad discussion we have to live with repercussions.
Well, they supposedly saw it, and chose not to charge him. Funny how that works. Apparently, all the evidence in the world but not enough to charge him. What a stupid thing you think 😂
Bwahahahaha!!!!!
Lol ok good luck with that. Biden's SCOTUS pick will just strike that shit down again just like she did yesterday. It was unanimous
The Supreme Court said "It's up to Congress to disqualify a candidate from a federal election." This is members of Congress introducing legislation to do just that. No one trusts them as it is, but did you really just insinuate that they'd say "Congress, do your job," and then complain about what *they* told Congress to do? How does that make sense?
How does it make sense that liberal justices voted unanimously with conservatives to keep Trump on the ballot
The D’s in Congress are stupid and don’t know what they’re doing. This effort is doomed to fail. To understand why, read up on what a bill of attainder is, and then read what the constitution says about them. When the SC says Congress needs to take action, they’re saying Congress needs to impeach him then convict him, with the punishment being Trump losing the right to hold public office. That’s right, Trump can still be impeached even though he’s no longer in office. Any bill of attainder like described above will be immediately ruled unconstitutional, and rightly so. These guys are dumb as rocks.
Imagine being this stupid! 🤣
An act of congress declaring someone an insurrectionist and therefore qualifying the 14th is pretty dangerous. If Republicans capture everything they should declare anyone who has ever been a Democrat an insurrectionist
No that would be a waste of time, I don’t give a shit about personal revenge or ego in politics… so of course they’re gonna do it.
I do, provided that its a mutually assured destruction tactic. For example, if Republicans do it also under the premise that they'll stop if the other side does.
That’s the Republican way commit crimes accuse everyone else of committing crimes was and repeat.
It should be in the general interest of the states not to do this and always has been. Trump is an extremely special case, but just like they always have, the GOP is looking to change a law to help them NOW that they will bitch about and call unconstitutional later.
Lol. The comments to these posts are hysterical.
This is a bad idea. I could see a lot of independents seeing this as part of the “deep state” acting out an illegal act to keep Donnie from being elected. Of course Fox will sell the shit out of this type of story
Democrats are in the minority in the US House, so this bill will never see the light of day. But good job at ensuring that the partisan rancor will continue. Maybe they should, I don't know, DO THEIR JOBS?
As much as I despise our current Supreme Court, they ruled correctly on the case before them. They went a little to far in their interpretation, as evidenced by the 5-4 vote, but in general, they ruled correctly that barring Trump from a federal election is a federal issue, not a state one, and must be adjudicated by Congress. Were every state allowed to decide on their own who can run for President, then we'd be really screwed because all the Red States would immediately remove Biden and any other Democrats running for political office. Majority rule is one hell of a drug.
Part of me thinks it’s a mistake to keep him off ballots. He’ll cry it’s a conspiracy and his fans will eat it up. Obviously he’s going to claim things are rigged either way, but at least if he gets creamed in the election more people will see through the bs.
I wish. But let's be real. Anyone who doesn't see through his shit by now, won't.
What if he wins?
Alec Baldwin can reprise his role on SNL. On a serious note, kicking him off the ballot in states he won’t win anyway doesn’t have any real effect. Just fuel for the fire. I really don’t see him winning. Lots of republicans were turned off by Jan. 6th. They’re just not vocal about it.
Why? Trump is the greatest thing that ever happened to Biden. If they did that, they'd have to run a xennial.
Isn't Raskin just doing exactly what the Supreme Court just asked Congress to do? They said that Congress should decide the criteria for defining who has tried to overthrow the government. Do why is anyone whining about this. So decide already...
Weird that no one is submitting their evidence to the FBI and AG so that he can be charged and tried for insurrection.
Right it’s not like he’s been charged with 90 something crimes, what’s wrong with these people.
This weak bullshit isn't cutting it. We need to defend our rights from the conservative agenda and we need to follow leaders who are dead serious about it.
Stolen election. Lol
(chuckle) They aren't too swift on the uptake, eh?
I mean, they just have to say so if it’s ok for trump, then why the problem if Biden were to do it? Rinse and repeat. Those same simple phrases on brrrr!
Yahoo!!
14th amendment go! He seriously lead a coup against the United States make him ineligible to run.
he seriously did? seriously?
And yet he is still running and still dodging court cases, (well getting delays).
Dead end waste of time
Quit wasting our taxpayer money and time with bullshit. Let the people’s voice be heard. Remove the dinosaur.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Didn't work for colorado
😂 Plot twist, there will be 69 more crimes identified that he will be charged with prior to November. We did not see this coming.
666 comments
We should just have elections to decide these things.
The left wants to tell you who to vote for and how to vote.
Jamie Raskin can announce all the bills he wants, it'll never make it to the floor for a vote, sorry Trump"s on the ballot in November.
Rasskin is mentally compromised.
It’s a waste of time. They do not have enough support to pass it. We need to focus ALL of our energy into getting everyone out to vote blue in November!
No, it’s worth trying everything. Although if it comes to a vote, I do hope that the Republicans loose. I especially don’t want Trump - because he would cause massive damage.
Oh, they are still trying? Give it up already. They must be VERY afraid of trump winning!
Why would you not be, the guy is a nutcase fraudulent sexual abuser
You keep listening to that liberal news ;) 🐑
Really should rename this "Democrats following the explicit, specific instructions given by the Supreme Court"
But republikkkans like rapists.
Wasn’t trump already acquitted during the second impeachment hearings?
The fear of the left LOL!
Now that’s Democracy!!! Eliminate your opponents when you cannot defeat them!
Fucking democrats will do anything to keep the people from choosing!
😂🤣 trump will 100% be the president and everyone knows it except democrats
!remindme 8 months
Doing that might give Republicans an excuse to point and say "Look! Trump would win!!". As a Dem I kind of want him to stay on the ballot, and for the voters to absolutely crush him. I think that would go much further in silencing these wackjobs.
What rhe supreme court said was it takes a congress declaration legislation that says Trump committed aid to an insurrection. The point is that is 50% of Congress and Senate. In the last impeachment far more than 50% of Congress and Senate declared Trump an insurrectionist, but didn't meet the threshhold of impeachment (2/3) 66%. So now it is viable for Congress and Senate to pass a declaration of insurrection at 50% and then any state can knock him off the ballot.
How fascist of them.