US Politics: The sides have gotten… weird

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Surprising no one except Ser Scot, the Supreme Court rules that Colorado and other states cannot keep Trump off the ballot for committing insurrection. 

I never said that would surprise me.  I said it wouldn’t.  I said the alternative ruling was… possible.  This was a 9-0 ruling.  So… all three liberals joined in.

[Maithanet]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I never said that would surprise me.  I said it wouldn’t.  I said the alternative ruling was… possible.  This was a 9-0 ruling.  So… all three liberals joined in.

And I said that there was no possibility that the SC would rule in favor of throwing Trump off the ballot.  A 9-0 ruling is certainly consistent with that. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

And I said that there was no possibility that the SC would rule in favor of throwing Trump off the ballot.  A 9-0 ruling is certainly consistent with that. 

Allowing individual State to make this call was always a hard sell. This isn’t a huge win for Trump… the certification of the power of State officials to determine candidates for State offices may be DQ’d under the 14th isn’t insignificant.

Edited March 4 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Jace, Extat]

9 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

No. Delivering a modicum of justice is not, in fact, "opening fissures."

 

We've never had states taking candidates off ballots before. It doesn't matter that he's guilty, we all know he's guilty. What matters (to me) is that it's a cycle of escalation, of course Texas was going to look into taking Biden off the ballot as a response. Anyone could see that coming a mile away - you don't see how that's catastrophic for the health of the nation? I never said he wasn't guilty, or that he shouldn't be held responsible for his actions. Only that I don't find joy in them. 

Whatever can be said about your examples of Republican skullduggery, we at least didn't have states taking candidates who enjoy half the country's support off ballots. 

Again, I'm not even necessarily saying Colorado and others acted wrongly, I'm just saying that the situation is not good at all when we're crossing these kinds of bridges.

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

How in the world can you blame the fissures and dysfunctions and hatreds on  HIS legal situations? All of his own making? Thus suggesting further his manifold criminal and treasonous actions should be ignored,?  That's what he says!

U may not have meant that but what you commented comes through like that.

 

Like I said above, the right answer wasn't to just let him skip away. I know that. I just can't enjoy the most popular politician in the country tearing holes in the fabric of our political system on his way down. I don't hate Trump more than I love my country, I just don't. I can say that easily while knowing he's guilty, that he deserves to be shot, and that his legal flailing is like an unregulated cancer devouring our structures of justice and government. 

I'm not saying he shouldn't be facing charges, just that I find no joy in them. The overall picture is too dark for that.

Edited March 4 by Jace, Extat

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

you don't see how that's catastrophic for the health of the nation?

What health?

5 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Again, I'm not even necessarily saying Colorado and others acted wrongly, I'm just saying that the situation is not good at all when we're crossing these kinds of bridges.

It’s all in where you’re standing, as that famous author had a character say… From where I’m standing it was Mango who crossed all bridges and then nuked them. Like when he was asked pretty please to return all the documents he stole and refused to do so. And now to have him not only cross a number of bridges and nuke them, but he should be let off the hook b/c it wouldn’t be good for the country to apply the rule of law to an indecent racist fascist criminal. The mind boggles.

[Kalbear]

48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Allowing individual State to make this call was always a hard sell. This isn’t a huge win for Trump… the certification of the power of State officials to determine candidates for State offices may be DQ’d under the 14th isn’t insignificant.

This is a huge win for Trump. It means that anyone can participate in an insurrection and then run for office, and only congress can determine whether or not they actually did participate in an official insurrection and make them invalid. This does, interestngly, two things in my mind:

- it absolutely makes sure that no Republican will ever be taken off a ballot or considered invalid for now and in the future.

- It can be used to ensure that a given democrat could be taken off a ballot or considered invalid in the future. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is a huge win for Trump. It means that anyone can participate in an insurrection and then run for office, and only congress can determine whether or not they actually did participate in an official insurrection and make them invalid. This does, interestngly, two things in my mind:

- it absolutely makes sure that no Republican will ever be taken off a ballot or considered invalid for now and in the future.

- It can be used to ensure that a given democrat could be taken off a ballot or considered invalid in the future. 

Nope.  The New Mexico election official who was removed for participating in the insurrection, under the text of this holding, stays removed unless Congress restores his ability to hold office by a two thirds majority.  

If the decision is as bad as you claim why did Sotamayor, Jackson, and Kagan join in the result in the per curium decision?

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Nope.  The New Mexico election official who was removed for participating in the insurrection, under the text of this holding, stays removed unless Congress restores his ability to hold office by a two thirds majority.  

If the decision is as bad as you claim why did Sotamayor, Jackson, and Kagan join in the result in the per curium decision?

Because they wanted to rule that the states couldn't decide by themselves. They specifically said that they absolutely do not agree with SCOTUS deciding the specific mechanism for how the federal government makes this decision and that that made it far too broad. Barrett also thought it was too broad but took a bonus action to yell at the liberals for disagreeing openly. 

I think you're simply incorrect for any federal office. States can choose how they deal with any state-office however they please, but for any federal office SCOTUS has laid out specifically what needs to be done for that person to be ruled ineligible - it is an act of congress to say under section five specifically how the 14th amendment should be enforced. And if there is not legislation passed by congress to do so...it doesn't get enforced.

So now, the only way that the 14th amendment can be used is by either a federal crime that specifically states an insurrection or rebellion happened, or congress stating that. 

[Gorn]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So now, the only way that the 14th amendment can be used is by either a federal crime that specifically states an insurrection or rebellion happened, or congress stating that. 

Which is how it should be. Much better than any random state deciding that they would prefer not to have multi-party elections.

[Ormond]

On 3/2/2024 at 12:51 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Well… according to Putin… if you speak Russian you are Russian… so…

Thank heaven neither Zelenskyy nor I have to agree with Putin.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because they wanted to rule that the states couldn't decide by themselves. They specifically said that they absolutely do not agree with SCOTUS deciding the specific mechanism for how the federal government makes this decision and that that made it far too broad. Barrett also thought it was too broad but took a bonus action to yell at the liberals for disagreeing openly. 

I think you're simply incorrect for any federal office. States can choose how they deal with any state-office however they please, but for any federal office SCOTUS has laid out specifically what needs to be done for that person to be ruled ineligible - it is an act of congress to say under section five specifically how the 14th amendment should be enforced. And if there is not legislation passed by congress to do so...it doesn't get enforced.

So now, the only way that the 14th amendment can be used is by either a federal crime that specifically states an insurrection or rebellion happened, or congress stating that. 

I didn’t say federal office.  I said State office.  The opinion specifically states do have the power to enforce 14th Amendment, Section 3 as to State officials.

[Kalbear]

21 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Which is how it should be. Much better than any random state deciding that they would prefer not to have multi-party elections.

No, it isn't how it should be; in particular, congress by itself is not a requirement. I agree that the federal government should establish how they want to do it; what I disagree with strongly is that SCOTUS tells the federal government specifically how they should establish it and what they must do in order to determine whether or not an insurrection as defined by the 14th applies. That was overreach and effectively obliterates any power the 14th has, making it another type of impeachment. 

I already agreed that states should not have the power and said so before. SCOTUS not only made that clear, they made it clear that there will be no effective way to deny Trump the office regardless of the result of his criminal trials or any other information. 

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I didn’t say federal office.  I said State office.  The opinion specifically states do have the power to enforce 14th Amendment, Section 3 as to State officials.

Okay, but who cares? That wasn't part of the issue anyway. If you think that that's a bigger deal than Trump or any other person ever being denied office because they led a rebellion against the US I think that's on you. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, but who cares? That wasn't part of the issue anyway. If you think that that's a bigger deal than Trump or any other person ever being denied office because they led a rebellion against the US I think that's on you. 

I don’t want Trump to hold office ever again.  But I do think the 9-0 holding is significant and allowing enforcement of the 14th amendment, section 3 on a piecemeal State by State basis is non-viable.  

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t want Trump to hold office ever again.  But I do think the 9-0 holding is significant and allowing enforcement of the 14th amendment, section 3 on a piecemeal State by State basis is non-viable.  

Of course it's significant; it means that there is effectively no bar for Trump or any other insurrectionist from holding office as long as they reasonably succeed in taking over one of the parties. Again, it means effectively that it is just another form of impeachment, toothless and useless in all but the most absurd scenarios. From the decision's dissent by the liberals:

Quote

 

That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, SOTOMAYOR,KAGAN,JACKSON,JJ., concurring in the judgment 2 TRUMP v. ANDERSON SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in judgment five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

 

That it hilariously quotes the Dobbs decision in showing why the majority is full of shit is awesome but not surprising; the majority is once again not interested in consistency in application of rulings or law but only in power, and has never been particularly subtle about it.  

[Jaxom 1974]

Isn't it at least a little significant that this SC ruling refused to state unequivocally that Trump did not participate in an insurrection, as the Colorado Court did? Wasn't that a major piece of what he wanted from this?

[Altherion]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, it isn't how it should be; in particular, congress by itself is not a requirement. I agree that the federal government should establish how they want to do it; what I disagree with strongly is that SCOTUS tells the federal government specifically how they should establish it and what they must do in order to determine whether or not an insurrection as defined by the 14th applies. That was overreach and effectively obliterates any power the 14th has, making it another type of impeachment.

I don't think that's what the decision says. The text of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Court does not specify that Congress has to vote on every single instance of determining what is an insurrection. All it is saying is that based on this enforcement clause, Congress (and nobody else!) must come up with the rules for this with respect to federal elections and these rules will apply for every state rather than each state deciding who is disqualified.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Isn't it at least a little significant that this SC ruling refused to state unequivocally that Trump did not participate in an insurrection, as the Colorado Court did? Wasn't that a major piece of what he wanted from this?

They do state unequivocally that Trump was defeated in the 2020 election and refer to him as “Former President Trump”.

Edited March 4 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Kalbear]

33 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think that's what the decision says. The text of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Court does not specify that Congress has to vote on every single instance of determining what is an insurrection. All it is saying is that based on this enforcement clause, Congress (and nobody else!) must come up with the rules for this with respect to federal elections and these rules will apply for every state rather than each state deciding who is disqualified.

You can take it up with the liberal court justices and Barrett then, because they disagree.

[Many-Faced Votary]

The Supreme Court trying to polish the turd with a paper-thin veneer of impartiality by refusing to exonerate Trump of insurrection (have we seriously sunk so low as to praise SCOTUS when they do less than the bare minimum?) is irrelevant in context.

That context being that the 5-4 majority that went beyond the judgment to answer a legal question that was not even presented has rendered the Insurrection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment effectively inoperable. The rationale is that because Section V empowers Congress to enforce the Amendment, it must do so in every case the Amendment applies. This is mind-boggling sophistry, not to mention a profound legal pitfall.

The so-called Constitutional Originalists on the Court have decided that rather than Section III being the self-executing disqualification it was obviously intended to be, it is actually just another form of impeachment. As a result, it faces the same problems impeachment does, including a party fully participating and complicit in rejecting democracy; consequently, it is completely useless.

As far as this case, this tangibly entail two things: [1] that the Constitution does not apply to Donald J. Trump, and [2] that any Republican president in the future is free to attempt additional coups without repercussion. More generally, it means that there is virtually no consequence for Republicans who attempt coups, because Congress alone has the power and means to bar them from federal office.

Even more generally, the ruling could be used to obliterate the whole Fourteenth Amendment, and potentially other Amendments with an enforcement provision. It is now nothing more than a paper shield, as you had better believe Republicans everywhere will cite this case to attack anything protected by it. If Congress must specifically pass legislation to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, its provisions are meaningless. The Justice Department cannot itself enforce the provisions or bring suit to do so. Federal courts cannot order federal or state governments, or private parties, to take action in order to fulfill the law of the land. Congress, and Congress alone, must separately and directly enforce the single most consequential Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I live in a country with a justice system that does not share my values.

Consider me here to pillage and take what I want from it, with no allegiance or duty to it.