The Roberts court cleared the way for the GOP’s leader to become president again, despite his constitutionally disqualifying engagement in insurrection.
  • ddh@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    1043·
    30 days ago

    Trump is not eligible to be president. He’s been legally found by a Colorado court to have engaged in insurrection and the 14th amendment now bars him from the office of president. It’s legally very clear. Will it be enforced? Will the constitution be subverted by the Supreme? Tune in for the last season of America: Democracy!

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      71·
      29 days ago

      It is legally very clear, but not in the way you’re hoping. The Supreme Court ruled—unanimously I would add—that individual states do not have the authority to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify a candidate from federal office. That power lies solely with Congress, which is probably a good thing or we’d have conservative-controlled courts in red states declaring every Democratic presidential nominee ineligible every election cycle.

      While the Court left open the possibility for Congress to act, there is currently no legislation addressing this issue. For Congress to disqualify a candidate under Section 3, they would first need to pass a law, which would require 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster and a simple majority in the House. Only then could they decide the specific voting threshold for disqualification. In reality, this is highly unlikely to happen.

      In the extraordinarily improbable event that Trump wins but somehow Democrats secure a majority in the House and simultaneously expand to 60 Senate seats—or, in an even more bizarre scenario, they hold only 50 seats, abolish the filibuster, and have Vice President Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to disqualify the candidate who defeated her—they could theoretically draft, pass, and enact such legislation. They could then invoke it to disqualify Trump before his inauguration. With a 17-day window between the seating of the new Congress and the president’s swearing-in, this scenario is technically possible, but politically fantastical.

      Such an unlikely scenario, like a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College, would absolutely ignite a political crisis and likely a stochastic civil war in the United States.

      Sadly, the fact is, none of that will happen, and Trump appears to now have a slight edge in the electoral college (he’s currently about 6% more likely to win the EC than Harris according to Silver’s model), it’s quite possible, leaning towards probable, that Trump will win the election, get rid of most of the lawsuits against him, purge and/or dissolve several federal agencies, install loyalists at all levels of the government, and begin his deportation and vengeance tour with a bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS knocking down any attempts to stop him.

      Sorry to be a bummer.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      34·
      29 days ago

      You know Harris’s declining probability of winning is sinking in when we’re hoping the courts will defy the long sequence of continuous nothing they’ve done so far and will suddenly declare Trump ineligible.

      If wishes were fishes, we’d all cast nets.

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          1·
          28 days ago

          The one where major polling aggregators have shown her chances of winning slowly slipping for about a month. Nate Silver’s model now shows Trump’s probability of winning about 8% higher than Harris. See the blue line slowly going down, crossing beneath the red line? Blue line go down = bad. Which world do you live in?

  • rickdg@lemmy.world
    461·
    1 month ago

    At the very least, we come to these elections knowing already that half the country believes that democracy is and should be a joke. No surprises here.

    • SassyRamen@lemmy.world
      171·
      1 month ago

      After seeing these traitorous fuck faces run laps on us, I’m starting to think it is too.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.eeEnglish
    37·
    29 days ago

    If we were following the law to the letter, well…

    Aren’t traitors to the United States meant to be executed?

    For the record this is not a call to violence, I am not suggesting, command, inferring, or anyway implying that someone should harm anyone, but doesn’t the law literally say that insurrectionists are to be hanged?

    • Melllvar@lemmy.world
      23·
      29 days ago

      Treason carries a potential death sentence, or not less than 5 years imprisonment. Treason is also very narrowly defined by the Constitution, and what Trump did probably wouldn’t satisfy the strict legal definition. He is guilty of seditious conspiracy and/or insurrection, which are not punishable by death.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      6·
      29 days ago

      Yeah, I mean, what’s the point of “remembering” this. He is eligible, and he appears to be winning. That ship has sailed.

  • CondensedPossum@lemmy.world
    86·
    30 days ago

    so funny when the slave colonies talk about “legality” and “eligibility”

    hey how many copies of The Mueller Report do you guys use to prop up your bedframes

    do you guys think it was bad to threaten mike pence or are you still confused about the definition of “hanging chads”

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nlEnglish
    36·
    30 days ago

    Remember that he lost the election the first time around and was never a president, anyway