• neptune@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    If Congress must act to re instate a candidate but almost must act to bar a candidate, why was the amendment written the way it was? Pretty stupid they want Congress to make the determination.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      They were probably all afraid that banning Trump on the ballot would tear so violently at the fabric of the country that it could end in a civil war with armed members of Trump’s base roaming the streets creating chaos.

      This ruling is very unsurprising to me. I’d been very surprised if they had gone the other way.

      The US is a very unhealthy country.

      Edit: Spelling

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        So they’ve traded almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as a direct result of their decision, for…

        checks notes

        …almost-certain major civil unrest, and perhaps eventual civil war, as an indirect result of their decision, and also get a fascist government.

  • fcSolar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Oh look another illegal power grab by the supreme dipshits. 14th amendment section 3 states only Congress may remove an insurrectionist’s inability to hold office, not SCOTUS.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That’s not how the opinion works. The Supremes said states can’t remove candidates from the federal ballot under the insurrection clause. They can remove state candidates. It doesn’t rule on anything else.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The rest of their reasoning was basically “Congress can’t do this shit, it’d be a mess, so we’ll step up and reverse that clause.”

        They specifically said they will enforce the constitution as they see fit.

  • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I told everyone for months that sec 5 clearly says ONLY Congress can remove him. I wish I had bookmarked everyone that old me I was a bot or Russian that doesn’t know what they are talking about.