An Illinois state judge on Wednesday barred Donald Trump from appearing on the Illinois’ Republican presidential primary ballot because of his role in the attack at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but she delayed her ruling from taking effect in light of an expected appeal by the former U.S president.
Illinois hates Florida nazis.
I didn’t even need to click on this. :)
pause at 27 seconds and you’ll see DeSantis’s uncle/bro/cousin behind the main guy
This doesn’t even matter. Unless he’s barred from the general election ballot, he’s already won the GOP primaries. Haley just won’t cave until she’s forced to.
Please read the article, it’s for both the primary and general.
Still doesn’t matter, Illinois is pretty solidly blue so a Republican wouldn’t win those electoral votes in the general either way
It kind of does, in that when states see something blatantly unconstitutional they shouldn’t wait for the Supreme Court to say it. Start the procedure and than wait if the Court says it needs to review it, sure.
Ugh…okay…
First I’ll say I can’t stand trump and I absolutely believe he participated in insurrection and as such should be barred from holding federal office.
*With that being said…*the fact remains that he’s not yet been legally convicted/proven of having done so.
I believe it, you believe it, lots of people believe it, and it may well be fact…but there’s been no legal decision that says he participated in an insurrection.
Without that legal ruling…and I can’t believe I’m saying this…I don’t think that states should be able to strike him from national elections based on a federal level law.
It’s less a matter of how I feel about the actual subject and much more because of the legal precedent and implications. Basically, without a legal conviction here, these states are saying, “We (a nebulous definition here that could be as collective as the personally held opinions of a single judge) feel that this person did something so against the best interests of the country that it amounts to insurrection, therefore we’re removing that person from our ballots.”
And while I agree with them in this specific case, it’s not difficult to imagine that, with a precedent like this, you get purple states with a GOP judge, state supreme court, governor, etc. that decide that the Dem candidate in a future election has acted so against their view of the best interests of the nation that they decide it amounts to insurrection and therefore that candidate will be removed from their ballot.
At that point, every single election will be about attempts to remove candidates from ballots in the courts, cheapening and perverting the intentions of 14-3.
To prevent that, IMHO, it needs to be up to the federal level of courts to make such a decision, to say for certain whether a person has violated 14-3, at which point that ruling decides their appearance on a ballot automatically.
Yes, it’s unfortunate because in this case a ruling like that from a federal court is unlikely (and if it comes down, it’s unlikely to withstand SCOTUS and/or get a horribly muddying ruling like “yes he did insurrection but no, we aren’t going to enforce 14-3”) but taking the long view of rule of law and judicial precedent, I just feel that states deciding this matter without trial or conviction is opening Pandora’s box.
Cmon now, there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”
This is like arguing that we can’t punish a murderer with jail time because people will start trying to punish people they disagree with, with jail time.
A convicted murderer, sure we can.
Someone accused of murder? Even if it’s by millions of people? Without a conviction, don’t touch them.
there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”
I agree.
But without any official legal declaration of the latter, it’s no more substantial than the former…and I’ll give you one guess as to which side of the American political system is more willing to abuse that.
I’m not saying Trump should be guaranteed to appear on ballots no matter what…I’m just saying that before he’s removed there needs to be something official. A legal finding that he did indeed participate in insurrection.
Once that’s officially and legally established, then and only then, 14-3 should be invoked.
And for what it’s worth, IMHO, at that point it should be invoked nationwide. As soon as that ruling comes down, Trump is, as a function of that ruling, prevented from appearing on any ballot for any national office, in all states, effective immediately. Any write-in votes for the ineligible candidate are also discarded.
I’m just saying that before he’s removed there needs to be something official. A legal finding that he did indeed participate in insurrection.
Once that’s officially and legally established, then and only then, 14-3 should be invoked.
That’s already happened. There was a finding of fact that Trump participated in insurrection by state of Colorado.
That’s in part why this is the case the USSC has taken up. It is now established legal fact that Trump participated in insurrection, but 14-3 isn’t super clear that it pertains to POTUS, unlike the clarity for Senators and Representatives.
So there’s no question of guilt. That’s established. It’s now a question of applicability.
The other side of that coin is judges deliberately dragging their feet on the matter to make sure he is able to be on the ballot.
We just had the Supreme Court say “yeah, maybe he does have presidential immunity” and delay the proceedings by 90 days instead of taking it up immediately, or just refusing to hear the case.
So our choices are “ignore the insurrection and let him be on the general ballot” and “hold him accountable at the state level.”
Basically, fucked if we do, and fucked if we don’t. But at least this way they are upholding the constitution.
Problem being is that the federal system has shied away from declaring him an insurrectionist, and it’s kind of weird to proceed without the backing of a federal ruling toward the end of enforcing a federal amendment.
It’s a bit disheartening that the justice system spent 4 years with the most obvious evidence on the planet and did not proceed for fear of looking ‘too political’. But as a consequence, I think the states deciding to act on that amendment are lacking the substance to justify their move.
It’s maddening because everyone knows he worked to subvert the free and fair election (the insurrection in my mind is superseded by the whole fake electors/attempted election tampering). But the courts in a position to credibly do something directly on the issue have drug their feet too long.
States have always been the arbiters of eligibility. Taking that away would be novel and against precedent.
The threat of his base retaliating isn’t a reason not to do it. That’s just a large criminal conspiracy, just like if a cartel or gang threatened prosecutors.
Yes and no. It adds legitimacy to removing him from the ballot in purple states.
Haley just won’t cave until she’s forced to.
Haley is clearly staying in for the likely reality that Trump is found guilty and the small chance that the Republican party chooses not to have a convicted federal criminal as their candidate. She knows based on the numbers she has no shot, but she’s angling to stay in so she can swoop in when Trump is disqualified.
How likely that is to happen to up to interpretation, but it’s pretty clear at this point that’s Haley’s game plan.
Haley is clearly staying in for the likely reality that Trump is found guilty and the small chance that the Republican party chooses not to have a convicted federal criminal as their candidate
And because Trump is old and unhealthy and could pass away
Also possibilities: -Trump passes away -Trump leaves the country -Trump runs but loses, and Haley gets “told you so” status as the GOP likely tosses Trump under the bus for delivering so many consecutive losses (2018, his own in 2020, and to some extent the weak 2022 performance can be attributed to his election denial and the party rallying behind that). If the GOP loses in 2024, then I could easily see the party decide they must go ‘beyond Trump’, and politicians that consistently looked ‘anti-Trump’ may be in a strong position in that scenario.
Seeing as she is in her early 50s, which is downright an infant by the standards of the presidential race, she can afford to run a long game of prepping for a likely 2028 race.
Of course if Trump wins in 2024, her political career won’t go anywhere, but it’s a fair bet to plan for the contingency of him losing.
If current disqualifications hold, Trump will have lost access to 33 electoral college votes and needs 270 to win. Assuming it’s Trump vs Biden in the general, that’s almost half a California.
2020 went 306-232. Trump won 2016 304-227 partly due to faithless electors.
At the current pace and schedule of the impending Trump trials, and after accounting for judgments already rendered and how those are affecting Republican party bankrolls, it’s gonna be a blowout. He’s on track to lose another 3 dozen electors by October and that’s guessing hyper conservatively
deleted by creator
Haley is almost as bad for America, and definitely worse for Palestine and Ukraine than Biden, who she is projected to beat. The difference, quite frankly, is just how blatant the corruption will be.
In the debates, Haley pretty strongly advocated to sending lethal aid to Ukraine (I guess you could be arguing that sending aid to Ukraine, prolonging the war, is bad for Ukraine).
The entire Republican party is a threat to democracy and human rights at this point in time. Project 2025 will likely go ahead with any Republican president. Crazy right-wing, christo-fascist, and “states rights” civil servants and justices will be appointed, and they’d probably be able to lock Demcrats out of control of the federal government for decades to come (by allowing intense gerrymandering, strategic polling location placement, giving state governments the ability to override voting results, etc).
I don’t worry that she will end democracy.
She will do a bunch of dumb Republican stuff and make America objectively worse for a lot of people. But the Republic will survive her presidency at least.
Trump, not so much.
Trump was never going to win Illinois anyway.
Correct me if I’m wrong but being removed from the primary ballot has no real standing for general election. It doesn’t matter that he can’t be on the primary when the GOP has chosen him already. It’s just posturing. He hasn’t lost any electoral votes.
You’re not wrong.
You’re not wrong. However, it’s still massively consequential because if he can be taken off the ballot for the primary, he will also be taken off the ballot for the general. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules. Will they decide to create a new legal test at the federal level? Will they throw it back to Congress? Since they supposedly love states rights so much, will they leave it up to each state to decide?
Each option is incredibly consequential. Option 1 allows the Supreme Court to disqualify candidates. Option 2 turns it into a political contest, like an impeachment proceeding. Option 3 is absolute chaos, since we know some states will disingenuously retaliate by removing Biden from their ballot regardless of whether there is any merit to an insurrection charge.
Right. I wasn’t trying to say that this isn’t setting precedent that will help for later rulings. Let’s just not count our chickens before they hatch. Some people are acting like Trump is already down electoral votes because of this, which he isn’t. That’s the only point I was trying to make l.
assuming it’s Trump vs Biden in the general
I was just bored crunching numbers on the ride home but I did say the damn ting
I don’t understand. Assuming it’s Trump vs Biden doesn’t change anything about what I said.
You stopped short again. Cheers.
I just said I didn’t understand your comment. That was your chance to explain to me what you meant or what I was missing. Instead you turned to insults. So I’ll just assume not only was your comment wrong and you couldn’t explain yourself, you took it personally. That’s all the clarification I needed. Cheers!
You feel insulted because I said you stopped short? It’s the truth. I fully and openly qualified what I said as a projection into the general election. Your comment seemed to be based on everything up to the words “in the general.”
I’ll switch to insults if that’s what you really prefer.
You’re an odd little monkey. They didn’t say they were insulted, nor did they try to insult you. You’re being overly hostile at not being understood, and honestly I have no idea what you’re trying to say either.
Literally quotes “assuming it’s Trump vs Biden in the general” to try and prove their point no one understands. Then gets mad that the comment after is made about the literal 8 words they quoted as a rebuttal. You are a comical person.
Yes but we also have this going on.
And what do these people think Trump would do about Israel?
They don’t care. They just don’t want to be an accomplice by voting for Joe Biden.
They’re fine if their inaction leads to Trump winning and fucking up Palestine even more.
At least their ‘conscience’ will be clear.
Dumbfucks.
I’m baffled as to how people can knowingly make things worse and feel good about because what they did was “right”. The whole idea that an action can be right despite making things worse for everyone is completely alien to me, but I know that’s literally how some people think.
Welcome to America, where virtue signaling while making things worse has been refined into an art form.
I’ve literally been told that “not choosing either is the morally correct thing” as if consequences should be thrown out the window.
If they are voting in the primary, I doubt they will skip the general election. It’s more than likely a reminder to the administration that their voter base is not happy with the current decision making. If they are protesting stuff like this, they are most likely D voters anyway (over 90 % of D voters are pro-ceasefire vs 53? % for the R voterbase.
Yeah I’m having a very hard time feeling any comfort with that concept strongly looming.
It’s not just a count of electoral votes, the votes are not ‘50/50’ shot. Colorado has been consistently democrat for 16 years , Illinois and Maine for like 30 years. These weren’t going to Trump no way no how.
is it a blue state ?
Very much so, but like many other US states, the urban area (Chicago) is more liberal and the rural areas are conservative. But on balance the whole state is very Blue.
Southern Illinois may as well be it’s own state. Feels like you’re going back in time to some bizzaro land hellscape mix of 1955 and 2005.
Accurate description, but it’s quicker to just say “may as well be Indiana”.
Idk man, I’ve been to some real Hoosier places in Indiana, and none have them have came close to just how awful places like Cairo, IL feel to be in. It makes Gary look not depressing.
On that note, here’s a somewhat relevant song :)
Yeah, 80% of the state’s population is clustered around Chicago and St Louis. The rest of the state is red af but sparsely populated.
red af but sparsely populated
A.k.a. light pink
Medium
Ya
Okay then. Well, it is still good news.
Crab rave? 🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀
deleted by creator
Nice
Really mixed feelings on this. I think the legal argument probably has merit, although I am not a lawyer. I quite hate Trump, and think there will be negative consequences (possibly very scary!) if he wins. But I do not think that elections in America should be won in the courts.
Edit: I think today is the day I block /c/politics
This is about upholding the actual laws that define the American political system and not some personal smear campaign, dude.
And yet the reaction from certain conservative states is to try to find ways to disqualify Biden. The Fourteenth Amendment was voted in under a particular set of circumstances and whether it applies here is unclear. This will ultimately undoubtedly go to the Supreme Court.
Claiming that we shouldn’t uphold the law, especially when we can see what a huge risk is posed by not holding it, because some other group may try to abuse the law, doesn’t strike me as a very strong argument.
Also, they were explicit during the crafting of this that it was not meant for just the civil war. In fact, the first draft of the amendment explicitly limited it to the civil war, but they generalized the language so that it would apply to future insurrection as well.
The only real question I think the scotus has a legitimate out on this is if they claim it doesn’t count as an insurrection or that he didn’t take part. They might be able to argue that he technically didn’t take an oath that counts he ever took an oath that counts for section 3, but that would clearly just contradict their claim of being originalists in favor of being textualists. Which wouldn’t surprise me because the conservatives on the court appear to have no objective moral compass.
Fair elections, yes.
Trump, through, has been lying and cheating his way through the previous and this election. He literally lies more than he speaks truth but more importantly, he continuously threatens everyone of his opponents and he has a base who will literally support him even if he commits heinous acts.
He has over 90 court accusations running against him running from an enormous amounts of frauds, to insurrection and treason. The guy should be in jail, and others would habe already had the death penalty, yet trump is out here. Did mention the countless amounts of ties he mentioned he wants to he a dictator, how cool dictatorships are, that what the US really needs is a dictator…
At some point you gotta take what you can.
I would note that this has nothing to do with any of those indictments. The Georgia charges stem from attempts to overturn the election results, not from Jan 6. There is nothing disallowing criminals to run for or serve as president. One could argue that in a free democracy it’s very important that criminals be allowed to run, to prevent the law being wielded as a cudgel against political opponents.
Fair point
The election is won in court because GOP chose to support an insurrectionist. They could’ve chosen someone who shouldn’t be barred from holding office.
There’s nothing to be mixed about, unless you believe insurrectionists should be able to hold office.
