The court heard arguments about whether the former president’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election disqualify him from again holding office. Justices across the ideological spectrum questioned several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court.
  • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    7·
    9 months ago

    There’s a long history of states deciding to keep people off the ballot for other reasons the Constitution disqualifies them, such as not being 35. It’s also pretty common for minor-party candidates to only qualify for the ballot in some states.

    None of this has caused chaos.

    • ZK686@lemmy.world
      17·
      9 months ago

      You’re talking about enforcing certain laws to keep them off, that’s different than what Colorado’s doing. Colorado is deciding on their own that Trump is guilty of something, and therefore, must be kept off the ballot. Our voting system can’t allow states to determine who’s guilty of what, and who to keep of the ballots, simply based on opinion.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
        11·
        9 months ago

        We literally have an amendment to the constitution to keep insurrectionists off the ballot. That’s a form of law

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
            11·
            9 months ago

            Finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection was part of how Colorado got to booting him from the ballot.

            A criminal conviction has never been a requirement for keeping somebody out of office under the 14th amendment

            • beardown@lemm.ee
              14·
              9 months ago

              SCOTUS disagrees with you. And their opinion of Constitutional legality is ultimately the only one that has any relevance

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
                7·
                9 months ago

                They haven’t actually issued a ruling at this point. And I don’t have to agree even if they do

                • beardown@lemm.ee
                  12·
                  9 months ago

                  Obviously they haven’t issued an opinion, but their comments today make it clear what they’re going to do

                  My point is that you can’t put forth any authoritative argument on this matter when SCOTUS is just going to rule for Trump. And they ultimately decide what the Constitution means and does not mean.

                  Legally, they are sovereign over the interpretation of all aspects of the constitution. So saying that they’re being hypocritical or are ignoring precedent isn’t really relevant. They’re allowed to do that.

                  • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
                    2·
                    9 months ago

                    And if they do, it becomes one more reason to alter the court to fix their corrupt behavior

                  • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
                    1·
                    9 months ago

                    Legally even that is pretty dubious. Didn’t they just randomly give themselves that power once and we all agreed to let them have it?