• echo@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Sadly, the ‘right thing’ in this case actually is to rule against Colorado. It will be an utter shit-show with each state deciding which candidates can or can’t run in their state if this is upheld.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s based on a legal theory from the constitution. There’s no grey area on this one, just what brand of feelings people use to justify their position.

      There is actually good reason to keep someone off a ballot who attempts a coup, and tries to take power by undemocratic means. And it’s not really that hard to see where the reasoning comes in.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      9 months ago

      States already do that with minimums on signatures for third parties and other ballot requirements.

      This just happens to affect one of the two big parties.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      I kinda get what you mean, but this is a candidate who tried to overthrow the government. There’s legal and logical basis for excluding them from being a candidate.

      • echo@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Oh, they should absolutely be excluded. I’m just saying it should be done at the federal level. You’d see Texas, Missouri, and a bunch of other states removing Biden if the ruling didn’t come down as it did.

    • thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Meh, elections are already a shit-show. The popular vote is disregarded, and the candidate with fewer votes can win…this is a undemocratic. Democracy is fundamentally broken already.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      Bullshit. Colorado already decides which candidates can or can’t run un their state. They did in 2012 when they disqualified a presidential candidate. The case went to court, and justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion that yes of course Colorado has that right.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Go read the Constitution before you spout nonsense. Each state has always had the right to decide which candidates can or can’t run.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I agree with you in general.

      But it’s not a flaw SCOTUS has any business fixing. It needs to be done via Congress, and probably a constitutional amendment.

      America’s entire federal voting system is…not done federally. Each state is left to decide how it wants to run its elections themselves, with the states drawing electoral boundaries, deciding rules for who’s eligible to vote, how the physical act of voting is done, etc. This is an utterly insane way to run a national election. States can set their own rules for state elections, maybe, but federal elections should be consistent nation-wide.

      Until Congress fixes this incredibly fundamental flaw in the US electoral system, states have the right to do shit like this whether for good (and hopefully we can all agree that anything that keeps Trump out of office is good) or ill (because you just know Republicans will twist it in states they control).