• FenrirIII@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 months ago

    The problem is that Republicans will obviously abuse this. They’ve wrecked our justice system across all levels.

    • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is always such a spurious argument; Republicans will do what they’re going to do regardless of precedent. There was no precedent for their attempt to throw out the results of last election but they did it anyway.

    • Rayston@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      Republicans straight up dont give a flying fuck about rules, laws or precedent. They will always do whatever the fuck they want to do. Damn the consequences.

      • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Oh no they do. Their strategy is to push a precedent that fits their agenda little by little. Once they’ve got that president set they can carry out their designs more easily, and spend efforts setting other convenient precedents.

        Like, they are going to continue breaking the rules. But that doesn’t mean the rules aren’t still slowing them down.

    • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      ⬆️ This is the correct answer.

      If they allow individual states to make their own “objective” legal determinations regarding what is or is not an insurrection then you will never have a democratic candidate on the ballot in any Republican majority controlled state ever again. They will take that as carte blanche authority to say that every single Democrat is a traitor to the Constitution, and is unfit to hold office.

      Edit: I am following up because I realize what a contentious and controversial position this is, and I agree. However, the important thing to note is that this is the exact logic that was repeatedly broached by the Supreme Court itself. We can argue ad nauseum about the legitimacy of that body, but the bottom line is this: they are not going to allow Donald Trump to be unilaterally removed from the ballot. They are afraid of the ramifications of that decision, that much is clear. So, regardless of anyone’s personal feelings on the matter you need to make peace with the fact that the Supreme Court is going to all but destroy the protections of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. That is just the reality, and that means it is more important than ever that we make sure Donald Trump does not make it back to the White House. If he does, that is going to be the beginning of the end of the United States for the foreseeable future.

      The worst case scenario that nobody wants to talk about is Donald Trump being able to pack additional justices onto the Supreme Court that are in their late 40’s who will be on the bench for another 40 years, and guarantee the further erosion of civil rights in a way that will permanently destroy any chance for reform for the rest of your fucking life. This is not a game, this is not a drill, the Supreme Court has made it clear they are not going to do the right thing. The only remaining choice is collective action through voting or mass civil disobedience. Get ready…

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        No. You’re literally advocating for letting Trump do unconstitutional things because Republicans are threatening to do unconstitutional things if we don’t.

        Making legal rulings based on obviously fallacious reasonings because of what Republicans might do or how they’ll abuse that ruling is morally wrong and absolutely unjust. What SCOTUS should do (assuming they want to find Colorado correct, which… Roberts’ Court 🤷) is issue the ruling saying Trump shouldn’t be on the ballot, then when GOP fascist states try to remove Biden, take those inevitable cases and judge them on their merits, upholding or overturning them as the facts allow.

        They’re judges. This is their job.

        • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          You’re literally advocating for letting Trump do unconstitutional things

          No, I’m not. I’m reinforcing the likely outcome that is coming from the Supreme Court based on their own words, and threads of inquiry during oral arguments. I don’t agree with it, but I am preparing for it. They are 100% not going to unilaterally allow Donald Trump to be removed from state ballots. If you think they are, you are lying to yourself.

          Making legal rulings based on obviously fallacious reasonings because of what Republicans might do or how they’ll abuse that ruling is morally wrong and absolutely unjust.

          I agree, but I’m not the one you need to convince. The Supreme Court doesn’t share your impassioned desire for justice and ethics. They are absolutely going to hedge their bets in preparation for retaliatory legal action by Republican majority states who are already acting with impunity right now if you hadn’t noticed.

          They’re judges. This is their job.

          They are also human beings, and they are prone to irrational actions based on implicit personal biases. This is a body that, in my opinion, no longer serves its designed function and now exists solely as an abstract exercise in mentally masturbatory naval gazing that collectively sees itself as completely disconnected from the ramifications of its actions. It is literally the godhead of a profoundly sick society that is trapped in a self-imposed negative feedback loop that is unlikely to be changed without mass civil unrest.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Fine, then the civil war that’s been brewing finally kicks off and we can deal with fascists in the appropriate manner. That’s not a compelling reason to implicitly allow fascists to participate in elections after attempting a coup, which would be the message sent if this is denied.

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I was thinking this too. But let’s suppose the Democratic run states decide to play dirty (I know, I know). Now nobody gets past the post in a presidential election… Now what?

        • derphurr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Learn some 8th grade civics.

          If a candidate for President fails to receive 270 [electoral college] votes, the House itself will choose the President from among the three individuals who received the most electoral votes. In this process, each state receives one vote, and it’s up to the House members from that state to decide how to cast it. The election has gone to the House twice, in 1801 and 1825.

          And if the House cannot do it, the Speaker becomes President until the House elects someone.