In a surprise move, an Illinois judge has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s so-called “insurrectionist ban.”

The decision is paused, giving Trump a short period of time to appeal.

Wednesday’s unexpected decision comes as a similar anti-Trump challenge from Colorado is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is widely expected to reject arguments that Trump is barred from office.

Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter heavily relied on the prior finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, calling Colorado’s “rationale compelling.”

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It is still crazy to me, he is responsible for an insurrection and still gets the option to run for President. Every time I’ve talked about it on twitter some right-winger will bring up it was mostly peaceful and some other event that has nothing to do with anything lol.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      7 months ago

      because at no time since this nation was founded was it considered possible for a president of this country to be under the thrall of a hostile foreign power and want to overthrow it.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I dunno. I think that impeachment probably considered this in a time when there were still many who supported the British.

        • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Yup. They clearly thought individuals could be compromised. Their falling was in not considering the possibility that more than half the people leading the 3 branches of the federal government could all be in cahoots.

          They thought the self interest of the individual states would keep them independent.

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

      Ah yes absolutely non-violent, the guys going around with cable ties just wanted to do some cable management.

      • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nothing says “peaceful” like stealing a cops riot shield and using it to bash through a security window, or using bear spray on the cops trying to protect the lawmakers.

    • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      178
      ·
      7 months ago

      No it’s not. There’s something else we’re supposed to do to traitors.

      “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now”

      -Donald Trump, advocating for his own execution

      • Xenny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        101
        ·
        7 months ago

        We literally didn’t hang most of the leaders of the Confederacy after the civil war. We just gave them back their land and citizenship. Big mistake

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          41
          ·
          7 months ago

          Compassion should not seen as a weakness after war. Traditionally it make long term allies. This time it did not work out. But many other times it has.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            7 months ago

            A conservative is not capable of entering into a negotiation in good faith.

            Compassion at the end of the civil war was the wrong move. A conservative will always see compassion as weakness to exploit. They truly are unable to perceive compassion as anything other than a weakness. That is just who they are at their core.

            • Diotima@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Interesting take, but such an absolutist stance suggests that you also see compassion as a weakness. Fact is, as evil as the GOP may now be… they are not the whole of conservative thought.

              If you want to see an example of where your desired approach leads, look at post WW I Germany and what Europe’s need for vengeance gave birth to.

          • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            I agree and I think it’s important to review why that didn’t work, because I think it’s relevant today.

            Under normal circumstances, I would agree that compassion is the best course of action. However the Confederacy largely left the union and then went to war over the ability to own people, claiming it was a “right”. There was a whole world doing away with the practice, with abolitionists saying their peace for a long time up until war broke out. And rather than change tact, and do away with the inherently immoral practice of slavery, these guys doubled-down. To me, that’s exactly the kind of situation where you must withhold compassion, because it demonstrates both a track record and a potential future willingness to break the social contract.

          • Damdy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            A lot of Americans seem to think their civil war was a long time ago. It was pretty recent, it may work out better soon.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yep. Should have burned their wealth into the ground and only then let them back in.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m glad it’s happening. However, I am almost sure SCOTUS will not allow it no matter what and will find some spurious reason that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump.

    Also, I wish it wasn’t a state that Trump was pretty much guaranteed to lose anyway. Oh well, I guess it’s a start.

    • BlackPenguins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not so sure. SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low (18%). Even if Trump was re-elected I don’t think there is more he can offer them. They already have the job. They need confidence back or the states are going to start ignoring them.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the “plebes” think of them for that to make any difference.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          7 months ago

          You know for all our checks and balances the Supreme Court is surprisingly left out of them. Congress can supposedly tell them they can’t hear a case but that’s it. But it’s fine cause the courts will never be able to change laws or enforce anything right? Right?

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            7 months ago

            The court was supposed to be the main arbitrator of the checks and balances, because it was initially believed that they weren’t corruptible. That’s obviously not the case, and we’re all screwed because of it

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the “plebes” think of them for that to make any difference.

          Does the SC have any recourse if confidence from the public gets so low that states start ignoring them?

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            7 months ago

            Not really, and it’s happened before. Heck one of the worst presidents we ever had famously stated, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let’s see him try to enforce it.”

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low

        Maybe, but the more important questions are “do they care”, and also “does it improve their behavior”?

      • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not only has he nothing more to offer them, but he has promised to be a dictator from day one, if reelected. A dictator threatens the power of judges in all courts. That’s not something they should take lightly.

    • Kit Sorens@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not to mention that if he is off of any 1 ballot and loses, he has ammunition for another Jan6. If he has a “fair shot” and loses, there is less plausibility and (hopefully) fewer followers in the repeat.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I get what you’re saying, but we need to stop hand-wringing what Trump and his supporters will do if we actually have consequences for him.

        • We didn’t force him to hatch a plan to send in fake electors
        • We didn’t strong-arm his VP to not certify the election
        • We didn’t pressure states to “find” him more votes
        • We didn’t encourage the Jan 6th insurrection

        Not only are repercussions for him smart politically, they are the right thing to do. Dude’s a fucking traitor to his country, of course he should be ineligible to hold office, no matter what Party! Lastly, these Trumpets are basically a cult at this point. “Nothing Dear Leader does is wrong, and if it was, the dems and minorities deserved it.” They will say the election was rigged no matter what. Many still believe the last one was, despite Trump losing all his court cases about it and the majority of Republican leadership admitting it was a free and fair election…

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 months ago

          we need to stop hand-wringing what Trump and his supporters will do

          They are going to do whatever malicious thing they want, regardless of what the rest of us do.

          We can’t allow the potential threat of whatever thing they might do push us away from continuing to strive for better outcomes.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, but every R in the house voted against a bill that would have investigated how deep the white supremacist infiltration of the military and law enforcement has penetrated. (Which FBI has been warning of for a decade or more.) I’m a veteran, and decades ago I’d have confidently stated no one I worked with would take action to support an insurrection, no matter on whose behalf. Today I’m less sure, but I’ve also been out of the military for quite some time.

    • 1ostA5tro6yne
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      SCOTUS knows that Haley polls better against Biden than Trump does. It’s in the interest of their owners that they block him from running.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t think SCOTUS has any incentive to allow him to run. They got what they wanted, control of the courts. Disallowing him to run normalizes the practice, gets them support, and sets precedent. Now they can go after any candidate later on. Another Trump presidency would be extremely unfavorable to Americas business interests, especially now.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        He’s not against business interests when the cheapest labor is slave labor and we have 3 massive companies arguing that the NLRB and FTC protections are unconstitutional.

        META is currently suing so that they can track and deliver ads to minors. That’s their lawsuit. That they deserve the right to openly admit they are courting minors in their platforms.

        Trump is a yes man and I’m sure they want him back.

        • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          I agree domestically, but internationally trump is bad for american power projection, including economic. A second trump term would convince the world this is our new norm, and there is no value in a promise made by a country whose president will ignore them to serve short term needs. And while business also seems caught in the cycle of “short term gain for long term misery,” I hope the larger institutions see the cost long term… unless ducking out of the US is part of their plan.

  • killpunchdeluxe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    My boy’s getting absolutely SWAMPED with legal action

    I think he’s at like $470,000 now for his fraud case

    *edit LOL my b dudes $470 MILLION

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 months ago

    Good, just in time for it to not matter. Glad they’re being so quick about it. Great judicial system.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      Up to 3 now. Which is funny because the central point the Supreme Court made during the hearing of the Colorado case was “why would a single state get to decide the election for the rest of the country?” Would be nice if a few other states stepped up to show it’s not just a “single state.”

      • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s so weird, I could have sworn in 2020 we were seriously about states’ rights to conduct their elections as they please. But now states do not have rights to enforce laws for themselves? I must be misremembering because otherwise it would mean all Repubs are deceitful and without integrity.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          God I mean look at Arizona’s election procedure now. No one in the GOP questioning the state being able to ignore their citizens to push whoever they want. No complaints in fact the GOP keeps trying to get even less voters.

    • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      7 months ago

      Demoralized people will try to demoralize others so they feel more confident in their own opinions. Don’t listen to people like this.

      Educate, Organize, Act.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        I agree with you in general, but education, organization and action will not change the current makeup or ideology of the Supreme Court.

      • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s fine. Organizing to vote in November does matter.

        Whooping and hollering when a meaningless, soon to be overturned legal decision occurs is false hope and a distraction.

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

    I enjoyed not really hearing about this dumbfuck clown for the past few years and here comes election year, so we’re going to hear about every little detail of this stupid shit for the whole year. If you people would stop engaging with content featuring him, then he wouldn’t get as much press. Now every time he takes a shit, it’s front page news.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Social media works by engagement. It doesn’t matter if the comments are negative or not. The more you engage with content the more people will see it because algorithms will push it higher in the feed. Any press is good press, so engagement with everything about Trump just gives him more airtime. If he wasn’t in the press every five seconds then he wouldn’t be as popular.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    One of the reasons SCOTUS won’t let this stand is they don’t want the fracturing of ballots state by state. But that’s actually kind of an interesting proposal to fix Presidential systems.

    Parliamentary systems can be better because the power is in the People’s House, you can’t have a Jan 6th in the UK because the Prime Minister is not their own branch of government they are the leader of Parliament.

    If there’s a patchwork of ballots, it makes it more likely nobody can get to 270 and it goes to Congress to decide who gets elected. Pretty big change in power structures in Washington if that became the regular way we elect a president.