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
    2
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

      • @SPRUNT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        11 year 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.

    • This is an important lesson in Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Trump is very much a narcissist). Narcissists use vague and ambiguous language, usually rapid fire, in order to confuse and disorient listeners. The term is called Narcissistic Word Salad. It means that he can rile people up to commit an insurrection while at the same time be legally protected because he never directly commanded January 6ers to do what they did with clear and pointed language. All of his communication is very obviously crafted to manipulate and obfuscate, and it’s how he’s managed to keep his crime empire afloat for decades.

      • @orbitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I thought he spoke vaguely cause he knows he’s commiting crimes and has some semblance of tact about it (to save himself of course) not a great one but something. I never realized it could be another part of narcissism. I

        There needs to be a law for a limit, like yes you used vague language but you did it 50 (random number but something that shows a pattern) times that’s enough to charge you for your actions.

        I wonder what actual organized crime bosses think of him, he must have dealt with them in construction in the 80s and 90s.

    • @A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year 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
        11 year 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
          1
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

  • @OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    21 year 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.

    • SuperDuper
      link
      fedilink
      11 year 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
        11 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          11 year 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.

            • Gumby
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Yes but after WW2 we had the Nuremburg trials and the Nazi leaders were hanged. Show compassion to the society as a whole, but the leaders must still be held accountable in these situations.

          • @Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            11 year 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
              link
              fedilink
              01 year 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.

      • @seejur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        At least this time he is not in charge, so it should be a lot harder to try pushing people around to subvert democracy

        • @Masamune@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Hopefully harder to push around government types, I agree. But at the same time, easier to summon and unleash his mob without restraint. At that point, what else can he possibly lose?

          • @anon987@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            All his supporters are gonna get killed, just like last time these dumb fucks started a civil war.

            Nazis and fascists need to be eradicated every few decades.

    • @xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Gonna be the least of your worries unless you live in DC. Look forward to armed take overs at every state capital and military deployments across the country (with help from our great friends in the Russian military), and murdered Democrats on every street corner should Trump win.

      It will be worse than that probably

  • @3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    01 year ago

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

  • Flying Squid
    link
    fedilink
    01 year 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.

    • 1ostA5tro6yne
      link
      fedilink
      11 year 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.

    • @maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      States don’t have to obey the supreme court.

      The supreme court is a suggestion body more than anything else.

      As soon as we stop taking them seriously, they stop having power.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        That’s certainly what Alabama thinks and why they won’t draw districts that aren’t racist.

        The question is why you’re on their side that state law takes precedence over federal law.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            Unjust federal laws means that the South should be allowed to be as racist as they want to be? Really? Plessy vs. Ferguson can just be ignored?

            • @maness300@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Try looking at things on a case-by-case basis then life will start to make more sense.

              After that, look into the concepts of “civil disobedience” and the “social contract.”

              Come back when you’ve educated yourself more on the subject matter.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                Who decides which SCOTUS cases can be ignored? Because right now, Alabama is ignoring a SCOTUS ruling to stop their racist gerrymandering. No one is able to stop them from doing it. Insulting me will not change the fact that ignoring a SCOTUS ruling is, right now, allowing official state racism to stand. And there has been no civil disobedience enough to stop it.

                So, without insulting me- how do you ensure the South doesn’t just ignore Plessy vs. Ferguson?

                • @Dkarma@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Federal law has never controlled state elections.

                  Why do u think scotus has any power over how state elections are run here? Plessy v Ferguson doesn’t even apply here.

                • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  how do you ensure the South doesn’t just ignore Plessy vs. Ferguson?

                  They already are. What did Illinois following rulings by an illegitimate court do to change that?

                • @maness300@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  Why don’t you just make your own thread to talk about your specific case instead of trying to hijack my comments?

                  You clearly can’t understand the words being put in front of you, so why would I continue this discussion?

                  Goodbye.

    • @BlackPenguins@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      01 year 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.

      • @paddirn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Hey, they’ve got Ethics guidelines now, so they’ve solved whatever trust issues the public may have had, so they don’t need to hear any of this malarkey anymore. It’s full steam ahead for the Christo-nationalist fascist takeover.

    • Kit Sorens
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year 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.

        • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year 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.

      • @Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year 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
          11 year 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.

    • 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.

  • @sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Every single person in the country who has the power to make the decision to have the insurrectionist off the ballot , yet doesn’t, is letting down The Constitution. Don’t they have to take an oath, or is that only Federal positions?

    • wagesj45
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      I agree to a point. But everyone with the power to do something about this also has the obligation to act within and maintain the law. They have to use their best judgement on what it means to have “committed” insurrection, whether it is just based on vibes or a common understanding or a conviction in a court. I can’t fault them for any of those choices. Legally at least.

      I didn’t take an binding oath to respect our legal system, so I can easily say he shouldn’t be on the ballot anywhere in America. They can’t make that assertion so easily.

      • @Deello@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        I’m no scholar but maybe guiding a mob to disrupt an official proceeding with the threat of murder by gallows that were setup by a makeshift militia qualifies as an insurrection.

        • wagesj45
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          No shit. But everyone knowing something is different than being convicted of it. It’s why OJ Simpson isn’t in jail. Either we all agree to abide by the legal system or we don’t.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            OJ was (stupidly) found to be not guilty in a court of law.

            The difference here is that the 14th Amendment says nothing about a court of law.

            Section 3

            No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

            • wagesj45
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Since it says nothing, it’s left up to “us” to decide. And by us, I mean our elected representatives and the courts. And those entities are indeed making these decisions right now. I’m just not shocked that they don’t all come to the same conclusion like some people in this thread.

    • @jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year 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
        01 year 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.