This is probably a smart move… Trump will never win California but it will open up the Secretary of State office to lawsuits that will only waste money. It’s not like a precedent in California will help other states bar him.
That’s what i was thinking. Taking him off the ballot doesn’t hurt Trump, but doing so may have political or legal consequences. So they are just sitting this out to not give their opponents ammunition.
I’m gonna assume they’re doing this to avoid setting a precedent where a Dem candidate can be removed for any reason later on. Not to say there isn’t plenty of reason for Trump, but it’s a dangerous place to be.
Yes, we agree. Not exactly what I meant. I’m all for Trump being completely excluded, but the GOP has made a habit of using what’s put in place to avoid any wrongdoing to try and disrupt the good ones from getting things done.
Yeah that’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. I worry about creating tools for them to misuse. But then again, Democrats didn’t use faithless electors against Trump, they didn’t try to violently steal an election- Republicans did that all on their own. So… 🤷🏼♂️
This. The “let voters decide” argument is bullshit. “Sure he broke the rules but it should be up to the people if they care about that kind of thing”. Since when do courts care about what the general public think?
The law is open to interpretation since language is imprecise. Thinking that the law is some kind of rigid holy truth is extremely naive at best. Or at worst is fascist.
I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m disagreeing with your assertion that courts should care about what the people think. If anything, when the law is ambiguous the courts look at the legislative session notes, speeches, drafts…etc to try and figure out what the original intent was (or throw it back to legislature to rework). I never said it’s some kind of rigid holy truth.
Well the original intent of the insurrection clause was to prevent the same senators/congressmen who seceded and started the civil war from being eligible for federal office. This obviously doesn’t apply in Trumps case since there was no civil war and Trump was the lawfully elected president of the US at the time.
The courts are intended to be neutral arbiters of law itself
Which in Trumps case has nothing to do with the original intent of the law (insurrection clause, since no insurrection has taken place.)
As for my original assertion. The General Public is absolutely the folks the justice system should be accountable to, after-all government is supposed to be FOR the people. And if The People want to vote for someone who wants to overthrow the government, the courts have no business saying they can’t.
So if you think the court shouldn’t care about the general public, then the insurrection clause doesn’t apply. If you think the court should care about the general public, then they have to let the voters decide.
In either case Trump belongs on the ballot.
This. We tried that last election cycle and be wasn’t happy with the results from the people and attempted to falsify and overthrow them. NO SECOND CHANCES.
I’m kinda surprised, but also relieved that conservatives won’t be able to point to my state and say we did what they expected. Looking forward to further disqualifications in states that aren’t targets for “bias.”
What bias tho. In what world do you want to live in where it’s ok to have a president of the largest military presence in the world have power when they actively call for a civil conflict and has been arrested by the country they’re trying to rule.
I don’t consider kicking him off the ballot for his traitorous actions an act of bias. I’m just saying that my state doing so (Cali) would be pointed to as bias because we’re “libs” (I’m a socialist).
“Sixteen businesses associated with gubernatorial candidate Republican Jim Pillen received about $7.8 million in federal loans during the pandemic and later returned over $5 million of that.” - apnews.com/…/coronavirus-pandemic-health-nebraska…
Nah, they want to reduce the number of poor and non-white people because they hate them. They have no need to send them overseas to be killed on profitable wars. They have drones for that now.
I feel that reducing access to abortion actually creates more poor people no? As in, not being able to financially support a child is a common reason for not wanting to complete a pregnancy.
This really is the trajectory for most unwanted children.
No heritable resources, a fuck ton of trauma, and unaffordable healthcare leads to lifelong difficulties finding and retaining work with no hope of mental health care to fix the central issue.
Fingers crossed this stuff keeps people galvanized to vote cons the fuck out of each branch of government in 2024. My hope is that trump’s term and the Dobbs decision will push the gop to implode. They can’t back away from pandering to far right christians, the older generations are dying off, and hopefully moderate-leaning conservatives will choose to not vote, since I doubt they’ll let themselves vote for democrats.
Though this’d also likely lead to far right extremists ramping up their violence as they feel themselves losing power
Fingers crossed this stuff galvanizes people to realize that voting is, at best, a temporary stopgap and they will need to be a bit more active in the whole political process. What happened to the riots that were promised if Roe vs. Wade was overturned? When the Democrats fall in lockstep with the far right extremists how will you hold them accountable?
Though this’d also likely lead to far right extremists ramping up their violence as they feel themselves losing power.
That is what overturning Roe vs. Wade is about. The parent article is a story of far right extremists ramping up their violence as American empire loses power. Is your plan to vote that away? It hasn’t worked for the last 40+ years.
What happened to the riots that were promised if Roe vs. Wade was overturned?
Honestly I’m surprised we didn’t get George floyd/blm levels of protest after Dobbs was official, though a lot of it would’ve been moot since liberals and progressives have spent several decades disarming themselves and fostering a hatred towards guns. Christian nationalists don’t give a single fuck about peaceful protests and if things come to blows, our side is the one with far less firepower and far less zealots willing to risk personal harm for this topic (not saying the second one is good or bad morally, just pointing out that the right’s fostering of that kind of zealotry is an additional hurdle we’ll face).
That is what overturning Roe vs. Wade is about.
I was specifically referring to extra-judicial here. If/as they understand they can’t force their draconian laws on everyone through the normal channels of government, they’ll switch to embracing direct, physical violence as a first resort.
They absolutely are and pretending they’re not is stupid. They’re a last resort, but they’re still a tool that needs to be on the table if worst comes to worse. Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
For progressives to abandon every principle they espouse and start using violence as a political tool and direct threat would mean the very last nail in the coffin.
Please, I’m engaging this conversation in good faith so don’t take my words out of context. I am not encouraging the use of violence out of hand and I think you know that. I’m encouraging a healthy respect for a tool of last resort, and a deterrent against things progressing to the point where we want to use that last resort. Armed but peaceful protests often result in less violence from the cops and alt right counter protesting, because at the end of the day they see disarmament as an invitation for violence.
There’s a reason that if you go far enough left, you start to get your guns back. Some people still understand that right wingers and the elite would prefer fascists and genocide to losing control.
This is why they leaked the decision but said “it could change it’s not the final decision” to slow roll the information and make it less likely people would take direct action.
In the 90s boomers weren’t dying off in large amounts, conservative bastions weren’t in overwhelming support of abortion rights when left to the peoples’ vote, and Texas of all places wasn’t turning purple in state-wide elections. Things have absolutely changed from a population standpoint and gop leaders have shown that they’re terrified of the millenial+Z vote, which trends significantly more liberal (and the millenial vote has not shifted conservative with age, as older generations did), now being larger than the boomer vote.
Things are absolutely changing if you pay attention to the data. That being said, it’s still something that only changes over the course of generations, and the gop’s fraternization with Christian nationalists has created a monster that they’re now losing control of. We’re at a phase where things will either start to get better because of right wing ideology losing the numbers game, or right wingers lashing out at their loss of control will lead to them taking over via less democratic means (their capture of the SCOTUS is a more tame example of what they might try).
I think the original commenter’s point is that calling grown women “girls” is a commonly used tactic to infantilize women and make the situation seem not as serious as it’s supposed to be.
Take for example the headline that we’re talking about here: “girl” vs “woman” is the difference in thinking that this is some 16 year old who made dumb decisions and someone who probably understands the consequences of what they’re doing and takes proper precautions to prevent it.
This is not to say that I personally believe that one abortion is more justified than the other (because I don’t), but just want to point out the semantic difference here.
huffpost.com
Active