Horsey ,

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.

mayotte2048 ,

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.

SeabassDan ,

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.

cheesebag ,

If a Dem candidate plots an insurrection, they should be removed from the ballot.

mayotte2048 ,

I think the danger they are talking about is that they might only need an accusation of insurrection, not a conviction to do this.

Think about Congress’s impeachment probe into Biden without evidence.

SeabassDan ,

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.

cheesebag ,

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… 🤷🏼‍♂️

SeabassDan ,

They haven’t been playing by the rules for a while now, so there’s no point in a good faith attempt to fix politics anymore.

Nougat ,

Apparently without an explanation of how Trump is not disqualified by Section Three?

runswithjedi ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    ImplyingImplications ,

    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?

    Psionicsickness ,

    What courts? Trump was never convicted? These removals are all just because high placed hippies, “feel like” Trump’s actions were, “insurrectiony”.

    PowerCrazy ,

    Since when do courts care about what the general public think

    That is one of the pillars of justice in a so-called democracy.

    NovaPrime ,
    @NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

    Not at all. The courts are intended to be neutral arbiters of law itself. Congress is the body that should care about what people think.

    PowerCrazy ,

    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.

    NovaPrime ,
    @NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    PowerCrazy ,

    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.

    NovaPrime ,
    @NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

    And this has to do what with your original comment and assertion?

    PowerCrazy ,

    It was responding to your original assertion.

    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.

    heavyboots ,
    @heavyboots@lemmy.ml avatar

    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.

    some_guy ,

    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.”

    Aermis ,

    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.

    PowerCrazy ,

    Perhaps the country is corrupt and should be overthrown? The fight should be on every front. Legal and Illegal.

    Aermis ,

    Overthrown by whom? And corrupt by who?

    some_guy ,

    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).

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •