this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
175 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1923 readers
364 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is no world in which SCOTUS is going to let states do this so I wouldn’t count your chickens quite yet. He’s going to be on the ballot.
I got thoughts.
The previous court cases on the matter have been decided in Trump’s favor because of issues of standing (except Colorado, that one was weird - they questioned whether the president was an officer of the U.S., but that was cleared up in a later court case). The cases found that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but determined they were not the right court to hear that case. And by found, I mean they ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection. That’s now considered a ‘capital F’ Fact by the U.S. legal system.
Any ruling by the SCOTUS that may favor Trump will have to engage in extreme tomfuckery to get around the fact that he engaged in insurrection, and they do have standing to block him from every ballot nationwide.
Unless they decide not to take the case and let the Illinois ruling stand.
Then… I don’t know. I would hope that every single state sees a lawsuit about it, but I honestly don’t have much faith anymore.
Were the confederate leaders that were barred from running (which I think is why that clause is there) found guilty of insurrection?