173
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
173 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10162 readers
86 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SCOTUS is going to have to weigh in real quick if they don’t just stay out of the whole thing.
They already declined Jack Smith's request to take this question up early. They clearly don't want to touch it. Unsure if appeals will cause these removals to be stopped or allowed to continue or not. If an appeal stops his removal, I'd bet that would be their goal.
We could call them the Buchanan Court.
Shout out to my fellow history nerds for getting that reference
Ask Pat
Very likely they will overturn the CO decision...most of the states declining to remove him are because the party has the say on the primary ballot....its a different story on the general election though. This is what the MI court basically said. They left the challenge open for the general election qualifications.
Also SCOTUS declined to expedite the "immunity" ruling because they likely don't want to take it. The appeals will very likely say "the president is not a fucking King" and the SCOTUS will decline to hear the case and say "what they said."
I honestly think they were right on this. Ultimately the primary is an election for a private organization to decide who they are going to back as candidates for various offices. There's no legal basis for forcing them to choose candidates who actually qualify for those offices.
Now the general election is an entirely different boat.
Yeah, my reading of Article 14 sec 3 is simply put he cant hold office. Doesn't mention anything about elections or what to do if he wins an election (unless congress votes 2/3 to allow him to hold office). Up until that point it is likely a state matter for how they handle their elections, especially when it does not involve the general/federal elections.
I'd say it likely falls under whatever "Obama wasn't born in America, he can't be president" if that statement were ever actually true. I don't know the legal precedence though for people running for office that aren't legally qualified to hold the office.
I'm sure if he actually wins the primary for the GOP ticket, it will end up at the supreme court. Honestly this is a golden opportunity for the GOP to rid themselves of the burden that is Trump, and they would fully get to blame the Supreme Court and democrats, and scream about it til the end of time for their electorate; many of them hate having to cow-tow to Trump, and even regret missing the opportunity to impeach him and be done with him. Y'all get a second chance, and this time very little backlash for yourselves, unlike if you'd voted to impeach after Jan 6th.