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.”

  • maness300@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months 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
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            8 months 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months 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?

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months 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?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  The discussion was about how states could just ignore SCOTUS. It had moved on from the topic in the article.

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    As far as I understand, your argument was if Illinois ignores a SCOTUS ruling that allows southern states to also ignore SCOTUS rulings, which they are already doing. What is your argument if I’ve misunderstood, and what is your proposal in regards to how states should deal with a ruling that is contrary to what the law should be?

              • Dkarma@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                8 months 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.

              • maness300@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                8 months 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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I don’t think your insults are called for and I don’t think it would be hard to answer my question if it is such a simple matter.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mean actually they explicitly don’t have the right to enforce their judgements or the ability to change laws (which has since been ignored and not challenged when they do).
        Their purpose was to just make judgements and pass them to the appropriate branch. The supreme Court is a bit of a mess. I think the founders just wanted a room of smart lawyers to ask questions to on payroll.