• oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      States aren’t “invoking” anything.
      Trump does not qualify as per the standards in the Constitution.

      Same as any 34 year old.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Stupid states following the words in the Constitution!

        Shuffling this to congress means nobody will ever be excluded for insurrection, because obstructing any laws that would enforce the clause are easier to kill than pass.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I guess 34 year olds now must be on the ballot unless congress removes them… and Elon can run too. Heck my cat must be allowed on the ballot unless congress removes him.

      • oxjox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Apparently the Supreme Court of The United States disagrees with you, DKarma.

        Edit: Wow. I don’t know if this crowd is full of non-Americans or people who haven’t passed a sixth grade social studies class or just a bunch of emotional dummies. I would encourage people to spend more time reading about the things that upset them rather than wasting time whining about it on the internet. Someone posted a thoughtless comment to which I responded with a quote from the article which clearly explains the answer. I’m certainly not pleased with the court’s decision but I, without any degree in law at all, would never presume to know half as much as, let alone more than, the justices of the Supreme Court.

        • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s the problem.

          People deserve the right to an abortion, but the supreme court disagrees with that, too.

          Fuck them.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Note that this is a 9-0 decision. Dobbs was not.

            The entire court agrees that states do not have the right to remove federal candidates from the ballot. They can remove state candidates. Honestly, this is pretty obviously correct from the language of the 14th amendment. There’s nothing that empowers states to do that.

            However, there is disagreement on the court on how this should be executed. The main opinion wants it to be solely up to Congress, but the liberal concurrence points out what a big ass problem that is.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The Constitution is meant to be read in plain text. The hunting for extra definitions and meanings in and of itself destroys the legitimacy of this ruling.

          • oxjox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s funny because you would have to hunt for extra definitions to find something other than what the court ruled. This was a pretty cut and dry case.

            Regardless, to claim the constitution is meant to be read “in plain text” is laughable. And to presume you know more about the constitution than nine Supreme Court justices in agreement on this matter is just embarrassing for you.

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

              Well considering they hold 15th century English church law to be above the Constitution I’m not so sure about their law degrees.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          If the SCOTUS rules 9-0 that the fox is allowed to guard the henhouse, that still doesn’t make it a good ruling.

          In this case, the SCOTUS says that the insurrectionists in congress must be the ones responsible for punishing the insurrectionist running for president again.