Lemmy is always quick to throw hate on any neutral sounding comments, so let me say upfront before I get brigaded: Trump deserves to be kicked off of state ballots where applicable 100%…BUT:
- The GOP is petty, and this will certainly start a race for Red States to unjustifiably remove Biden from state ballots as well
- It’s certainly creating a standoff with the US Supreme Court to take up a ruling on the matter, which I unfortunately feel will favor Trump in the short-term
- The news about this is creating all kinds of positive sentiment for Trump and his bullshit rhetoric about being “unfairly targeted”
- It’s fostering a political war between states for future elections where the ruling state parties will just find reasons to kick opposition parties off ballots for no reason if no clear legal ruling is given to stop such things.
We really need some well defined election laws in the US to prevent things like this from even being questioned.
The alternative is what though? Trump is legally ineligible to run for office. So don’t enforce the law because Republicans might declare Biden illegally ineligible? Don’t enforce the law because someone might call it unfair and others might believe them? A political system where there aren’t any enforceable rules is so much worse in the long run.
There also isn’t a “standoff” with the Supreme Court. It’s literally their job to interpret and enforce the constitution. Everything’s working exactly as it was designed to.
Trump has not been LEGALLY defined to be intelligible due to any crimes yet. That’s the scary thing.
- Our federalist system explicitly allows elections to be run by states, and we’ve seen that over time those states have less and less in common. Given the structural power imbalances between states that tend to bubble to the surface during the electoral count, a political war between them was arguably already happening. This just adds another dynamic to the battle. Texas is threatening legal action against hospitals in Seattle for treating residents of Texas, for crying out loud, so clearly half the country is already engaged in a battle between states.
- If everything were to go back to normal today, the GOP would still try to remove future Democrats from ballots. If this had never happened, they’d still try to remove future Democrats from ballots. Just because they’re underhanded and feckless doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enforce 1 of the only 3 requirements to run for the presidency.
- A court of law did this, not a political party. A nonpartisan state supreme court, no less. And they made a clear legal ruling to justify it, in light of literally the only thing that’s explicitly disqualifying for the office. This isn’t being made up out of whole cloth, it’s been proven in a court of law and ruled upon by a team of judges. That’s where the decision should be made.
- I agree that we need well-defined election laws, but if all it took was a fake-tanned, loud-mouthed, wannabe dictator for the entire system to crumble into itself, I’m not sure we were long for this world anyway.
I’m not disagreeing with any of your points, but we have grey areas being exploited here simply because they aren’t explicitly defined as being illegal. Unless there is a defined FEDERAL ruling against any of which you mentioned, it’s going to create the shitstorm I mentioned.
I get the delineation between the two, but I’m simply saying we should have had legal precedent in place long before we got to this point. It’s super depressing, and extremely scary.
I’d say the best way is to get rid of the electoral college. Let the popular vote decide things.
It kills a lot of gerrymandering too.
Only need 65 more electoral votes to pledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Something I’ve wondered about this:
Is there any way to enforce this? Like say 80 more votes were pledged. An election happens and a bunch of states vote hard in the other direction from the (should be) winner. How do those states get forced to follow through and give the electoral votes?
… like I don’t believe politician’s words here. What binds the state to give its votes here? What happens if they just decide not to?
Would you say the same thing if a 18 year old was running for President? Like Trump, they don’t meet the minimum requirements for the job.
That’s what I thought was dumb about the dissent to the Colorado Supreme Court ruling. One of the judges said that while it’s an easy yes/no question if someone meets the qualifying age, it’s not as easy to determine if someone has engaged in an insurrection.
Which seemed pretty dumb to me, because I saw it live on TV and thought it was pretty straightforward.
Honestly? Yeah, no matter who the 18 year old is. This isn’t Ancient Macedonia where you can just fight everyone. An 18 year old has no place leading a country today unless something catastrophic happened and there are no other options. I’m not saying its impossible. I’m saying I’d prefer a president who is between the ages of 35-50.
You’re missing the point: https://www.usa.gov/requirements-for-presidential-candidates
The legal minimum age is 35. Your opinion of a 16 year old is irrelevant. Straight up they are not tall enough to ride the rollercoaster.
Just so happens to be the same if the courts find a 35 year old engaged in insurrection. The amendment exists for a reason and gives no stipulation of conviction.
Wow you’re right, I hate this take lol. That said, I appreciate your honesty and bravery to speak your mind, regardless of what a lot of people might think of it. It’s good to have actual discourse instead of an echo chamber on here.
