“I’m mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th Amendment. But I’m also mindful that no presidential candidate has, ever before, engaged in insurrection.”
I like how Trumpers always seem to forget about that 2nd sentence.
O’l smelly they used ta call him. He had tiny hands and giant tits, which was the style at the time.
The more states that block him, the better the argument that the Supreme Court should decline to intervene and let the state decisions stand.
Oh, but it’s only about states’ rights when it is convenient for conservative arguments. Otherwise it’s just federal power all the way down.
They can only be called the Party of Responsibility if it’s within the America region. Otherwise it’s legally required to be called Sparkling Hypocrisy.
If the individual states don’t allow him on their ballot although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress how long is it before the pre-election period is just red states eliminating blue nominees?
This is bad precedent.
although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress
It’s not a legal trial, it’s not a law, it’s an amendment to the constitution. No finding of guilt by a court is required.
This is bad precedent.
Blocking a presidential candidate from a states ballot because they violated the 14th amendment by engaging in an insurrection is bad precedent? Your argument is a little silly, Republicans already work in contradiction to the laws and constitution, doesn’t mean Democrats or the American people in general should not follow them.
On what grounds would they be removed? They can’t kick somebody off the ballot if it won’t stand up in court.
But then the argument is we shouldn’t follow the law because the GOP might break it
Honestly do you think that will matter? What’s to stop the Supreme Court from saying we are the final say and no one can block him?
Nothing, I think they will do it.
But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn’t think it applied, but I’m an idiot on my couch with no legal training.
I’m not sure it matters yet. Are the parties even required to have primaries? What keeps them from just choosing at the convention?
When some states allow him and some block him, that’s the argument for the Court to step in.
Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.
When you’re such a bitchass corrupt sore loser that legal experts need to clear the dusty cobwebs off ancient scrolls and navigate new legal waters because you decided to be the first brainlet to violate laws that no one before you was stupid and unpatriotic enough to even consider attempting.
The real issue at the heart of all this is that the popular vote doesn’t win the presidency.
Seriously. Didn’t Biden only win by like 43,000 votes in the electoral college?
There’s only 538 votes total in the electoral college. It was 306/232. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re referring to, then, apologies.
In competitive states, he won by only 43k votes as opposed to the many more votes he won by in the popular vote. In other words, had those votes been cast differently, the electoral college would be very different
