- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
A judge has rejected three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendmentās āinsurrectionist ban.ā
The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this month.
A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they āengaged in insurrectionā or have āgiven aid or comfortā to insurrectionists. But the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce the ban, and it has been applied only twice since the 1800s.
Lovely as that sounds I canāt imagine this Supreme Court ruling against Trump. Maybe if you could somehow erase their memory so they make a ruling without consideration of current politics.
The interesting bit is that itās members of the federalist society arguing that Trump shouldnāt run.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-conservatives.html
Trump doesnāt really understand law, and itās the federalists that provided him with a list of right-wing judges to pick from, and itās really federalists rather than Trump supporters who ended up capturing the supreme court.
Normally theyāre both extremely right-wing so the gap doesnāt matter, but if the federalists turn on Trump you could see some supreme court judgements go against him.
Sadly, Iām forced to agree with you. In spite of their claim to be āOriginalistsā they have a curious habit of ignoring both law and precedent whenever it suits them. I donāt trust them to accurately name the color of the clear sky at noon.
Also issuing rulings and then saying ābut donāt use this as precedentā which just means āwe reserved the right to rule differently when it is politically expedient,ā or perhaps, āwe already know this is a bad ruling but we really want this person to win in this case.ā
Yeah, just like they cited a 1600s witch hunter to justify ending Roe, theyād cite a misinterpretation of Homer as proof that the sky isnāt blue if it would help them politically and therefore economicallyā¦
deleted by creator
Yeah, this genuinely annoyed me to find out! Iām a huge fan of the show and want all of the weird claims to be trueā¦with the possible exception of the fish denialism š
Originalism just means making up whatever they want and pretending itās really what the framers wanted.