this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
111 points (83.2% liked)

Conservative

435 readers
61 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

letting the loser of a free and fair election stoke violence without consequence is bad precedent. enforcing the law is good precedent.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Copied from another comment you didn’t read.

No it's bad precedent.

Colorado barely had a majority on the decision, three other states ruled differently and Trump hasn't been convicted of anything yet in Congress or in court.

Do we want the pre-election period filled with both sides trying to disqualify the other side's nominee just because they have a majority in their state's Supreme Court?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

depends, did the other side's nominee engage in an insurrection in flagrant violation of the constitution?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for taking the time to consider what I was saying.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

His point was that Trump hasn't been convicted yet. Even though he obviously invited an insurrection, legally he hasn't until he's convicted.

If we set this precedent pretty soon Republicans will be flooding Democrats with bullshit "insurrection" allegations to get them off of ballots. If they have enough control in their state's supreme Court they might even succeed.