"Rules for thee but not for me"
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
-5 points (40.0% liked)
Conservative
444 readers
358 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
all 24 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
I’ve seen a lot of liberals cry about this. This is the correct ruling and all the justice agrees.
[deleted]
But…let’s be honest here, Trump engaged in insurrection
When was Trump tried for insurrection ? I must have missed where a court determined that
Your head is buried so, so far in the sand that it’s started to compress into glass
I get facts always confuse people but there is no conviction for insurrection and the fbi didn’t find it either.
It’s the skree of the left that there was an insurrection. The facts don’t match that theory
[deleted]
Because he's being railroaded?
If you were accused of murdering someone, would you not mount a defense, using any possible approach to prevent being executed for a crime you didn't commit?
But, if not for Jan 6, why is his legal team arguing for presidential immunity, or for Joe Biden to murder Trump with no consequences?
Why is he mounting a defense again a false accusation ?
Trump has not been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Conviction is not a requirement for barring a candidate for office under the 14th amendment, as established by previous precedent:
Heres the thing, the Supreme Court establishes precedent. Thats their job.
This is a terrible understanding of the supreme court. Their job isn't "establish precedent". Their job is to interpret the constitution for modern problems, to analyze and interpret past precedent, and to establish precedent where there is none. It is multi-fold, not a simple one item.
There is already precedent for this, and it shows that conviction is not a requirement for taking a candidate off the ballot like this. The supreme court does not have the authority to make a mockery of past precedent and just make up shit as they go like you suggest. The point of precedent is to have a stable and consistent rule of law, meanwhile you guys just want to throw out the things that would hurt your god emperor.
Well yes, they have more than one job. But one of them is establishing precedent. And this was a 9-0 decision, so its not like its just trumps judges.
I don't give a shit that it was 9-0. It was a stupid decision regardless of author.
9-0 sends a clear message.
It is also consistent with many other recent rulings. Congress do your job.
Roe vs wade was overturned because Congress needs to make a law.
Most the recent decisions have been a pushback to Congress
People who don’t get the roles, get upset because their “side” lost but it’s part of the check and balances.
I support abortion but roe was made up fantasy land.
Same thing with states trying to disqualify Trump. It’s not a power they hold.
He did?
Where's the conviction again?
Even the FBI said there was no "insurrection".
When the lefties all barged into congress in 2018, was that an "insurrection"?
What about all the lefties standing, outside politicians houses (which is a clear violation of the law) and yelling "kill them"?
~~You're all a bunch of hypocrites~~ It's hypocritical to use the law when it benefits, but decry it when it doesn't achieve your end goals.
*Where's the conviction again? *
It’s weird to see the democrats jump through hoops trying to stop Trump from running. Now I’ve never been a fan a Trump. I think he did a good job but he isn’t my first pick. Yet I’ll be voting for him in the next election. The democrats have shown they can’t handle letting the people decide
I've heard people argue it's the correct ruling, but not for the right reasons.
The 14th amendment is rarely used to disqualify people from holding office and every single time it has been used has been in reference to participating in the US Civil War. It's unprecedented to use it in modern times for modern actions, so using it to disqualify Trump requires a lengthy legal argument tying old court rulings and definitions to the modern day. Even if those arguments are deemed to be true in court by legal experts, there's no way the general population of the US is going to understand the nuance. They're just going to think the deep state conspired to keep Trump out of office.
People have already made up their mind on Trump. At this point he literally could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and still win the presidency from a jail cell. The bar cannot go any lower than it is already. If Americans want a dictator for a day, let them have it.
I think the courts would have allowed it if Trump has been convicted of an insurrection or if Congress had disqualified him.
I haven’t read the whole ruling yet but my general understanding is states don’t have the right to just disqualify someone.
That’s a good thing. Otherwise red states could kick Biden off the ticket.