• @Eatspancakes84
    link
    -35 months ago

    So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.

    Again, if congress had convicted Trump, or a judge makes a ruling of seditious behavior within its own jurisdiction I am totally on board with striking him from the ballot. But this ruling just sounds flimsy to me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      75 months ago

      So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.

      Do you not understand how the constitution works?

    • @ghostdoggtv
      link
      35 months ago

      The case is about the court’s home state ballot so in that sense they do have jurisdiction. The Colorado court isn’t ruling on the Wyoming ballots, for example. Litigators in other jurisdictions can refer to the Colorado finding in their own cases.

      Congress’s role in the context of the 14th amendment is explicitly laid out. If SCOTUS wants to argue that the Colorado ruling isn’t binding then the only remaining constitutional remedy is a Congressional vote to remove Trump’s disability, meaning they have to vote to requalify him for office. Republicans can barely figure out how to put their slippers on in the morning let alone muster a 2/3 vote to forgive a traitor for trying to overthrow the country.

    • Anti-Face Weapon
      link
      25 months ago

      I think that the more concerning implication is that states are the ones that determine who should be allowed to run for president or not. This is messy and not cohesive, I don’t think this sort of structure which we may be building is conductive to a healthy democracy. But we will have to see how far reaching these events reach.