In a surprise move, an Illinois judge has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s so-called “insurrectionist ban.”

The decision is paused, giving Trump a short period of time to appeal.

Wednesday’s unexpected decision comes as a similar anti-Trump challenge from Colorado is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is widely expected to reject arguments that Trump is barred from office.

Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter heavily relied on the prior finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, calling Colorado’s “rationale compelling.”

  • Flying Squid
    link
    121 year ago

    That’s certainly what Alabama thinks and why they won’t draw districts that aren’t racist.

    The question is why you’re on their side that state law takes precedence over federal law.

    • @maness300
      link
      -41 year ago

      Because federal law isn’t always just.

      Look at the war on drugs.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        81 year ago

        Unjust federal laws means that the South should be allowed to be as racist as they want to be? Really? Plessy vs. Ferguson can just be ignored?

        • @maness300
          link
          -111 year ago

          Try looking at things on a case-by-case basis then life will start to make more sense.

          After that, look into the concepts of “civil disobedience” and the “social contract.”

          Come back when you’ve educated yourself more on the subject matter.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            101 year ago

            Who decides which SCOTUS cases can be ignored? Because right now, Alabama is ignoring a SCOTUS ruling to stop their racist gerrymandering. No one is able to stop them from doing it. Insulting me will not change the fact that ignoring a SCOTUS ruling is, right now, allowing official state racism to stand. And there has been no civil disobedience enough to stop it.

            So, without insulting me- how do you ensure the South doesn’t just ignore Plessy vs. Ferguson?

            • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              how do you ensure the South doesn’t just ignore Plessy vs. Ferguson?

              They already are. What did Illinois following rulings by an illegitimate court do to change that?

              • Flying Squid
                link
                -11 year ago

                The discussion was about how states could just ignore SCOTUS. It had moved on from the topic in the article.

                • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  As far as I understand, your argument was if Illinois ignores a SCOTUS ruling that allows southern states to also ignore SCOTUS rulings, which they are already doing. What is your argument if I’ve misunderstood, and what is your proposal in regards to how states should deal with a ruling that is contrary to what the law should be?

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    This is the comment I was responding to:

                    States don’t have to obey the supreme court.

                    The supreme court is a suggestion body more than anything else.

                    As soon as we stop taking them seriously, they stop having power.

                    And if that is the case, any Southern state can ignore Plessy v. Ferguson.

                    But it is clearly not the case.

            • @Dkarma
              link
              -41 year ago

              Federal law has never controlled state elections.

              Why do u think scotus has any power over how state elections are run here? Plessy v Ferguson doesn’t even apply here.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                61 year ago

                Plessy v. Ferguson was another example of racist laws that could be allowed if SCOTUS can just be ignored whenever states want.

                And racist gerrymandering has absolutely been taken up by SCOTUS before. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Johnson

                Legal racism is not a state-by-state issue.

            • @maness300
              link
              -101 year ago

              Why don’t you just make your own thread to talk about your specific case instead of trying to hijack my comments?

              You clearly can’t understand the words being put in front of you, so why would I continue this discussion?

              Goodbye.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                71 year ago

                I don’t think your insults are called for and I don’t think it would be hard to answer my question if it is such a simple matter.