An Illinois state judge on Wednesday barred Donald Trump from appearing on the Illinois’ Republican presidential primary ballot because of his role in the attack at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but she delayed her ruling from taking effect in light of an expected appeal by the former U.S president.

  • @johannesvanderwhales
    -16•10 months ago

    Really mixed feelings on this. I think the legal argument probably has merit, although I am not a lawyer. I quite hate Trump, and think there will be negative consequences (possibly very scary!) if he wins. But I do not think that elections in America should be won in the courts.

    Edit: I think today is the day I block /c/politics

    • @I_Clean_Here
      19•10 months ago

      This is about upholding the actual laws that define the American political system and not some personal smear campaign, dude.

      • @johannesvanderwhales
        -6•10 months ago

        And yet the reaction from certain conservative states is to try to find ways to disqualify Biden. The Fourteenth Amendment was voted in under a particular set of circumstances and whether it applies here is unclear. This will ultimately undoubtedly go to the Supreme Court.

        • @[email protected]English
          3•10 months ago

          Claiming that we shouldn’t uphold the law, especially when we can see what a huge risk is posed by not holding it, because some other group may try to abuse the law, doesn’t strike me as a very strong argument.

          Also, they were explicit during the crafting of this that it was not meant for just the civil war. In fact, the first draft of the amendment explicitly limited it to the civil war, but they generalized the language so that it would apply to future insurrection as well.

          The only real question I think the scotus has a legitimate out on this is if they claim it doesn’t count as an insurrection or that he didn’t take part. They might be able to argue that he technically didn’t take an oath that counts he ever took an oath that counts for section 3, but that would clearly just contradict their claim of being originalists in favor of being textualists. Which wouldn’t surprise me because the conservatives on the court appear to have no objective moral compass.

    • Phoenixz
      4•10 months ago

      Fair elections, yes.

      Trump, through, has been lying and cheating his way through the previous and this election. He literally lies more than he speaks truth but more importantly, he continuously threatens everyone of his opponents and he has a base who will literally support him even if he commits heinous acts.

      He has over 90 court accusations running against him running from an enormous amounts of frauds, to insurrection and treason. The guy should be in jail, and others would habe already had the death penalty, yet trump is out here. Did mention the countless amounts of ties he mentioned he wants to he a dictator, how cool dictatorships are, that what the US really needs is a dictator…

      At some point you gotta take what you can.

      • @johannesvanderwhales
        -1•10 months ago

        I would note that this has nothing to do with any of those indictments. The Georgia charges stem from attempts to overturn the election results, not from Jan 6. There is nothing disallowing criminals to run for or serve as president. One could argue that in a free democracy it’s very important that criminals be allowed to run, to prevent the law being wielded as a cudgel against political opponents.

    • @[email protected]English
      3•10 months ago

      The election is won in court because GOP chose to support an insurrectionist. They could’ve chosen someone who shouldn’t be barred from holding office.

      There’s nothing to be mixed about, unless you believe insurrectionists should be able to hold office.