volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@goodreedAJ It doesn't change it, though, it wasn't really touched on by the opinion which was focused on the election process.

Other implications of the 14th remain untouched by today's opinion which did not address them.

@Teri_Kanefield

@Stinson_108 sure, because we elected representatives who are jerks and do bad things.

We should stop electing and re-electing those people.

That's not Trump's deal, that is us, we elected and re-elected them.

It's not except that Trump is de facto Speaker of the House. It's as per our voting, this is how the office of Speaker is being conducted.

And we can change it anytime we decide to stop re-electing idiots. But it's up to us.

@fluxed I don't think that's right as the ruling pretty clearly recognizes mechanism to keep insurrectionists from holding federal office.

@christianschwaegerl No, not at all.

The ruling does nothing to nullify the 14th. It merely says that federal ballot access with regard to the federal question is a federal matter to be handled by federal law.

That doesn't mean an insurrectionist is qualified for office. It just means the balloting itself is a federal matter.

@wjmaggos what about ATProtocol prevents decentralization?

From what I've read it promotes it better than the protocols here.

@gkmizuno correct. The Supreme Court said that this part of the Constitution has no power of enforcement, but rather, that it authorizes Congress to create powers of enforcement.

There's no paradox. It's simply a question of governmental process, like any other. If we don't care to elect representatives who would create those mechanisms, well, I guess it's not important to us.

@LouisIngenthron the CIC who is nonetheless restrained by law.

He's not a dictator. The president has only the authorities vested by law, including with regard to the military.

The top bureaucrat charged with implementing congressional preferences as to how the military is to be used as well.

@gkmizuno No, because the Supreme Court left open congressional ability to create a process by which 14A 3 would be enforced.

Congress is not required, Congress is authorized.

And Congress is authorized to create remedies.

It's not cut off, it's the opposite, it's emphatically allowed.

@bigheadtales Glad to help!

@LouisIngenthron meh. I wouldn't say this is about justice. That's more a matter of criminal law.

This is about choosing the administrator of the executive branch of the federal government.

Justice is about figuring out who needs to go to jail. This is about figuring out who we want to trust to tell the IRS how to mail refund checks.

@WorMP3 exactly.

I'm eternally frustrated by friends who simultaneously complain about what Congress does even as they keep excitedly re-electing the exact people doing the thing they are complaining about.

So I try to highlight the importance of electing better congresspeople, or more to the point, the importance of ending the reelection of bad ones.

@bigheadtales careful with those assumptions about my political leanings. No I'm a emphatic liberal and I sure wish the rest of y'all would stop being so authoritarian.

But anyway, I did correct you. The court didn't say that. There's your correction.

@LouisIngenthron they will if we stop re-electing jerks.

But we keep re-electing jerks.

And so we get the government we elect.

We should stop re-electing jerks, but history says we will keep doing it, so.

@iuculano this decision didn't favor Trump. It favored voters and the federal design of the US as the justices laid out in their opinion.

This was not about Trump.

@micchiato@mastodon.social I don't know why you think expanding the court would make a difference when the decision was unanimous.

Sounds like it would be a 12-0 decision instead of 9-0.

@LouisIngenthron That's not at all what SCOTUS ruled.

Not only do presidents remain susceptible to legal penalty under this ruling, but the ruling even laid out the path for Congress to impose additional penalties against any president who would commit insurrection.

@Stinson_108 not so much Trump's hands since he's not in Congress...

@WorMP3 Well, impeachment or, more realistically, the statutes regarding the counting of electoral votes.

Congress remains free to simply not recognize Trump as eligible for office, if it wants, setting aside any EC ballot that lists him.

@SonofaGeorge Well they decided that states CAN remove a candidate from a presidential ballot but it has to be done through a federal process for a federal election.

The presidential immunity question is a very different sort of issue, so there's nothing strange about the two different things being handled in two different ways.

@Nonilex Well not quite.

It's not that decision is put in their hands, but that they can set up the process to make the decision.