volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@vij but it wasn't written into the constitution.

The Amendment talked about holding office, not running for office or voting procedures, which are dramatically different parts of the process, as the court expressed in its ruling.

Had it actually been written into the constitution the result would probably have been very different.

@TCatInReality it's really not that hard to understand the ruling.

Number two really answers number one for you.

The Court could not have set judicial tests because it doesn't have that authority, particularly because of the complication of state versus federal government. It's the wrong branch of government to address the question.

It ignored the actual events of 2020 because that wasn't relevant to the question before it, where as an appeals court it was only asked to review the operation of the state court. It could not legally have gone into the events of 2020.

@wdlindsy

@synlogic that wasn't the question before the Court, though.

They were asked to review a legal proceeding in the state court and found that the state court didn't follow proper proceedings. They couldn't really rule on Trump on the ballot because they weren't asked whether Trump can be on the ballot.

The appeals court can only address the questions brought to them.

@dcdeejay That's not what the ruling today said.

It said that the state can't remove you based on this state application of federal law, but states remain largely free to manage their elections as they see fit as per state law.

It was the state judgment of federal law that was the real kicker here, that Congress can authorize if it wants to.

@MugsysRapSheet Well not quite, it's not that the issue must be decided by Congress but that Congress can put in place a legal process to make the determination.

But that process itself has to be legal and legitimate.

This isn't like an impeachment, this is most likely akin to Congress passing a law that grants federal courts the authority to hear such a case, and it would remain up to the court system to settle it as per the new law.

I don't think a law that removes specific people would be valid.

@shades

@drrjv It comes across as crying wolf, though.

I heard all of these exact same claims last time Trump was elected, and the sensational warnings didn't come to pass, as they never could, and so it just ends up sounding hysterical to hear them coming out again.

@BrynnTannehill74

@stevesilberman It wasn't a stolen seat. She was confirmed and appointed just as the process was set up.

Yes, Obama failed in his duty to fill the vacancy with a nominee that the Senate found compelling, but we need to remember to hold him accountable for that in the history books.

He left the vacancy for the next administration to fill fair and square, which is a big reason to hold presidents accountable for not putting forward those nominees.

@cafechatnoir it's a definitional thing.

By definition the president is the one who earned the requisite votes.

A person can claim whatever trappings of the office they would like, without the votes, by definition they are not president. You could even be sitting in the important chair in the Oval Office, but if you have not been voted in, you're still not president, and not being president you don't have the authority to issue orders.

That's one reason people got so overblown about the idea that Trump wouldn't leave office. No, he doesn't have that option. We don't leave it up two individuals to decide for themselves whether or not they are president.

By definition, this is how the office works. Anything happening outside of that definition is not the presidency.

@jayalane No, this case involved an incident that was not a routine part of the IVF process, and the court went through that exact distinction in its ruling.

@erin

@gkmizuno agreed, that is the question I'm working with too. As far as I can tell guilt under USC would satisfy the core complaint that the Court had here, but I don't think it's clear.

@McPatrick but keep in mind that it is the Constitution itself that limits the issues that the Supreme Court can take on.

They wouldn't be acting to protect the Constitution should they so exceed the constitutional bounds of their offices, they would be violating their oaths.

And just because they may have violated the rules in one place doesn't make it not unconstitutional in a different place.

@cafechatnoir No one can get into office without votes, though.

@Nonilex No that's not quite what the ruling said.

It's not that Congress is solely responsible for enforcing the amendment but that Congress gets to lay out how enforcement will happen, Congress can authorize courts to enforce it, for example. Or congress can authorize or even require states to enforce it.

But, the court said that the lower court can't skip that democratic process and act without legal authority.

@SteveThompson this is missing the issue that the case hinged on.

Even if the 14th amendment had crystal clear language, what wasn't clear, according to the court, was whether it applied to Trump. That's a legal matter that they said was up to our elected officials to write rules around.

The language is clear but the application is not, and that was the problem.

@popcornreel States can do plenty.

It's just that state courts can't apply federal law without legal authority.

@agrinova It didn't, though, since that's not how an appeals court works.

That question was not before the court, so it could not have answered it even if it wanted to.

Really, these questions are importance are for voters to decide, not for a court.

@Hyolobrika

Thanks. Bookmarked!

@gkmizuno I would have to reread the opinion, feel free to paste me an excerpt saying otherwise, but as far as I remember had Trump been found guilty of a federal charge of treason or insurrection, that would entirely resolve the Court's complaint about Congress needing to pass a law.

That guilty verdict would come as a result of the laws that Congress has already passed.

The problem here is that Trump was being found guilty of something outside of any federal law by a state court.

At least, it would resolve the matter that the court addressed, it would bring up some deeper questions, but it would resolve this one.

@christianschwaegerl I just listed different ways that the amendment can be applied even without a federal law.

It just can't be applied by a state looking to decide unilaterally without legal authority.

Yes, the law can be applied. It is not effectively nullified because it is still in effect, even if this one effect didn't pass muster.

If the people we elect to Congress decide that Trump is fine even considering the amendment, that doesn't mean the amendment is nullified, it means the Democratic process determined that it didn't apply.

And so let's stop electing idiots to Congress.

@Hyolobrika I'd be interested in learning about those proposals.

My concern is that it's like trying to bolt wings onto a car to make it fly instead of starting from scratch with an airplane fuselage: I think the platform is fundamentally not adapted for it, so I'm skeptical that those additions would work in an elegant way.

But I'm interested!

@wjmaggos