volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@marynelson8 but the statement is itself paradoxical.

He's no violating criminal law if he's fulfilling his constitutional duty, which is the whole point of the claim.

So that's not the claim before the court.

@jawarajabbi You're missing that questions of ballot access come down to state law, not federal law, and definitely not the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about how states should conduct their elections.

Yes, SCOTUS interprets US constitutional law, but this is not a US constitutional question, and that's the whole point.

@jericevans except no, that's not what the court will rule on, and it's imperative to point that out.

The question right now is over ballot access, not the holding of office.

It's a completely different question, and even at that point it has a whole lot of assumptions where it can go wrong.

@jawarajabbi

@sjgenco@me.dm No they begged a bunch of questions, asserting as fact a bunch of assumptions that are extremely debatable.

So yeah, you're kind of begging the question there.

CO needed to produce a ruling, and it did, but it wasn't a particularly well justified argument, and they knew it as they knew this was going to be subject to higher court review.

It doesn't get us anywhere to just deny the open question though.

@jawarajabbi That's not how the process works.

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to find that Trump's actions on January 6th disqualify him from the ballot. That's not a federal decision, it's a state decision, and so the federal court has no jurisdiction to come to such a conclusion.

The Supreme Court can review a state court process but that's as far as it can really go here. It does not have the jurisdiction to kick anybody off a ballot.

@jericevans Even if we go with that comment, you see how that comment doesn't say the Supreme Court will kick Trump off the ballot?

Because the Court doesn't have that authority, and that is a very important element of how the US government works, a very critical feature of the US system.

Even if the federal Court is reviewing the actions of the state Court, it's not the federal court that is acting there. It's still the state court.

@jawarajabbi

@sjgenco@me.dm It has nothing to do with the GOP, though.

These matters of constitutional interpretation are not new. These are questions that have been looming for decades with different experts and authorities debating the meanings because they were unclear, heck, the authorities were begging for clarity specifically to head off a moment like this when we do need to know what the rules are.

The GOP didn't invent this.

Anybody nerdy enough to be plugged into the academic debates about this sort of thing would have been very familiar with these arguments for quite a while, long before Republicans discovered them.

@icare4america right?

It's so much easier for the politicians to run their campaigns against a public that doesn't know basic civics.

If more people were like me, knew how elections worked, then the politicians would have to work a lot harder. Thank goodness we're not in that world, though.

@whatabout

@leswarden it's a completely different situation.

SCOTUS was established by a written Constitution in a way that netanyahu didn't face, and if anything he was trying to bring their court closer to the US court rather than the other way around.

@fawfulfan

@Kozmo Believe it or not, and hear me out on this, sometimes Trump's legal representatives aren't exactly top notch and believable when they spout statements like this.

Like, these are awful people, why in the world would anybody put stake in what they are saying, especially given their track record of being wrong over and over.

@katrinakatrinka That's not how it works though. SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to cancel something like this.

Wrong branch of government.

@TucsonSentinel @CREW

@Nonilex You're begging the question, though, and saying that Trump had engaged in insurrection.

That is exactly one of the questions on the table.

@clacksee Well people are saying both and other things.

The problem is that this attempt to strike Trump from the ballot is a chain with many weak links, any one of which would doom that position.

That the amendment doesn't apply to the president is only one of a few different fatal flaws in the argument.

@fulelo

@jawarajabbi no, SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to kick Trump off the ballot even if they wanted to.

So no, there's no chance of that. It's just not their role in the election process.

@jericevans

@sjgenco@me.dm If the Constitution was clear then there wouldn't be so many people arguing back and forth making different claims about its meaning.

No, the Constitution is not clear.

And it begs the question to claim it is for the sake of confirming one's biases, and it does society no good to set that fight up like that.

@icare4america we'll see..

Personally I wouldn't be so excited about betting on a loser like Trump.

I seriously don't know why Republicans would look at a guy who made such giant strategic missteps that he gave away the last election and lost to someone like Biden, and then say, yeah that's the guy we want to run this year.

@whatabout

@1031 not allowed?

The members of Congress don't ask for permission. They can do what they want, and they were absolutely able to conduct that review regardless of the mayhem.

And the New York Times isn't exactly authoritative these days.

The joint session of Congress had the exact same ability to review before and after the events, so they judged that they had sufficiently reviewed the matter.

I don't know who you think would have been there preventing review, but that's just not how the process works.

They were perfectly able to conduct their review, and that's how the EC vote turned out, with a resounding loss for Trump.

No matter what excuses he might try to be making for his loss.

@whatabout @icare4america

@icare4america Oh it happens often.

Heck there are even court cases brought about because EC voters go against state vote results.

I'm sorry you're listening to some sources that are misleading you, misinforming you, but yeah, you need to find some better sources.

@whatabout

@moira see my experience says the complete opposite of what you're saying here, so *shrug*

Even the article that you linked to doesn't support what you're claiming here, which tells me that my experience isn't just some outlier. Even your own article reflects my experience that runs counter to what you are claiming.

So it comes across as gaslighting.