volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@jpanzer effectively the Court said that the process for electing federal officials was a federal process, even if states are delegated roles to play in the process.

And enforcement of the 14th was not within that delegation, but perhaps it could be if Congress extended that delegation.

For distinguishing, I don't think they touched those other issues in the ruling, but they did spend some time discussing them in oral arguments (and I'm sure elsewhere).

Among other distinguishing factors that was brought up was that Congress can allow an insurrectionist to serve but can't allow someone underage to serve.

This issue that the 14th gives Congress a way to "remove such disability" seemed important to the final ruling.

BUT, at oral arguments it was suggested offhand that MAYBE those other enforcements were illegal as well. It just wasn't before the Court in this case.

@thisismissem under GDPR is it sufficient to merely request deletion, or does it have to actually be done?

How does GDPR handle something like email, if I email a picture around and then want to delete the picture, what happens to copies on other email servers? Does GDPR care?

Erasure is tricky in distributed systems, but I'm sure GDPR considered the email example since it's not new.

@neil

@lin11c who, legally, would have executed that immediate detention? Under what legal authority?

This is why the matter of presidential authority is so critical to the functioning of the US system.

@IAmDannyBoling @Stinson_108 @atrupar

@IAmDannyBoling I didn't say that would be the end of it. I said he wouldn't be president.

He would have lost authority of the presidency because he would no longer be president.

If he were to storm the White House and take over the government, somehow, fine, but he wouldn't be doing it as president because by definition he wouldn't be.

Why is this important? Because the entire system that answers to the president would go through the normal systems that prevent anyone who's not president from acting.

He would fail because the actual president has plenty of power to repel such an attack.
@Stinson_108 @lin11c @atrupar

@gkmizuno I wouldn't--and the Court didn't--say 2383 was *tied* to 14A directly. As I recall 2383 predated the amendment after all. The Court only cited it as an example of relevant Congressional action.

2383 is separate but relevant. A citation of guilt under 2383 is one way the 14A question might have been resolved in the case. Still a separate, parallel procedure.

But here's a different thought that sheds light on the whole thing: was 2383 constitutional in the first place? Can even Congress by statute interfere with constitutional offices like that?

It may be that you'd need to think about it the other way around: **14A enables 2383, not the other way around.**

I make this point to illustrate that 14A remains in effect even if it's not applied. 14A continues to enable Congress, empowering Congress, whether Congress chooses to use that power.

That's the real impact of 14A in this framing. It authorizes things like 2383.

@lin11c Read the ruling.

Then you don't have to rely on what those people are telling you about it, when they're telling you things that don't match what's in the ruling.

@lin11c that may be good enough for you, but it's not accurate, so it's not good enough for me 🙂

Again I believe I linked to the ruling so you can read for yourself exactly what it said and not have to rely on these third party accounts which are so often really wrong.

@jpanzer the critical point is that this was found to be a federal process, and off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere else that state courts can enforce state laws against federal processes specifically.

The best I can think of is, say, local zoning laws preventing a federal agency from building where they want to, but those are laws of general applicability and not targeted specifically at regulating federal activity.

Yes, when the federal government is silent toward private activity, states can step in, but the huge difference here is that this is a state acting directly against the federal government, which changes it completely.

As for the pocket veto framing, no the amendment is still 100% in force. It's just that, as the court frames it, the actual force of the amendment is in handing congress authority, which it still has, whether it chooses to apply it or not.

As per this ruling, the amendment stands, it just doesn't do what a lot of people want it to do.

@jpanzer I agree that there is tension here between the grant of states to conduct their elections vs saying that this goes too far.

The Court does recognize that in its ruling, though, but goes through history and practicalities to draw the distinction, much like 1st Amendment cases draw distinctions between permissible and impermissible actions, when both impact speech.

One thing they highlight is that the 14th Amendment was specifically about taking power away from states, so it's weird to cite that in ways that would empower states over the federal government.

It sounds reasonable, if not rock solid, to me.

This action was not a minor, incidental regulation like setting the hours for a polling place. It was an outright policing of a federal candidate, which makes it something of a different level, analogous to viewpoint discrimination of speech.

@lin11c see the linked ruling.

You can see exactly what the Court ordered, and what it didn't.

Yes, there are a lot of reports that didn't reflect what was actually in the ruling.

@thisismissem ha, it's more a question of how did this NOT happen :)

It's a feature they haven't finished yet. They probably should have put more priority on getting it done.

To say the least...

@brianvastag all that matters is what was handed down in the end.

Justices are free to change their minds about anything right up until the official handing down of a ruling.

@SNerd they didn't address it directly, but in passing lumped federal representatives and senators in with the president, so their ruling here would likely apply to them as well.

Outside of a authorization from the feds, the Court finds that states would be interfering in federal operations by blocking federal candidates on those grounds.

> "But there is little reason to think that these Clauses implicitly authorize the States to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. Granting the States that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power."

@lin11c that's not what they decided in Bush v Gore, and I'll link to it so you can read for yourself.

In BvG the Supreme Court found that a state court had acted unconstitutionally, so it reversed the state court's illegal ruling.

The Supremes didn't say who the president was. They said Florida could vote for anyone they wanted so long as the voting was constitutional, and that the Florida state court can't be allowed to break the law.

Through their ruling in BvG the Supreme Court protected democracy from an illegally acting state court.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep531/usrep531098/usrep531098.pdf
@Stinson_108 @atrupar

@Stinson_108 What makes it illogical?

Even if I'm not entirely convinced that the court was right, its argument seems pretty logical, that states can't regulate the federal government unilaterally.

That seems logical even if not my preference.

@atrupar

@Stinson_108

The reason this fear is overstated is because we don't leave it up to the loser to decide that he has lost. We tell him he has lost. He immediately loses all authority, and it doesn't matter if he camps out in the Oval Office, he's no longer president and he no longer has legal authority.

It's not up to Trump to decide whether to leave office or not. If he's not president, he's not president, regardless of what he might think about it.

@lin11c @atrupar

@servelan The problem is that the Court found the presidential election to be a federal procedure so this wasn't just a state regulating private action since the feds had not, but rather this was seen a state regulating the federal government itself.

I don't fully agree that a presidential election is a federal process, but given that it is, as the Court found, it's a little more understandable.

It would be like Texas proposing to regulate some practice in the EPA just because Congress had not passed a law related to that specific practice.

Or, this analogy is a little more complicated, but Texas proposing to regulate the federal border patrol. It would be disallowed for the same reason, and that is certainly current events at this point.

@TCatInReality Well the core of their ruling is that states don't have this right at all, cannot have a right to interfere in federal matters like that.

(I'm not myself completely convinced by that stance, but it is what they came down with, so it meant they couldn't issue guidelines for a practice that was not legal in the first place)

But yeah, the vast, vast majority of the work done by an appellate court like this one isn't done through oral argument but through huge stacks of papers representing not only briefings to the court but also the record from the lower court including all of the briefings there, so it's always kind of interesting to think about what the oral argument is actually supposed to be accomplishing.

I believe I remember that sometimes judges and justices will even refuse to consider points brought up in the oral argument that weren't in the briefings, telling the arguers that at that point it's too late to bring up something new. You can hear the justices often say, that point wasn't briefed.

@wdlindsy

@Guinnessy I suppose the real complication is the definition of what counts as good, which brings up stuff like what the end goals are, how they might be measured, what standards to meet, etc.

So that's that's kind of what I'm going into: personally I aim for the pragmatic, saying that compositions that are the pinnacle of integrity, that aren't read by anybody, I don't consider that good while somebody focused on the integrity side would. It's not the good that I prioritize.

I think that if journalists spent more time engaging with their readers it would even promote a level of self-reflection that could even improve the integrity side of things. It makes for a system of critical feedback that is, well, critical 🙂 crucial.

So I adamantly agree that quite a few places aren't practicing good journalism. But there's probably disagreement in what that exactly means and how to move forward to improve it.