“Removing a candidate from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not something my office takes lightly,” California’s Democratic secretary of state previously said.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      6 months ago

      This. The “let voters decide” argument is bullshit. “Sure he broke the rules but it should be up to the people if they care about that kind of thing”. Since when do courts care about what the general public think?

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Since when do courts care about what the general public think

        That is one of the pillars of justice in a so-called democracy.

        • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          6 months ago

          Not at all. The courts are intended to be neutral arbiters of law itself. Congress is the body that should care about what people think.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The law is open to interpretation since language is imprecise. Thinking that the law is some kind of rigid holy truth is extremely naive at best. Or at worst is fascist.

            • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m disagreeing with your assertion that courts should care about what the people think. If anything, when the law is ambiguous the courts look at the legislative session notes, speeches, drafts…etc to try and figure out what the original intent was (or throw it back to legislature to rework). I never said it’s some kind of rigid holy truth.

              • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Well the original intent of the insurrection clause was to prevent the same senators/congressmen who seceded and started the civil war from being eligible for federal office. This obviously doesn’t apply in Trumps case since there was no civil war and Trump was the lawfully elected president of the US at the time.

      • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        This. We tried that last election cycle and be wasn’t happy with the results from the people and attempted to falsify and overthrow them. NO SECOND CHANCES.

      • Psionicsickness
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        What courts? Trump was never convicted? These removals are all just because high placed hippies, “feel like” Trump’s actions were, “insurrectiony”.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months ago

    Apparently without an explanation of how Trump is not disqualified by Section Three?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m kinda surprised, but also relieved that conservatives won’t be able to point to my state and say we did what they expected. Looking forward to further disqualifications in states that aren’t targets for “bias.”

    • Aermis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      What bias tho. In what world do you want to live in where it’s ok to have a president of the largest military presence in the world have power when they actively call for a civil conflict and has been arrested by the country they’re trying to rule.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Perhaps the country is corrupt and should be overthrown? The fight should be on every front. Legal and Illegal.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t consider kicking him off the ballot for his traitorous actions an act of bias. I’m just saying that my state doing so (Cali) would be pointed to as bias because we’re “libs” (I’m a socialist).

  • Horsey@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is probably a smart move… Trump will never win California but it will open up the Secretary of State office to lawsuits that will only waste money. It’s not like a precedent in California will help other states bar him.

    • mayotte2048@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s what i was thinking. Taking him off the ballot doesn’t hurt Trump, but doing so may have political or legal consequences. So they are just sitting this out to not give their opponents ammunition.

  • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m gonna assume they’re doing this to avoid setting a precedent where a Dem candidate can be removed for any reason later on. Not to say there isn’t plenty of reason for Trump, but it’s a dangerous place to be.

      • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, we agree. Not exactly what I meant. I’m all for Trump being completely excluded, but the GOP has made a habit of using what’s put in place to avoid any wrongdoing to try and disrupt the good ones from getting things done.

        • cheesebag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah that’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. I worry about creating tools for them to misuse. But then again, Democrats didn’t use faithless electors against Trump, they didn’t try to violently steal an election- Republicans did that all on their own. So… 🤷🏼‍♂️

          • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            They haven’t been playing by the rules for a while now, so there’s no point in a good faith attempt to fix politics anymore.

      • mayotte2048@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think the danger they are talking about is that they might only need an accusation of insurrection, not a conviction to do this.

        Think about Congress’s impeachment probe into Biden without evidence.