3 ms·

I'm no Trump supporter, but I find this decision very undemocratic. Seven judges have the power to prevent someone from being voted for by the people?

r2_pilot 3y ago
Well, perhaps people seeking leadership positions should distance themselves from situations where they may violate laws which cause the effect of losing the ability to be a candidate. Or, as the kids say these days, fuck around and find out.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- verdverm 3y ago
  > perhaps people seeking leadership positions should distance themselves from situations where they may violate laws Ironically, after watching proceedings and reading opinions from several Trump cases, I think Trump is having a hard time finding good lawyers because the good ones are distancing themselves from situations where they may violate laws which cause the effect of losing their ability to practice law. i.e. They don't want to fuck around and find out
verdverm 3y ago
It's more that there are a bunch of people arguing and filing briefs if a person falls within the purview of the law. It's not just 7 people, those judges were appointed by elected officials, so the people have had a say in how we got to here. By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. I'm watching the actual proceedings right now, they arguments are interesting so far. This is also the same thesis underlying the ability to do mass mail in voting during a pandemic and the increasing coalition of states that intend to honor the national popular vote rather than the results of their state.
- Thuggery 3y ago
  > By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. Do you have any historical precedent in which the population of a state have legally been denied the right to vote for one of the premier candidates of a major election a la the President? The only cases I'm familiar with is that historically entire subsections of the citizenry have not been allowed to vote: landless, blacks, women. Most don't think of those times as ideals to emulate.
  - r2_pilot 3y ago
    Unprecedented times don't constrain us to the historical events. And we have a Constitution which we follow when unprecedented times do arise. If we don't want to follow the Constitution, fine, but there is a process defined in it for doing that as well, as unlikely as it seems in modern times. Clearly, while there is some room for discussion about the law as written, it seems like reasonable people believe this is one of those unprecedented times and are applying the law.
  - verdverm 3y ago
    The Amendment (and argument) at the core of this is the 14th amendment, as was passed at the end of the civil war. Section 3, "the sedition clause" was largely enacted to prevent the leaders of the south and the rebellion from holding office ever again. This is part of the argument the lawyers supporting the ban draw on. That when they wrote the law, the discussions about it, and how they used the words in 1868, most certainly sought to include the office of the president from those positions that a person, if found guilt of breaking their oath to uphold the constitution, in the list of offices and similar roles that said person would never again be allowed to hold. Jefferson Davis, as the president of the Confederacy, was denied the right to ever hold an office again. At the time, there would have been broad support among a subset of states to elect Davis to President were he allowed to do so. So, yes, there is a similar example were many people deprived of voting for their popular choice for President. I'm watching the actual proceedings, It's pretty interesting so far. I keep getting distracted and looking things up for more context, so I've only seen one side's arguments so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz4ZqwrsipA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz4ZqwrsipA
krapp 3y ago
Wait until you find out how party committees and the electoral college work. And that nine unelected judges with lifetime positions can just decide what parts of the Constitution are valid, and what aren't, whenever they like.
- Miner49er 3y ago
  No I'm aware, those are obviously antidemocratic as well. This is just further evidence that America is not a democracy, is what I'm basically saying.
  - verdverm 3y ago
    SCOTUS is appointed by the President and approved by Congress, both elected by the people. It's how the democracy was designed
  - cocacola1 3y ago
    Makes sense, as it’s a constitutional republic.
    - dmix 3y ago
      Bit of a silly counter argument. This is like saying free speech is strictly define by what the US law says, rather than it first and foremost being a widely held cultural value that became enshrined in US law as a reflection of that culture. Expecting the US to be democratic is a value people hold and it's legitimate to expect it from their government. Even if they don't understand the functions of lower political bodies. [Note: to be clear I'm not making a point re: this ruling, just wanted to point that out]
- verdverm 3y ago
  > whenever they like A case needs to be brought and make its way through the lower courts first
  - krapp 3y ago
alwillis 3y ago
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, where the very people who committed treason against the Union ran for office. Hence the need to clarify that those people are ineligible. Same thing happened in Germany after WWII, where Nazis tried to run for office and the law was changed to forbid them from holding political office. Virtually all democracies have provision for disqualifying people who are anti-democratic.
- stop50 3y ago
  These type of protections existed before WWII. The Nazis were forbidden for a time, but that was reverted because nobody cared.

r2_pilot 3y ago

Well, perhaps people seeking leadership positions should distance themselves from situations where they may violate laws which cause the effect of losing the ability to be a candidate. Or, as the kids say these days, fuck around and find out.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
verdverm 3y ago
> perhaps people seeking leadership positions should distance themselves from situations where they may violate laws Ironically, after watching proceedings and reading opinions from several Trump cases, I think Trump is having a hard time finding good lawyers because the good ones are distancing themselves from situations where they may violate laws which cause the effect of losing their ability to practice law. i.e. They don't want to fuck around and find out

verdverm 3y ago

It's more that there are a bunch of people arguing and filing briefs if a person falls within the purview of the law. It's not just 7 people, those judges were appointed by elected officials, so the people have had a say in how we got to here. By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. I'm watching the actual proceedings right now, they arguments are interesting so far. This is also the same thesis underlying the ability to do mass mail in voting during a pandemic and the increasing coalition of states that intend to honor the national popular vote rather than the results of their state.

Thuggery 3y ago
> By and large, the constitution grants wide privilege for states to decide how they run their elections, and how they validate whether a person is qualified. Do you have any historical precedent in which the population of a state have legally been denied the right to vote for one of the premier candidates of a major election a la the President? The only cases I'm familiar with is that historically entire subsections of the citizenry have not been allowed to vote: landless, blacks, women. Most don't think of those times as ideals to emulate.
- r2_pilot 3y ago
  Unprecedented times don't constrain us to the historical events. And we have a Constitution which we follow when unprecedented times do arise. If we don't want to follow the Constitution, fine, but there is a process defined in it for doing that as well, as unlikely as it seems in modern times. Clearly, while there is some room for discussion about the law as written, it seems like reasonable people believe this is one of those unprecedented times and are applying the law.
- verdverm 3y ago
  The Amendment (and argument) at the core of this is the 14th amendment, as was passed at the end of the civil war. Section 3, "the sedition clause" was largely enacted to prevent the leaders of the south and the rebellion from holding office ever again. This is part of the argument the lawyers supporting the ban draw on. That when they wrote the law, the discussions about it, and how they used the words in 1868, most certainly sought to include the office of the president from those positions that a person, if found guilt of breaking their oath to uphold the constitution, in the list of offices and similar roles that said person would never again be allowed to hold. Jefferson Davis, as the president of the Confederacy, was denied the right to ever hold an office again. At the time, there would have been broad support among a subset of states to elect Davis to President were he allowed to do so. So, yes, there is a similar example were many people deprived of voting for their popular choice for President. I'm watching the actual proceedings, It's pretty interesting so far. I keep getting distracted and looking things up for more context, so I've only seen one side's arguments so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz4ZqwrsipA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz4ZqwrsipA

krapp 3y ago

Wait until you find out how party committees and the electoral college work. And that nine unelected judges with lifetime positions can just decide what parts of the Constitution are valid, and what aren't, whenever they like.

Miner49er 3y ago
No I'm aware, those are obviously antidemocratic as well. This is just further evidence that America is not a democracy, is what I'm basically saying.
- verdverm 3y ago
  SCOTUS is appointed by the President and approved by Congress, both elected by the people. It's how the democracy was designed
- cocacola1 3y ago
  Makes sense, as it’s a constitutional republic.
  - dmix 3y ago
    Bit of a silly counter argument. This is like saying free speech is strictly define by what the US law says, rather than it first and foremost being a widely held cultural value that became enshrined in US law as a reflection of that culture. Expecting the US to be democratic is a value people hold and it's legitimate to expect it from their government. Even if they don't understand the functions of lower political bodies. [Note: to be clear I'm not making a point re: this ruling, just wanted to point that out]
verdverm 3y ago
> whenever they like A case needs to be brought and make its way through the lower courts first
- krapp 3y ago

alwillis 3y ago

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, where the very people who committed treason against the Union ran for office. Hence the need to clarify that those people are ineligible. Same thing happened in Germany after WWII, where Nazis tried to run for office and the law was changed to forbid them from holding political office. Virtually all democracies have provision for disqualifying people who are anti-democratic.

stop50 3y ago
These type of protections existed before WWII. The Nazis were forbidden for a time, but that was reverted because nobody cared.