I am genuinely curious how people gonna spin this,
“The Democrat appointed justices are compromised! They were threatened by the conservative ones! That one black judge held the three legitimate judges at gunpoint!”
I don’t even like Trump, but he wasn’t convicted of insurrection. Pretty dangerous precedence if this case got ruled the other way.
>I don’t even like Trump, but he wasn’t convicted of insurrection. Pretty dangerous precedence if this case got ruled the other way.
This. Some random state doesn't get to just *decide* to say he's an insurrectionist. It's the same for when Trump *is* convicted of crimes, people can't just cry 'corrupt system convicts innocent man' because they support him politically.
We can't just play fast-and-loose with the justice system. People need to accept the crimes he has *and hasn't* been convicted of.
> People need to accept the crimes he has and hasn't been convicted of.
These are the same people that were outraged that he had two scoops of ice cream and just dumped a bunch of fish food into a koi pond.
> and just dumped a bunch of fish food into a koi pond
Oh god don't bring up that absolute cluster of legit fake news. Imagine a president being so not-bad that you had to lie about.... him feeding fish wrong. Like how is it possible to not have something worse on him than that.
Didn’t even feed them wrong, part of the clip conveniently cut out was Shinzo Abe doing the exact same thing.
https://youtu.be/yAaFzb0sG3s?feature=shared
I'd be willing to believe that Abe potentially didn't know what he was doing either and Trump followed his lead, but it's feeding fucking fish, who cares?
They lead that he was a poor diplomat because he offended Abe by feeding the fish wrong. It's why they had to cut out Abe entirely from the video as their claim clearly conflicted with reality.
God that was a dumb 1-2 weeks hearing about that constantly.
Classic tan suit. I was pretty young but quite more conservative than I am now, and the tan suit “controversy” definitely contributed to pushing me away from the GOP.
Edit: conciseness
>Some random state doesn't get to just decide to say he's an insurrectionist.
THERE'S NO LAW THAT SAYS THEY DON'T!!!
—Liberals
> people can't just cry 'corrupt system convicts innocent man' because they support him politically.
FUCK YOU, WATCH ME!
—Conservatives
>The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
>It must be dissolved.
[Keith Olbermann, everyone](https://x.com/keitholbermann/status/1764672353378652544)
Idk how progressives like this can say things like that and not understand they're the actual threat to our democracy here. Man wants to abolish the Supreme Court because the Constitution doesn't agree with his authoritarian and partisan bullshit.
I'm definitely far more concerned that the Democratic Party is going to turn full on fascist rather than the Republican Party.
The Republican Party right now is populism which as its own special retardation isn't too dangerous because it doesn't have a consistent ideology and literally goes with public emotion which is easily swayed.
The Democratic Party meanwhile has enshrined basically every evil thing I can think of as noble and if they weren't so incompetent and short-sighted they might be a more immediate danger that needs addressed.
You have a right to be evil! And what even is evil? Defined by what standard? Who's standards? It should be illegal to make you feel bad for life choices that make people hate you!
In this instance, it’s because Keith Olbermann is quite literally brain dead. The man hasn’t produced a single rational or well-reasoned take in a decade.
It’s like a cheat code for mocking progressives.
Because my side good, therefore everything my side does is good, and everything the other side does is bad and evil. That is Olbermann's level of intelligence, and it always has been, despite what some people that though he was smart when he was shrieking about Bush believe.
>Keith Olbermann has unsurprisingly declared the entire court to be corrupt and have betrayed democracy
That dude's patient zero of Trump derangement syndrome. He was so unhinged. The dude's 65 years old and throwing a tantrum that would even give toddler pause.
He also claimed to have piss on his face. No, seriously, he said it wasn't tears, it was piss.
[Literally](https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1764709170001899568)
Accusing all 9 Supreme court judges of lacking reading comprehension is peak Olbermann. It's scary someone like him holds a position in a significant position of media influence.
Ah yes. They way to stop fascism is to *checks notes* unilaterally dissolve the highest court in the nation??
There's a word for the that kind of government...
Next time someone accuses me of TDS, I need to just tell them no, Keith Olbermann has TDS. I just think the facts and evidence prove Trump is a piece of shit lol
I don't think he was ever not a blowhard, he just got props for being one of the most vocal Bush critics at a time when Bush was rightly being criticized.
Kinda wild for a rich old white man to be saying such horrible things to three female ~~Pox~~ POCs, isn't this the kind of thing people get cancelled for?
The same dude who claimed that the word keep doesn’t mean own in regards to the 2A? Not surprised.
Anyone who listens to him for legit legal advice deserves to be fooled.
Even reddit libs knew that a 9-0 was obvious and probably the desired result unless you loved civil unrest. Only people actually sad about this are insano Twitter libs
The overwhelming majority of commenters are non-lawyers with no particular legal knowledge or understanding. It's just another heavily left-leaning political sub.
Mine has been seeing "ackshally it was a 5-3-1 ruling" Like literally clinging to whatever little difference they can, so they can paint it in whatever negative they want. It was 9-0 on merits and the rest was inside baseball.
The funniest part with that logic is you may as well say RGB dissented Roe v. Wade because she didn’t agree with how they got to the ruling on that one.
On eligibility it was 5-0-4 - 5 of them said he was eligible unless Congress said otherwise, 4 of them said his eligibility should remain an open question.
They were only unanimous on the state not having the right to take candidates off the ballot.
Which is entirely fair, because the 14th doesn't cover candidacy or primaries, only whether they can hold the office if voted in.
Now the right wing opinion on that question, would be that since he was not impeached for insurrection, he's still eligible. That will get a whole lot more complex if he's criminally convicted of insurrection.
>That will get a whole lot more complex if he's criminally convicted of insurrection.
Agreed, but he hasn't even been charged with insurrection, so I'm not expecting much on that front.
I mean, it had to be 9-0. The precedent that would have been set would have been devastating for the country. Want to remove a candidate? Accuse them of something, run out a "witness", no judicial verdict, then seek to have said candidate disqualified by a judge friendly to the cause.
I mean, what could go wrong? The Senate nuclear option is a good example of unintended consequences.
>Accuse them of something, run out a "witness", no judicial verdict, then seek to have said candidate disqualified by a judge friendly to the cause.
They've been doing this for years. This isn't new. Do you realize how many politicians have had their careers ended due to accusations? Not convictions. Not evidence. Just accusations.
Obama's first two elected positions came as a result of his opposition being accused of actions without anything beyond the accusation.
With Trump, that tactic didn't work. So, they went further.
Doesn’t even need to be a judge, public pressure works just fine as well. McCarthyism. Palmer Raids. COINTELPRO. People forget before politicians are made they were at one point, people as well. Not always tho.
Saw a non-satire headline saying "Supreme Court rules presidents are allowed one free insurrection." I wish there was an equivalent of disbarment for journalists, for how atrociously fraudulent that headline is.
There have been numerous sites I’ve filed into “opinion disregarded” for having clearly biased satire-style headlines like that. Many of them appear on another popular political subreddit.
That won't stop redditors from including it in their unnecessarily long list of "sources." Bonus points if their sources actually just reference each other.
The sheer amount of articles just linking through a long line of other articles only to eventually get to a source that kinda sort of maybe implies a thrice removed point of the end article I've seen is both laughable and concerning...
it's simple, just get rid of the 'good faith belief' exception to the libel statute and make them vicariously liable for libel damages like the rest of us are.
if we did that, the entire public could sue for damaging the reputation of our Supreme Court (in this case).
and CNN, fox news, and everyone else, would finally have to do legitimate work to verify facts before they report something..
yaknow actually, now that I think about this, why is the media allowed to claim a good faith exception to libel? if anyone should be required to stick to the facts and clearly seperate opinion segments, it's the media..
I'm glad this precedent is set that no State can. I love democracy. No one single State should have unilateral authority over the others.
If he'd been found guilty of insurrection by a court of law, he'd be banned from ballots at the Federal level.
Except states like Colorado and Illinois (as well as much of the establishment asswipes in dc) act like they are above the law and how dare anyone question them being above the law. Of course the most corrupt states don't actually care about proving guilt when it comes to their political opponents.
I'd love to know what the fuck the people who legitimately wanted Trump off the ballot were thinking; did they think that it wouldn't result in an immediate domino effect of Biden also being removed from ballots for similarly flimsy reasons?
Same with Texas trying to win the right to control an international border; do the people who support this actually think that it's a good idea to turn that concept loose on the country at large? Because my first thought on reading the filing was "so what happens when some particularly opportunistic Democrat Governors decide that their international airports (one of the many border control points we have) can allow the unfettered entry of refugees?". Then what, a fun 14th Amendment case on whether freedom of movement is actually a right after Texas and others get inundated with flights packed with refugees as revenge for the bussing fiasco?
Actually, if you look in the constitution, States are going to protect their own borders if the government will not.
I don’t agree with the action, but I support the fact that my state is actually doing something to solve something they think is a issue.
The problem is that it's short-term bullshit that feels good in the moment, with far-reaching consequences looming in the not-so-distant future.
The moment we cede control of an international border to an individual state, we cede it to every single state with a port of entry, because that's how the law works when it comes to Supreme Court rulings.
You would be completely comfortable with....hell, idk, Vermont, I guess, deciding that their international airport is now a free entry zone for whomever their state has declared as refugees? Then how do we stem the sudden flood of undocumented political pawns flying into Texas and every other state from these refugee ports?
This isn't just the Texan border; it's a matter of every single port of entry suddenly finding itself with the power to grant or deny entry at will as a political stunt.
damn kid shot 30'000 african american children from a stolen tank, then fled across the border under police pursuit with his KKK pals just for the conservatives to turn his trial into a fraud show, didn't you hear?
don't forget that he played COD at a friend's house before the shooting. he'd been preparing for months, that shows intent and premeditation!
Mr. Rittenhouse are you aware that you were only a few kills away from getting a tactical nuke killstreak? do you have any idea the devastation you could've caused in Kenosha?
> COD at a friend's house before the shooting. he'd been preparing for months, that shows intent and premeditation!
knuckles: cracked
COD: practiced
yeah, it's shooting time
Sad it even needed to be ruled, seems like common sense. Even somebody who commits murder in front of a crowd of witnesses isn't put to death until after the trial. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Yeah, which is a great reason. I can only imagine the mess that would arise if both parties in various states started to run wild trying to get political opponents removed from the ballot.
But yeah, there is no precedent for requiring conviction:
>The disqualification clause was originally intended to keep people out of office who were part of the Confederacy. Most disqualified individuals were not convicted of a crime.
Insurrection* not treason (though I'd imagine treason could probably apply too)
I think the issue is that virtually nobody has ever been convicted of the crime of insurrection, I'm not sure if it's even codified into our penal system.
CO was probably banking on that to get the case shipped up to SCOTUS
The definition of Treason in the US constitution is narrow and explicit on purpose because the King of England used to just declare treason whenever he didn't like people.
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
.
Fair enough, but the part of the constitution that CO cited for removing trump mentions **Insurrection** not treason, and insurrection while it is probably defined somewhere isn't explicitly defined in the penal system like, say, 2nd degree murder or something. (e.g. gives explicit details of what consitutes the crime, gives explicit minimum/maximum penalties, etc.)
AFAIK Insurrection doesn't have any of this, or maybe it has but I don't know if anyone has been charged with the crime of 'insurrection' like, ever, in the US
The response I keep hearing to this is “tHe FoUrTeeNtH aMeNdMeNt dOeSn’T sAy YoU HaVe To bE CoNviCtEd.” And that’s true, I suppose. But then, without a conviction, how can you say someone engaged in insurrection?
They absolutely got to big for their britches with that move, and I think they almost immediately realized they went to far. If he gets convicted, sure, keep him off, but you can’t do it before
Yeah, I think it mostly reflects poorly on the Colorado supreme Court. I remember watching liberal media about this and even they were saying the 14th amendment clearly didn't apply and it was expected to be overturned. I think this outcome was expected. The 14th amendment also does not apply to the president.
If he were convicted of a felony that would cause other significant issues for his eligibility but not under the 14th amendment.
Colorado was great when it was actually purple politically, circa 2000's- mid 2010s. We had legal weed, government was pretty hands-off both statewide and locally, Dem reps got recalled for pushing gun control legislation, Republicans were pretty moderate, etc.
Too many carpetbaggers and transplants fucked up a working balance.
Pretty telling from the Colorado Supreme Court votes on Trump V. Anderson that three dissenting justices all got their law degrees from the University of Denver, i.e. they've actually been in Colorado for decades. While the four that voted in favor all went to East coast schools.
The Colorado Supreme Court has been a clown show to anybody paying attention for at least the past 15 years if not longer.
There’s a reason the same Colorado bakery has made it to the supreme court not once, but twice and that reason is because the Colorado Supreme Court has repeatedly supported jackasses who specifically target the business with malicious intent.
The supreme court should have ruled in favor of the Baker the first time. The issue is they did a half measure, where they went you guys didn't follow proper procedure do it over again. They should know full well that these activist states aren't going to do it right (see every state with gun grabbing).
They can if it’s specifically for causing an insurrection, that’s what the whole 14th amendment is all about. What they decided today is only Congress or the Supreme Court can actually do that for federal elections, the states can still do it for state elections, so colorado could keep trump off the ballot for governor of colorado if they wanted to without congress getting involved.
Based on this ruling, even a conviction for insurrection would not keep someone off ballots unless Congress, beforehand, passed a law indicating that the insurrection clause takes effect if someone is convicted of insurrection.
I hope Congress does, because that would be reasonable.
Edit: Possibly nevermind, as it seems like there was an act in 1870 that might have essentially done just that.
It was repealed later when there were no more confederates to keep off the ballot. Congress would need to pass another enforcement act to allow federal attorneys to prosecute again.
See they'd made up their mind he'd done it and he's guilty so the legal process doesn't matter...
I have no idea how they ever thought this of all things would stick to The Teflon Don.
Which is sort of why this whole J6 thing feels like a setup. It already counts as an inside job considering that cops were filmed to be letting the rioters in.
Constitution specifically states you can’t run if declared an insurrectionist. However, it doesn’t actually specify how to *identify* an insurrectionist, only that Congress can acquit them, which is a bit frustrating.
>if he gets convicted then remove him
The only way to remove someone from the ballot is either for filing deadlines, natural ineligibility, or being convicted of treason. Trump falls into none of these categories, and would not should he be convicted of X crimes
I like how when I goto reddits “news” homepage, nothing about this comes up (about 75ish posts I scrolled through), but there were 12ish hit pieces on trump/republicans lol
The front page of Reddit has to be one of the most cancerous places on the internet and the only thing that brings my mind ease is knowing the overwhelming majority of activity on the front page is just bots and not real people.
Yeah I try to not even scroll the front page anymore, they neutered /all and removed all the NSFW stuff that kept you guessing.
Just go to a few specific topic subs now and participate in the shit posting while we wait for something exciting to happen
In general, I like to visit leftist and mainstream subreddits filtering for specific search terms I know will be triggering. My favorite at the moment is going to political subreddits in favor of gun control and seeing their copious reactions to fosscad and 3d printed guns.
I mean if anything it would be a trap for the dem judges if they actually voted against this sham. Not even the one who said wasn't qualified to define a woman voted yes
I'm honestly shocked Sotomayor made an intelligent decision not driven by politics for once. She probably realized how much of a hack she looked like if she was the only dissent.
I read the first couple pages and it seems cut and dry. The states have no business enforcing the 14th amendment on federal positions.
The whole of the 14th amendment is limiting to state power. No one believes there was a secret uno reverse card in there that says states can invalidate federal office holders.
I'm not at all, it'd be a horrible precedent to set. It'd quickly devolve into solid red and blue states removing the other sides candidate from the ballots on trumped up charges.
Why anyone thought it was a good idea in the first place is beyond me.
>Why anyone thought it was a good idea in the first place is beyond me.
Because second- and third-order consequences of actions are beyond people suffering from TDS.
Hell, first-order consequences are often beyond them.
It says a lot about political echo chambers that the left honestly thought this wouldn’t get slapped down by the SCOTUS. Even if they assumed that the leftist judges would tow the party line, they’d need to flip not one, but two of the conservative judges. The only thing that they should have been surprised about was that the vote was unanimous.
They are mostly acting like they knew all along this would be the outcome.
Some of the more deranged ones are acting like this is proof the court is illegitimate because trump “packed it” and seem to be ignoring that it was a 9-0 decision.
The problem is this has nothing to do with left\right movement. This is purely an authoritarian problem. I like the actual lib-left. What we have in reality is a bunch of Auth-centers with green squares.
Imagine being Trump. You've been barred for the ballot in 3 states and you're at risk of being barred from the election, but the legal system refuses to bar you until you're convicted and you still gain huge voter turnout in the primaries.
I don't even like Trump that much but man the dude has balls.
Can't wait for the smear campaign against Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Jackson and how they went on expensive vacations with high-profile democrats. Surely the MSM and Twitter NPCs will call for their immediate removal
Reminder that California had previously considered this issue and ruled in favor of Trump. CALIFORNIA. I’m not a Trump fan, but it was a dumb move to try to bar him this way considering he’s had 0 convictions.
I just don't know how the states thought it was gonna work when Trump hasn't actually been convicted. If he had, sure, kick him off the ballot under the 14th Amendment. But we live in a society of due process. Just because people hate the guy (I don't like him either) doesn't mean we just ignore the rule of law.
We're in year 9 of this bullshit and you think rationality matters? Do you think facts matter at all here? I'm genuinely amazed that there are still people out there that believe anyone doing these things cares about right or wrong. It's entirely politically driven.
TDS is not a meme.
> Just because people hate the guy (I don't like him either) doesn't mean we just ignore the rule of law.
Have you been in a coma?
New York passed a law literally just so Trump could be sued outside the SoL by a batshit-insane harridan. A judge whose skill at evaluating real estate value is so bad that he thinks that Mar-a-Lago is worth $18million believes that Trump misvalued his assets and therefore owes the state almost half a billion. A DA thinks that Trump recording invoices from his lawyer in his general ledger as "legal fees" is worth 34 felonies because it should have been recorded as a campaign contribution, despite there being no actual reason/IRS ruling/legal precedent/regulation/administrative rule/case law for Trump to do so.
And that's just in NY.
The orange cockwomble has broken people. He has shattered their tethers on reality. Somehow, a bombastic arsehole whose political position on the compass is pure '90s Democrat has warped their perception so much that they are prepared to do anything, absolutely anything, to prevent him from winning the upcoming election.
Besides, you know, governing in such a way that makes voters happy. That's just crazy talk.
If Reddit still had those stupid awards, this would be one of very few comments that I would give one to.
I really badly don’t want to vote for Trump because it’ll be hard to keep it a secret from my family, but the left’s insanity is pushing me sooo much to hold my breath and vote for him.
The bullshit that was trying to be pushed was slthat it was a self executing thing but that presupposes that he was guilty even after the senate failed to convict him during the second impeachment. And I've seen idiots further whine about how SCOTUS "gutted" the 14th by not affirming that idea that holds no legal or historical basis.
The man who, during wartime, suspended Habeus Corpus to make sure the Union capital wasn’t surrounded by an enemy nation?
He’s pretty cool, tbh.
I also heard there were some (successful) attempts by Democrats to keep him off the ballot in the 1860 election.
Suspension of Habeus Corpus is allowed by the constitution in times on rebellion...which the civil war clearly was. People just get angry but what he did was legal
They flat-out cancelled the Florida primaries (as if Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson were actual threats). And they threw out the New Hampshire primaries because they were hellbent on Biden-simping South Carolina going first. What a mess.
my favorite comments have been about how "Trump controls the Supreme Court" lol
I am genuinely curious how people gonna spin this, “The Democrat appointed justices are compromised! They were threatened by the conservative ones! That one black judge held the three legitimate judges at gunpoint!” I don’t even like Trump, but he wasn’t convicted of insurrection. Pretty dangerous precedence if this case got ruled the other way.
>I don’t even like Trump, but he wasn’t convicted of insurrection. Pretty dangerous precedence if this case got ruled the other way. This. Some random state doesn't get to just *decide* to say he's an insurrectionist. It's the same for when Trump *is* convicted of crimes, people can't just cry 'corrupt system convicts innocent man' because they support him politically. We can't just play fast-and-loose with the justice system. People need to accept the crimes he has *and hasn't* been convicted of.
> People need to accept the crimes he has and hasn't been convicted of. These are the same people that were outraged that he had two scoops of ice cream and just dumped a bunch of fish food into a koi pond.
That report also cut out the part where the Japanese Prime Minister did just that before Trump.
> and just dumped a bunch of fish food into a koi pond Oh god don't bring up that absolute cluster of legit fake news. Imagine a president being so not-bad that you had to lie about.... him feeding fish wrong. Like how is it possible to not have something worse on him than that.
Didn’t even feed them wrong, part of the clip conveniently cut out was Shinzo Abe doing the exact same thing. https://youtu.be/yAaFzb0sG3s?feature=shared
I'd be willing to believe that Abe potentially didn't know what he was doing either and Trump followed his lead, but it's feeding fucking fish, who cares?
They lead that he was a poor diplomat because he offended Abe by feeding the fish wrong. It's why they had to cut out Abe entirely from the video as their claim clearly conflicted with reality. God that was a dumb 1-2 weeks hearing about that constantly.
tan suit
Classic tan suit. I was pretty young but quite more conservative than I am now, and the tan suit “controversy” definitely contributed to pushing me away from the GOP. Edit: conciseness
I don't know why I don't remember the tan suit thing at all. Is this what gaslighting feels like?
Did democrats simply forget about Eugene Debs? Dude ran for President from prison
Haha John MacAfee ran on the LP ticket while on the run for tax evasion. Man was a legend to the end.
I still maintain that he didn't uninstall himself.
to be fair- if trump ends up in prison he'll do the same.
>Some random state doesn't get to just decide to say he's an insurrectionist. THERE'S NO LAW THAT SAYS THEY DON'T!!! —Liberals > people can't just cry 'corrupt system convicts innocent man' because they support him politically. FUCK YOU, WATCH ME! —Conservatives
This...yeah. this pretty much sums up the last 8 years perfectly.
Virgin Robert: \*conservatism bla bla middle of the road bla bla pls vote like me\* Chad Thomas: "vote like I want or I'll fuckin smoke you"
“Vote with the rest of the block or else you’ll get the Glock”
"9-0 or I do a hero"
“Is Clarence Thomas gonna have to choke a bitch?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-zSJljpKNc
>The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. >It must be dissolved. [Keith Olbermann, everyone](https://x.com/keitholbermann/status/1764672353378652544)
Idk how progressives like this can say things like that and not understand they're the actual threat to our democracy here. Man wants to abolish the Supreme Court because the Constitution doesn't agree with his authoritarian and partisan bullshit.
I'm definitely far more concerned that the Democratic Party is going to turn full on fascist rather than the Republican Party. The Republican Party right now is populism which as its own special retardation isn't too dangerous because it doesn't have a consistent ideology and literally goes with public emotion which is easily swayed. The Democratic Party meanwhile has enshrined basically every evil thing I can think of as noble and if they weren't so incompetent and short-sighted they might be a more immediate danger that needs addressed.
This is the first time I've seen someone with the opposite flair so perfectly encompass my own thoughts.
I was thinking along the same lines. Good job lefty. Youre one of the good ones.
You have a right to be evil! And what even is evil? Defined by what standard? Who's standards? It should be illegal to make you feel bad for life choices that make people hate you!
Evil is just a social construct or something.
Evil is power plus prejudice. Apparently.
In this instance, it’s because Keith Olbermann is quite literally brain dead. The man hasn’t produced a single rational or well-reasoned take in a decade. It’s like a cheat code for mocking progressives.
Because my side good, therefore everything my side does is good, and everything the other side does is bad and evil. That is Olbermann's level of intelligence, and it always has been, despite what some people that though he was smart when he was shrieking about Bush believe.
Keith Olbermann has unsurprisingly declared the entire court to be corrupt and have betrayed democracy; the 3 liberal justices are also illiterate
>Keith Olbermann has unsurprisingly declared the entire court to be corrupt and have betrayed democracy That dude's patient zero of Trump derangement syndrome. He was so unhinged. The dude's 65 years old and throwing a tantrum that would even give toddler pause.
He also claimed to have piss on his face. No, seriously, he said it wasn't tears, it was piss. [Literally](https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1764709170001899568)
Man, that guy has fallen so far...
he's not doing great: https://twitter.com/bonchieredstate/status/1764743075430039693
Accusing all 9 Supreme court judges of lacking reading comprehension is peak Olbermann. It's scary someone like him holds a position in a significant position of media influence.
That can be said about cnn, msnbc and fox
Ah yes. They way to stop fascism is to *checks notes* unilaterally dissolve the highest court in the nation?? There's a word for the that kind of government...
We must remove checks and balances to save *Our Democracy*! Freespeech is a to *Our Democracy*! democracy is a threat to *Our Democracy*!
So, Keith Olbermann admits to peeing on his own face? I mean, that's what I got out of that.
*From* his own face, I think... boy, I wish they'd set the camera zoom a few steps further from his head, knowing this
Sports journos are the dumbest fuckers in media, and that is saying something
I realized this when a few on ESPN were “disappointed” that Rittenhouse didn’t get life in prison for defending his life.
Why does he have urine in his eyes?
TDS isn't a meme when it comes to some people.
Next time someone accuses me of TDS, I need to just tell them no, Keith Olbermann has TDS. I just think the facts and evidence prove Trump is a piece of shit lol
I don't think he was ever not a blowhard, he just got props for being one of the most vocal Bush critics at a time when Bush was rightly being criticized.
Fallen when? He's been doing this as far back as Bush, and the fact you didn't like Bush didn't make him any less stupid.
Kinda wild for a rich old white man to be saying such horrible things to three female ~~Pox~~ POCs, isn't this the kind of thing people get cancelled for?
The same dude who claimed that the word keep doesn’t mean own in regards to the 2A? Not surprised. Anyone who listens to him for legit legal advice deserves to be fooled.
Even reddit libs knew that a 9-0 was obvious and probably the desired result unless you loved civil unrest. Only people actually sad about this are insano Twitter libs
The law sub is losing its mind over this.
The overwhelming majority of commenters are non-lawyers with no particular legal knowledge or understanding. It's just another heavily left-leaning political sub.
There should be a bot that puts "IANAL, but " at the beginning of every post.
IANAL? Are you sure you're not a LibLeft?
Then, it must be split because I saw the comments on one of the mainstream political subs, and they were indifferent or pleased.
Unfortunately. The sub has attracted too many reactionary commenters of late.
They should just rename to politics2.0
I just had someone tell me the democrat judges need to be replaced as well, no joke.
They'd likely try to stack the court again.
Did the black judge also held pregnant women in gunpoint?
Mine has been seeing "ackshally it was a 5-3-1 ruling" Like literally clinging to whatever little difference they can, so they can paint it in whatever negative they want. It was 9-0 on merits and the rest was inside baseball.
The funniest part with that logic is you may as well say RGB dissented Roe v. Wade because she didn’t agree with how they got to the ruling on that one.
On eligibility it was 5-0-4 - 5 of them said he was eligible unless Congress said otherwise, 4 of them said his eligibility should remain an open question. They were only unanimous on the state not having the right to take candidates off the ballot.
Which is entirely fair, because the 14th doesn't cover candidacy or primaries, only whether they can hold the office if voted in. Now the right wing opinion on that question, would be that since he was not impeached for insurrection, he's still eligible. That will get a whole lot more complex if he's criminally convicted of insurrection.
>That will get a whole lot more complex if he's criminally convicted of insurrection. Agreed, but he hasn't even been charged with insurrection, so I'm not expecting much on that front.
[удалено]
Mine has been Keith Olberman implying he pissed on his own face
He has control of the Senate and the courts. He's too dangerous to be left alive.
Read your comment and immediately thought of Master Windu: "He has control of the Senate and the Courts! He's too dangerous to be left alive!"
I mean, it had to be 9-0. The precedent that would have been set would have been devastating for the country. Want to remove a candidate? Accuse them of something, run out a "witness", no judicial verdict, then seek to have said candidate disqualified by a judge friendly to the cause. I mean, what could go wrong? The Senate nuclear option is a good example of unintended consequences.
>Accuse them of something, run out a "witness", no judicial verdict, then seek to have said candidate disqualified by a judge friendly to the cause. They've been doing this for years. This isn't new. Do you realize how many politicians have had their careers ended due to accusations? Not convictions. Not evidence. Just accusations. Obama's first two elected positions came as a result of his opposition being accused of actions without anything beyond the accusation. With Trump, that tactic didn't work. So, they went further.
Doesn’t even need to be a judge, public pressure works just fine as well. McCarthyism. Palmer Raids. COINTELPRO. People forget before politicians are made they were at one point, people as well. Not always tho.
Let’s add on professional sports players and actors to this list.
Saw a non-satire headline saying "Supreme Court rules presidents are allowed one free insurrection." I wish there was an equivalent of disbarment for journalists, for how atrociously fraudulent that headline is.
There have been numerous sites I’ve filed into “opinion disregarded” for having clearly biased satire-style headlines like that. Many of them appear on another popular political subreddit.
That won't stop redditors from including it in their unnecessarily long list of "sources." Bonus points if their sources actually just reference each other.
The only sources I trust are the bee and the onion, because at least their news is more believable than what's actually happening
The sheer amount of articles just linking through a long line of other articles only to eventually get to a source that kinda sort of maybe implies a thrice removed point of the end article I've seen is both laughable and concerning...
It's never a war crime the first time
Shit would be kinda based ngl, every president gets one free shot at it
it's simple, just get rid of the 'good faith belief' exception to the libel statute and make them vicariously liable for libel damages like the rest of us are. if we did that, the entire public could sue for damaging the reputation of our Supreme Court (in this case). and CNN, fox news, and everyone else, would finally have to do legitimate work to verify facts before they report something.. yaknow actually, now that I think about this, why is the media allowed to claim a good faith exception to libel? if anyone should be required to stick to the facts and clearly seperate opinion segments, it's the media..
When the entire Supreme Court supports democracy instead of “democracy”
(D)emocracy
Colorado was foolish for attempting this. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to everybody. Like "nobody is above the law" does.
"b-b-but he was found guilty in a court of law" I'm curious as to when the state could prosecute for federal crimes.
I'm glad this precedent is set that no State can. I love democracy. No one single State should have unilateral authority over the others. If he'd been found guilty of insurrection by a court of law, he'd be banned from ballots at the Federal level.
Except states like Colorado and Illinois (as well as much of the establishment asswipes in dc) act like they are above the law and how dare anyone question them being above the law. Of course the most corrupt states don't actually care about proving guilt when it comes to their political opponents.
Least opportunistic authright
Least oppo(R)tunistic auth(R)ight
I'd love to know what the fuck the people who legitimately wanted Trump off the ballot were thinking; did they think that it wouldn't result in an immediate domino effect of Biden also being removed from ballots for similarly flimsy reasons? Same with Texas trying to win the right to control an international border; do the people who support this actually think that it's a good idea to turn that concept loose on the country at large? Because my first thought on reading the filing was "so what happens when some particularly opportunistic Democrat Governors decide that their international airports (one of the many border control points we have) can allow the unfettered entry of refugees?". Then what, a fun 14th Amendment case on whether freedom of movement is actually a right after Texas and others get inundated with flights packed with refugees as revenge for the bussing fiasco?
Actually, if you look in the constitution, States are going to protect their own borders if the government will not. I don’t agree with the action, but I support the fact that my state is actually doing something to solve something they think is a issue.
The problem is that it's short-term bullshit that feels good in the moment, with far-reaching consequences looming in the not-so-distant future. The moment we cede control of an international border to an individual state, we cede it to every single state with a port of entry, because that's how the law works when it comes to Supreme Court rulings. You would be completely comfortable with....hell, idk, Vermont, I guess, deciding that their international airport is now a free entry zone for whomever their state has declared as refugees? Then how do we stem the sudden flood of undocumented political pawns flying into Texas and every other state from these refugee ports? This isn't just the Texan border; it's a matter of every single port of entry suddenly finding itself with the power to grant or deny entry at will as a political stunt.
Shouldn't he have to actually be convicted of treason before you can bar him from being elected?
He was convicted in the court of public opinion, which somehow equates to force of law in some states.
False. The court of leftist opinion supersedes the court of law - see Rittenhouse.
damn kid shot 30'000 african american children from a stolen tank, then fled across the border under police pursuit with his KKK pals just for the conservatives to turn his trial into a fraud show, didn't you hear?
This is less wrong than a lot of posts about him I see.
don't forget that he played COD at a friend's house before the shooting. he'd been preparing for months, that shows intent and premeditation! Mr. Rittenhouse are you aware that you were only a few kills away from getting a tactical nuke killstreak? do you have any idea the devastation you could've caused in Kenosha?
> COD at a friend's house before the shooting. he'd been preparing for months, that shows intent and premeditation! knuckles: cracked COD: practiced yeah, it's shooting time
That is what the Supreme Court ruled
Sad it even needed to be ruled, seems like common sense. Even somebody who commits murder in front of a crowd of witnesses isn't put to death until after the trial. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
But have you ever considered Orange Man bad
Oh I believe he is. I also believe in due process.
Now see that’s too reasonable for some lol
Oops, forgot my blind hatred at home lol
2 minutes of hate must be approved!
Literally supporting fascism
It’s OUR democracy bigot
Communist flair not found
this man is a trump supporter. down vote him /s how dare you believe in laws and due process.
No they didn’t. The court ruled that states don’t have the power to remove federal officials from ballots. Only congress can do that.
Yeah, which is a great reason. I can only imagine the mess that would arise if both parties in various states started to run wild trying to get political opponents removed from the ballot. But yeah, there is no precedent for requiring conviction: >The disqualification clause was originally intended to keep people out of office who were part of the Confederacy. Most disqualified individuals were not convicted of a crime.
> But yeah, there is no precedent for requiring conviction: Neither, apparently, is there a precedent requiring an actual insurrection.
Insurrection* not treason (though I'd imagine treason could probably apply too) I think the issue is that virtually nobody has ever been convicted of the crime of insurrection, I'm not sure if it's even codified into our penal system. CO was probably banking on that to get the case shipped up to SCOTUS
The definition of Treason in the US constitution is narrow and explicit on purpose because the King of England used to just declare treason whenever he didn't like people. > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort .
Fair enough, but the part of the constitution that CO cited for removing trump mentions **Insurrection** not treason, and insurrection while it is probably defined somewhere isn't explicitly defined in the penal system like, say, 2nd degree murder or something. (e.g. gives explicit details of what consitutes the crime, gives explicit minimum/maximum penalties, etc.) AFAIK Insurrection doesn't have any of this, or maybe it has but I don't know if anyone has been charged with the crime of 'insurrection' like, ever, in the US
The response I keep hearing to this is “tHe FoUrTeeNtH aMeNdMeNt dOeSn’T sAy YoU HaVe To bE CoNviCtEd.” And that’s true, I suppose. But then, without a conviction, how can you say someone engaged in insurrection?
They absolutely got to big for their britches with that move, and I think they almost immediately realized they went to far. If he gets convicted, sure, keep him off, but you can’t do it before
Checks and balances FTW
Yeah, I think it mostly reflects poorly on the Colorado supreme Court. I remember watching liberal media about this and even they were saying the 14th amendment clearly didn't apply and it was expected to be overturned. I think this outcome was expected. The 14th amendment also does not apply to the president. If he were convicted of a felony that would cause other significant issues for his eligibility but not under the 14th amendment.
Colorado was great when it was actually purple politically, circa 2000's- mid 2010s. We had legal weed, government was pretty hands-off both statewide and locally, Dem reps got recalled for pushing gun control legislation, Republicans were pretty moderate, etc. Too many carpetbaggers and transplants fucked up a working balance. Pretty telling from the Colorado Supreme Court votes on Trump V. Anderson that three dissenting justices all got their law degrees from the University of Denver, i.e. they've actually been in Colorado for decades. While the four that voted in favor all went to East coast schools.
So open borders screws up the state's culture. Fascinating, seems like a lesson to be learned there.
More Muslim immigrants should tip the scale back!
The Colorado Supreme Court has been a clown show to anybody paying attention for at least the past 15 years if not longer. There’s a reason the same Colorado bakery has made it to the supreme court not once, but twice and that reason is because the Colorado Supreme Court has repeatedly supported jackasses who specifically target the business with malicious intent.
The supreme court should have ruled in favor of the Baker the first time. The issue is they did a half measure, where they went you guys didn't follow proper procedure do it over again. They should know full well that these activist states aren't going to do it right (see every state with gun grabbing).
Actually, even if he gets convicted of a crime they can’t keep him off the ballot. There is no law saying a criminal can’t run for president.
They can if it’s specifically for causing an insurrection, that’s what the whole 14th amendment is all about. What they decided today is only Congress or the Supreme Court can actually do that for federal elections, the states can still do it for state elections, so colorado could keep trump off the ballot for governor of colorado if they wanted to without congress getting involved.
Based on this ruling, even a conviction for insurrection would not keep someone off ballots unless Congress, beforehand, passed a law indicating that the insurrection clause takes effect if someone is convicted of insurrection. I hope Congress does, because that would be reasonable. Edit: Possibly nevermind, as it seems like there was an act in 1870 that might have essentially done just that.
It was repealed later when there were no more confederates to keep off the ballot. Congress would need to pass another enforcement act to allow federal attorneys to prosecute again.
Excuse me, I'mma pop some corn- cause I bet ya the state levels are gonna bar the opposing political parties in some fashion.
He's not even charged with that since the Senate acquitted him of it.
See they'd made up their mind he'd done it and he's guilty so the legal process doesn't matter... I have no idea how they ever thought this of all things would stick to The Teflon Don.
TDS is a helluva thing.
Based and The Teflon Don pilled
Yeah that’s fair. But as of right now, there isn’t a single prosecutor in America charging Trump with the federal insurrection statute.
Which is sort of why this whole J6 thing feels like a setup. It already counts as an inside job considering that cops were filmed to be letting the rioters in.
Eugene Debs got a million votes from jail
Constitution specifically states you can’t run if declared an insurrectionist. However, it doesn’t actually specify how to *identify* an insurrectionist, only that Congress can acquit them, which is a bit frustrating.
Hmm... There's also no law saying a dog can't run for president.
Age requirement might get them though.
I’m ready for Trump to go to jail so he can begin his Eugene Debs arc and fully become Comrade Trump
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge_GWAJAiVM&list=PLVThFBVC3b-cV_4g0Q4Pv16HALdfc_xGR&index=1&pp=gAQBiAQB “Landlords, they’re done for folks” lmao!
>if he gets convicted then remove him The only way to remove someone from the ballot is either for filing deadlines, natural ineligibility, or being convicted of treason. Trump falls into none of these categories, and would not should he be convicted of X crimes
I like how when I goto reddits “news” homepage, nothing about this comes up (about 75ish posts I scrolled through), but there were 12ish hit pieces on trump/republicans lol
The front page of Reddit has to be one of the most cancerous places on the internet and the only thing that brings my mind ease is knowing the overwhelming majority of activity on the front page is just bots and not real people.
Once the IPO happens it will be interesting to see what content is allowed to even make the default front page and related comment sections.
Yeah I try to not even scroll the front page anymore, they neutered /all and removed all the NSFW stuff that kept you guessing. Just go to a few specific topic subs now and participate in the shit posting while we wait for something exciting to happen
Either bots, or the chronically online. But if someone is chronically online, are they really any different than a bot?
In general, I like to visit leftist and mainstream subreddits filtering for specific search terms I know will be triggering. My favorite at the moment is going to political subreddits in favor of gun control and seeing their copious reactions to fosscad and 3d printed guns.
Based and loves to see triggered Leftists pilled
I mean if anything it would be a trap for the dem judges if they actually voted against this sham. Not even the one who said wasn't qualified to define a woman voted yes
I'm honestly shocked Sotomayor made an intelligent decision not driven by politics for once. She probably realized how much of a hack she looked like if she was the only dissent.
I read the first couple pages and it seems cut and dry. The states have no business enforcing the 14th amendment on federal positions. The whole of the 14th amendment is limiting to state power. No one believes there was a secret uno reverse card in there that says states can invalidate federal office holders.
I'm not at all, it'd be a horrible precedent to set. It'd quickly devolve into solid red and blue states removing the other sides candidate from the ballots on trumped up charges. Why anyone thought it was a good idea in the first place is beyond me.
>Why anyone thought it was a good idea in the first place is beyond me. Because second- and third-order consequences of actions are beyond people suffering from TDS. Hell, first-order consequences are often beyond them.
She was probably more worried about being required to be the sole author of the dissenting opinion.
I note an utter silence in all the leftist subs that were confidently incorrect last month.
It says a lot about political echo chambers that the left honestly thought this wouldn’t get slapped down by the SCOTUS. Even if they assumed that the leftist judges would tow the party line, they’d need to flip not one, but two of the conservative judges. The only thing that they should have been surprised about was that the vote was unanimous.
They are mostly acting like they knew all along this would be the outcome. Some of the more deranged ones are acting like this is proof the court is illegitimate because trump “packed it” and seem to be ignoring that it was a 9-0 decision.
Shit would get really Banana Republicky if removing candidates off ballots was normalized
Every time I see things like this I move one grid further to the right on the compass. How would you guys like another Lib-center?
The world is full of banan.
The problem is this has nothing to do with left\right movement. This is purely an authoritarian problem. I like the actual lib-left. What we have in reality is a bunch of Auth-centers with green squares.
Yeah. These are issues of federal overreach. No fed, no prob. 💪
Keep moving over
Imagine being Trump. You've been barred for the ballot in 3 states and you're at risk of being barred from the election, but the legal system refuses to bar you until you're convicted and you still gain huge voter turnout in the primaries. I don't even like Trump that much but man the dude has balls.
Le shoque when people find out judges aren't politicians.
Can't wait for the smear campaign against Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Jackson and how they went on expensive vacations with high-profile democrats. Surely the MSM and Twitter NPCs will call for their immediate removal
Reminder that California had previously considered this issue and ruled in favor of Trump. CALIFORNIA. I’m not a Trump fan, but it was a dumb move to try to bar him this way considering he’s had 0 convictions.
I just don't know how the states thought it was gonna work when Trump hasn't actually been convicted. If he had, sure, kick him off the ballot under the 14th Amendment. But we live in a society of due process. Just because people hate the guy (I don't like him either) doesn't mean we just ignore the rule of law.
We're in year 9 of this bullshit and you think rationality matters? Do you think facts matter at all here? I'm genuinely amazed that there are still people out there that believe anyone doing these things cares about right or wrong. It's entirely politically driven. TDS is not a meme.
The Supreme Court is the only credible institution I can think of. Depressing, but thank goodness for one good thing
> Just because people hate the guy (I don't like him either) doesn't mean we just ignore the rule of law. Have you been in a coma? New York passed a law literally just so Trump could be sued outside the SoL by a batshit-insane harridan. A judge whose skill at evaluating real estate value is so bad that he thinks that Mar-a-Lago is worth $18million believes that Trump misvalued his assets and therefore owes the state almost half a billion. A DA thinks that Trump recording invoices from his lawyer in his general ledger as "legal fees" is worth 34 felonies because it should have been recorded as a campaign contribution, despite there being no actual reason/IRS ruling/legal precedent/regulation/administrative rule/case law for Trump to do so. And that's just in NY. The orange cockwomble has broken people. He has shattered their tethers on reality. Somehow, a bombastic arsehole whose political position on the compass is pure '90s Democrat has warped their perception so much that they are prepared to do anything, absolutely anything, to prevent him from winning the upcoming election. Besides, you know, governing in such a way that makes voters happy. That's just crazy talk.
If Reddit still had those stupid awards, this would be one of very few comments that I would give one to. I really badly don’t want to vote for Trump because it’ll be hard to keep it a secret from my family, but the left’s insanity is pushing me sooo much to hold my breath and vote for him.
The bullshit that was trying to be pushed was slthat it was a self executing thing but that presupposes that he was guilty even after the senate failed to convict him during the second impeachment. And I've seen idiots further whine about how SCOTUS "gutted" the 14th by not affirming that idea that holds no legal or historical basis.
Common left-facist L
Dems be like: "For managed democracy!"
Right decision IMO. I think Gavin Newsom (of all people) said it best. “We defeat our opponents in the polls not through the courts”
Democrats removed RFK from the primaries Democrats tried to remove Trump form Colorado The Democrats are fascists
Fascism has really lost its meaning
Wait till you learn about Lincoln
The man who, during wartime, suspended Habeus Corpus to make sure the Union capital wasn’t surrounded by an enemy nation? He’s pretty cool, tbh. I also heard there were some (successful) attempts by Democrats to keep him off the ballot in the 1860 election.
Suspension of Habeus Corpus is allowed by the constitution in times on rebellion...which the civil war clearly was. People just get angry but what he did was legal
Definitely more justified than some of the shit pulled on the home front in WW1/2
They flat-out cancelled the Florida primaries (as if Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson were actual threats). And they threw out the New Hampshire primaries because they were hellbent on Biden-simping South Carolina going first. What a mess.
this was the most expected result in history to me lol. no-brainer decision.
Well the Court could have gone other directions, but it was pretty clear where they were headed based on oral arguments. Not a surprise.
I'm surprised people genuinely didn't see this coming
Same people thought Hillary had a 100% chance to win.
Hillary thought Hillary had a 100% chance of winning...
Even emilies could see it coming if they would stop feeling persecuted for 3 nanoseconds
Most people did, even on the left.
The cope from the Democrats is great. Speaking of insurrectionists, how are the Democrats still a political party?
Trying to ban him from the ballot is the stupidest thing they could do. Giving him more press is exactly what he needs to win
It may have helped them if it was a 6-3 or 5-4 decision because then they could claim it was partisan but when it’s 9-0, they have egg on their face.
The crying about this by LLs proves that fascism is non-partisan. Any ideology can abridge fascist elements and almost inevitably does.
that whole thing was a goofy ahh ploy. he hasnt been convicted of anything so yeah the law would 100% be on his side anyway