this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

News

23274 readers
3204 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying "Trump did nothing wrong", this is specifically saying "States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots", which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.

The SC could come out tomorrow and say "We're disqualifying Trump", this doesn't preclude that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[citation needed]

List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn't convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)

Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don't see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it's as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it's the state, of course.)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.

Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.

Me, I don't want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that's what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I'll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.

And they decided 9-0.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

their own ballots

Not federal ballots.

Except a state tried here and got slapped down 9-0. Seems to me it was deemed unconstitutional by the folks that decide that sort of thing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Good. Democracy means that it can be democratically dissolved. If you're holding on to a piece of paper written by slave owners to save your democracy, then you've missed the point of democracy.

If a majority of voters want racist, sexist fascism, that's what you'll get. No amount of social media posts will change that. Ask the slaves, Indigenous Peoples, women, poor men, non-Christians, and children of the United States for the majority of its history.

Vote. And get others to do it too. Change people's minds--and, no, posting on social media isn't changing anyone's mind. You have to actually go out and do the work of talking to people, understanding them, and then changing minds. Yelling at people, digitally or actually, isn't doing anything. Sorry.

Now all the people that want to sit in their room doing nothing and act like it is doing something can downvote.

It's the only form of "democracy" you know: cheap and easy. "I NO LIKE."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well that would be great if we had a democracy. No Republican has won the popular vote for something like 20 years, but we've had more than one Republican president since then.

Voting is super important, but we also need a better democracy because we know the majority don't want a bigot in office. But we're still getting one every couple years

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The United States is HUGE. Do you feel like population centers should get to dictate the terms to everyone that doesn't live in a populous state? If so, then, again: vote. If you don't like the current election process then change it.

You Americans complain so much about your electoral processes, but you do nothing to change them.

You get bigots and violent offenders in office either way you cut it. Obama normalized the massive, largely remote kill operations in non-battlefield engagements. He authorized the death of several thousand people exclusively through remote kill actions. As he noted himself, "turns out I'm really good at killing people. Didn't know that was going to be my strong suit."

The popular vote for an overpowered executive isn't the answer. And I think you know that. The answer is harder and requires more work. But it's nice to think it's just about voting once every four years to fix it, isn't it?

Good luck.