684

Michigan could be the next state to remove Trump from its ballot (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 10 months ago by USAONE@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 203 points 10 months ago

Yes please. Would love if they didn't phrase it in a horse race kind of way, "it would be a boon to the Biden campaign" and instead "it would be appropriate because Trump tried to overthrow an election and we have a specific constitutional amendment prohibiting insurrectionists from running for office"

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 114 points 10 months ago

Yeah, people keep bringing up political strategy. Like Trump can't win California anyway, or doesn't need Colorado, so taking him off the ballot saves him money.

That's not the reason states want him off the ballot. It's not political machinations. It's the fucking law.

[-] logicbomb@lemmy.world 84 points 10 months ago

Yeah, the headline could read something like, "49 States Have Yet to Follow the Law and Remove Trump from Ballots."

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

And, quite frankly, I think Biden has a better chance of beating Trump than Nikki Haley. Don't get me wrong, Haley isn't much better than Trump. I don't want her in the White House either, but she has a better "facade of reasonableness." People know KNOW how bad she is and could assume she's not as bad as Trump. The Biden campaign would need to work hard to prove to everyone that she's bad. Meanwhile, everyone outside of MAGA knows Trump is bad.

So while Trump being booted from the election might be bad for Biden's reelection chances, it would be good for the country.

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months ago

No way does Haley have a chance of turning out the base the way Trump does.

Overturning Roe and ensures a strong turnout for the Democrats regardless of how lackluster everyone feels about Biden.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 111 points 10 months ago

This is how he needs to lose. A systemic refusal to allow a traitor to America to hold power.

[-] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago

All we need is one defecting GOP SC justice to bar him from the entire country's general election. Cross your fingers.

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Sad that a SC justice can be labeled "GOP"

load more comments (18 replies)

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 65 points 10 months ago

The US Supreme Court could rule against Trump, leading to similar lawsuits in additional states.

If SCOTUS rules that Trump is an insurrectionist, barred from office by the Constitution, wouldn't that make him ineligible in every state?

[-] holdthecheese@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

They could rule that it's a state law issue and not a federal decision.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Then I could guarantee at least one red state will take Biden off the ballot for a completely made up reason. They're already trying to impeach Biden for... being a dad I suppose, so they don't need to be imaginative in disqualifying Biden (which is convenient because they have no imagination).

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Trump waa found to have incited insurrection by a court of law.

If they wanted to properly remove Biden they'd have to at least somehow get a judge and the state supreme court to agree.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

Some officials in Texas are already talking about taking Biden off the ballot.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

There are some politicians in Texas who deny the Holocaust. It is a pretty low bar down there.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The fact of his eligibility for the Office of President is a Federal matter. Whether he goes on the ballots is a State matter. I have to admit, in all my readings of the text of the Constitution and the context around the drafting of the Amendments, never once have I seen anything banning a State from putting someone who can't be President on their ballot.

Maybe the Framers thought there was no way a State government would be so stupid as to put an ineligible candidate on their ballots, but that if they wanted to waste their votes on that then they should be so allowed, God bless 'em.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

This seems right to me. If he was a participant in an insurrection, he can't hold the office of President. He can still be on ballots, he can still get votes in the electoral college, heck, he can still win, he just can't be President. In my mind, it would kick over to his VP, same as if he died or otherwise became ineligible while in office.

[-] scripthook@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Yes if the Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court than it would make him invalid to run for any office including Presidency across all 50 states. This can’t be challenged be states if that’s the case. But I suspect a 25% likelihood of that happening.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

I think the likelihood is actually higher than some would suspect. The justices don’t owe him anything at this point. He made a big blunder, in that he put them in office and then expected them to protect him. At best, he has nothing more to offer them, but can do a lot to drag them down in the future if he’s back in office. So even the conservative justices have very little incentive to favor him. From a pragmatic standpoint, it actually makes a lot of sense for the conservative justices to stonewall, or outright refuse to let him hold office.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

And if they vote other way around they kinda open the doors for national popular vote don't they? Since theyd be saying that federal government has authority over the election process of individual states

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

They'd be more likely to rule that the states aren't barred from disqualifying the President.

[-] CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 months ago

If they ruled that way, then yes. The 14th Ammendment would overrule any state law and bar him from office, unless 2/3 of Congress voted to exempt him.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago

I have family in Michigan that are big Trump supporters. This would piss them off and make me happy.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If only...it would be a Christmas miracle.

[-] n3m37h@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

Get er done!

[-] shininghero@kbin.social 21 points 10 months ago

Do it. And when his adherents make their little death threats...
Take more things away from Trump, and say it's a direct result of his adherents actions.

Parental discipline™, coming soon to a political office near you!

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 12 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Colorado might not be the only state to prohibit former President Donald Trump from being on the 2024 presidential ballot.

The decision does not go into effect until January 2024, giving Trump's campaign weeks to appeal.

Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame's Law School, told the Associated Press that the state supreme court's decision poses a "major threat" to Trump's 2024 campaign.

Colorado was the first state to bar Trump from being on the ballot, but it's not the only one that's seen similar legal challenges.

The Minnesota Supreme Court, for example, was presented earlier in the year with a similar opportunity, though it ruled in favor of Trump.

The state of Michigan also received a challenge from the same group behind Minnesota's attempt: Free Speech For People.

The original article contains 297 words, the summary contains 134 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Turning Michigan dark blue this early in the election cycle would be YUGE. That's a ton of campaign cash that gets to stay in the war chest. Granted, you still have to get past the US Supreme Court.

[-] Jonamerica@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

What's the over/under on SCOTUS ruling in favor of Trump when these are eventually appealed?

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

The most proper thing for them to do is probably to say "this is a state election issue, not our place to get involved in"

Which is probably fairly likely, I don't think they'll really want to deal with this, it's an easy way for them to wash their hands of it, leaves the door open for red states to try to find an excuse to remove Biden from the ballot, let's them act like they're respecting the intent of the founders, etc.

If they do decide to take it up, who know? The court is definitely packed with conservative assholes, but even among them, I don't think most of them particularly like trump, and they certainly haven't been as "loyal" to him as he would like, some of them would probably love to see him removed from the ballot in hopes that an actually competent Republican asshole might win.

I think it's probably about a 50/50 shot of SCOTUS actually taking it up, and if they do it's probably about 50/50 again for what the outcome would be.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I'm guessing they won't hear the case

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Either that or they'll punt it. "We looked at the case and decided that it's up to the states to decide who goes on the ballots and who doesn't."

This would let Colorado and other states kick Trump off the ballot, but it would also open the door to red states kicking Biden off the ballot for "all his crimes which we still have no evidence of."

Then the Supreme Court will eventually need to hear a case on WHAT REASON is good enough to kick someone off the ballot. Is "they fail to meet the requirements" good enough? What about "we don't like this guy and don't want him to win?"

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

In Trumps case he was deemed to have incited insurrection and the constitution tells them he can't hold office.

It's going to be a lot harder for anyone to remove Biden and survive a court challenge unless they also find him guilty of insurrection somehow.

[-] DemBoSain@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

Didn't the Michigan Supreme Court already rule on this? I remember the Secretary of State saying she didn't want to make that decision and was glad the court ruled as quickly as they did.

--Oh, I see, it was a lower court, now being appealed to the Supremes--

[-] Alert@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

Traitors gonna trait.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023

684 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4212 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News