In a surprise move, an Illinois judge has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s so-called “insurrectionist ban.”

The decision is paused, giving Trump a short period of time to appeal.

Wednesday’s unexpected decision comes as a similar anti-Trump challenge from Colorado is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is widely expected to reject arguments that Trump is barred from office.

Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter heavily relied on the prior finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, calling Colorado’s “rationale compelling.”

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It is still crazy to me, he is responsible for an insurrection and still gets the option to run for President. Every time I’ve talked about it on twitter some right-winger will bring up it was mostly peaceful and some other event that has nothing to do with anything lol.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      because at no time since this nation was founded was it considered possible for a president of this country to be under the thrall of a hostile foreign power and want to overthrow it.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dunno. I think that impeachment probably considered this in a time when there were still many who supported the British.

        • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yup. They clearly thought individuals could be compromised. Their falling was in not considering the possibility that more than half the people leading the 3 branches of the federal government could all be in cahoots.

          They thought the self interest of the individual states would keep them independent.

      • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing says “peaceful” like stealing a cops riot shield and using it to bash through a security window, or using bear spray on the cops trying to protect the lawmakers.

    • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      91
      ·
      1 year ago

      No it’s not. There’s something else we’re supposed to do to traitors.

      “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now”

      -Donald Trump, advocating for his own execution

      • Xenny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We literally didn’t hang most of the leaders of the Confederacy after the civil war. We just gave them back their land and citizenship. Big mistake

            • Gumby@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes but after WW2 we had the Nuremburg trials and the Nazi leaders were hanged. Show compassion to the society as a whole, but the leaders must still be held accountable in these situations.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            A conservative is not capable of entering into a negotiation in good faith.

            Compassion at the end of the civil war was the wrong move. A conservative will always see compassion as weakness to exploit. They truly are unable to perceive compassion as anything other than a weakness. That is just who they are at their core.

          • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree and I think it’s important to review why that didn’t work, because I think it’s relevant today.

            Under normal circumstances, I would agree that compassion is the best course of action. However the Confederacy largely left the union and then went to war over the ability to own people, claiming it was a “right”. There was a whole world doing away with the practice, with abolitionists saying their peace for a long time up until war broke out. And rather than change tact, and do away with the inherently immoral practice of slavery, these guys doubled-down. To me, that’s exactly the kind of situation where you must withhold compassion, because it demonstrates both a track record and a potential future willingness to break the social contract.

          • Damdy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            A lot of Americans seem to think their civil war was a long time ago. It was pretty recent, it may work out better soon.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep. Should have burned their wealth into the ground and only then let them back in.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m glad it’s happening. However, I am almost sure SCOTUS will not allow it no matter what and will find some spurious reason that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump.

    Also, I wish it wasn’t a state that Trump was pretty much guaranteed to lose anyway. Oh well, I guess it’s a start.

    • BlackPenguins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not so sure. SCOTUS knows the confidence of them is at an all time low (18%). Even if Trump was re-elected I don’t think there is more he can offer them. They already have the job. They need confidence back or the states are going to start ignoring them.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Since there are zero concrete consequences for SCOTUS members from having low confidence from the public, they would need to actually care about what the “plebes” think of them for that to make any difference.

      • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not only has he nothing more to offer them, but he has promised to be a dictator from day one, if reelected. A dictator threatens the power of judges in all courts. That’s not something they should take lightly.

      • paddirn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey, they’ve got Ethics guidelines now, so they’ve solved whatever trust issues the public may have had, so they don’t need to hear any of this malarkey anymore. It’s full steam ahead for the Christo-nationalist fascist takeover.

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      States don’t have to obey the supreme court.

      The supreme court is a suggestion body more than anything else.

      As soon as we stop taking them seriously, they stop having power.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s certainly what Alabama thinks and why they won’t draw districts that aren’t racist.

        The question is why you’re on their side that state law takes precedence over federal law.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unjust federal laws means that the South should be allowed to be as racist as they want to be? Really? Plessy vs. Ferguson can just be ignored?

            • maness300@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Try looking at things on a case-by-case basis then life will start to make more sense.

              After that, look into the concepts of “civil disobedience” and the “social contract.”

              Come back when you’ve educated yourself more on the subject matter.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Who decides which SCOTUS cases can be ignored? Because right now, Alabama is ignoring a SCOTUS ruling to stop their racist gerrymandering. No one is able to stop them from doing it. Insulting me will not change the fact that ignoring a SCOTUS ruling is, right now, allowing official state racism to stand. And there has been no civil disobedience enough to stop it.

                So, without insulting me- how do you ensure the South doesn’t just ignore Plessy vs. Ferguson?

                • Dkarma@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Federal law has never controlled state elections.

                  Why do u think scotus has any power over how state elections are run here? Plessy v Ferguson doesn’t even apply here.

                • maness300@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why don’t you just make your own thread to talk about your specific case instead of trying to hijack my comments?

                  You clearly can’t understand the words being put in front of you, so why would I continue this discussion?

                  Goodbye.

  • killpunchdeluxe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My boy’s getting absolutely SWAMPED with legal action

    I think he’s at like $470,000 now for his fraud case

    *edit LOL my b dudes $470 MILLION

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good, just in time for it to not matter. Glad they’re being so quick about it. Great judicial system.