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
    137
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months 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.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is an important lesson in Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Trump is very much a narcissist). Narcissists use vague and ambiguous language, usually rapid fire, in order to confuse and disorient listeners. The term is called Narcissistic Word Salad. It means that he can rile people up to commit an insurrection while at the same time be legally protected because he never directly commanded January 6ers to do what they did with clear and pointed language. All of his communication is very obviously crafted to manipulate and obfuscate, and it’s how he’s managed to keep his crime empire afloat for decades.

      • orbitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        I thought he spoke vaguely cause he knows he’s commiting crimes and has some semblance of tact about it (to save himself of course) not a great one but something. I never realized it could be another part of narcissism. I

        There needs to be a law for a limit, like yes you used vague language but you did it 50 (random number but something that shows a pattern) times that’s enough to charge you for your actions.

        I wonder what actual organized crime bosses think of him, he must have dealt with them in construction in the 80s and 90s.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      7 months 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
        3
        ·
        7 months 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
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months 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.

    • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Ah yes absolutely non-violent, the guys going around with cable ties just wanted to do some cable management.

      • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months 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
      184
      ·
      7 months 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
        104
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months 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

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          41
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Compassion should not seen as a weakness after war. Traditionally it make long term allies. This time it did not work out. But many other times it has.

            • Gumby@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              7 months 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
            17
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months 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.

            • Diotima@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              Interesting take, but such an absolutist stance suggests that you also see compassion as a weakness. Fact is, as evil as the GOP may now be… they are not the whole of conservative thought.

              If you want to see an example of where your desired approach leads, look at post WW I Germany and what Europe’s need for vengeance gave birth to.

          • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months 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
            ·
            7 months 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
          ·
          7 months ago

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

      • seejur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        7 months ago

        At least this time he is not in charge, so it should be a lot harder to try pushing people around to subvert democracy

        • Masamune@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Hopefully harder to push around government types, I agree. But at the same time, easier to summon and unleash his mob without restraint. At that point, what else can he possibly lose?

          • anon987@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            All his supporters are gonna get killed, just like last time these dumb fucks started a civil war.

            Nazis and fascists need to be eradicated every few decades.

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Gonna be the least of your worries unless you live in DC. Look forward to armed take overs at every state capital and military deployments across the country (with help from our great friends in the Russian military), and murdered Democrats on every street corner should Trump win.

      It will be worse than that probably

      • 4lan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        If you truly believe this you should be training with firearms. Go far enough left and you get your guns back

      • Yewb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The military owes allegiance to the constitution not the president.

        • xenoclast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          In theory a lot of things should be true.

          But you’re talking about a career criminal who committed crimes as president and half the country is going to vote for him to be president again… so tell me you honestly don’t think that it’s going to happen

          • Yewb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            The military may have its problems but if you talk to anyone in a serious leadership position in the military they’re very clearly tell you that they will support whoever is the person that is freely elected and if that is subverted it is their duty to fix it

            • xenoclast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              There’s some hope, but I suggest we expect the worst and prepare for it. Not because I’m some crazy tinfoil idiot … because of the long trail of “That will never happen”'s that have happened.

              I legitimately think your average soldier is generally a higher educated and better critical thinker than the fifty percent of America below the average …

          • wanderingmagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Shipmates I’ve talked to in the Navy, at least, would not obey any such unlawful orders. As an active duty submariner, in accordance with my oath and creed, neither would I.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        He’s not doing s as well as hoped in primaries. If his base is taking notice, he has little chance with the general populace.

  • killpunchdeluxe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months 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

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Every single person in the country who has the power to make the decision to have the insurrectionist off the ballot , yet doesn’t, is letting down The Constitution. Don’t they have to take an oath, or is that only Federal positions?

    • wagesj45@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      I agree to a point. But everyone with the power to do something about this also has the obligation to act within and maintain the law. They have to use their best judgement on what it means to have “committed” insurrection, whether it is just based on vibes or a common understanding or a conviction in a court. I can’t fault them for any of those choices. Legally at least.

      I didn’t take an binding oath to respect our legal system, so I can easily say he shouldn’t be on the ballot anywhere in America. They can’t make that assertion so easily.

      • Deello@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m no scholar but maybe guiding a mob to disrupt an official proceeding with the threat of murder by gallows that were setup by a makeshift militia qualifies as an insurrection.

        • wagesj45@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          No shit. But everyone knowing something is different than being convicted of it. It’s why OJ Simpson isn’t in jail. Either we all agree to abide by the legal system or we don’t.

          • Deello@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            “I’m sorry officer, I didn’t know I couldn’t do that”

            We do. They don’t.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The judge in Colorado did state that trump “engaged in insurrection”. SCOTUS did everything they could to ignore that part of the case in listening to the appeal, like in the illegitimate court it is.

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

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

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      Up to 3 now. Which is funny because the central point the Supreme Court made during the hearing of the Colorado case was “why would a single state get to decide the election for the rest of the country?” Would be nice if a few other states stepped up to show it’s not just a “single state.”

      • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s so weird, I could have sworn in 2020 we were seriously about states’ rights to conduct their elections as they please. But now states do not have rights to enforce laws for themselves? I must be misremembering because otherwise it would mean all Repubs are deceitful and without integrity.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          God I mean look at Arizona’s election procedure now. No one in the GOP questioning the state being able to ignore their citizens to push whoever they want. No complaints in fact the GOP keeps trying to get even less voters.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    One of the reasons SCOTUS won’t let this stand is they don’t want the fracturing of ballots state by state. But that’s actually kind of an interesting proposal to fix Presidential systems.

    Parliamentary systems can be better because the power is in the People’s House, you can’t have a Jan 6th in the UK because the Prime Minister is not their own branch of government they are the leader of Parliament.

    If there’s a patchwork of ballots, it makes it more likely nobody can get to 270 and it goes to Congress to decide who gets elected. Pretty big change in power structures in Washington if that became the regular way we elect a president.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    I enjoyed not really hearing about this dumbfuck clown for the past few years and here comes election year, so we’re going to hear about every little detail of this stupid shit for the whole year. If you people would stop engaging with content featuring him, then he wouldn’t get as much press. Now every time he takes a shit, it’s front page news.

    • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Demoralized people will try to demoralize others so they feel more confident in their own opinions. Don’t listen to people like this.

      Educate, Organize, Act.

      • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s fine. Organizing to vote in November does matter.

        Whooping and hollering when a meaningless, soon to be overturned legal decision occurs is false hope and a distraction.

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Civil disobedience is making a comeback, thanks in no small part to this illegitimate supreme court.

      They don’t have any power, anyways. States do not have to obey supreme court rulings.

      • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        You are right, of course. It may come to simply ignoring this court. But we are in for a bumpy ride when that happens.