• Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ok,but somebody has to make the determination that Trumps conduct is consistent with sedition. Just from a formal point of view I don’t see how a CO court can rule on this, when the action took place in DC.

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.

        Again, if congress had convicted Trump, or a judge makes a ruling of seditious behavior within its own jurisdiction I am totally on board with striking him from the ballot. But this ruling just sounds flimsy to me.

        • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.

          Do you not understand how the constitution works?

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

          The case is about the court’s home state ballot so in that sense they do have jurisdiction. The Colorado court isn’t ruling on the Wyoming ballots, for example. Litigators in other jurisdictions can refer to the Colorado finding in their own cases.

          Congress’s role in the context of the 14th amendment is explicitly laid out. If SCOTUS wants to argue that the Colorado ruling isn’t binding then the only remaining constitutional remedy is a Congressional vote to remove Trump’s disability, meaning they have to vote to requalify him for office. Republicans can barely figure out how to put their slippers on in the morning let alone muster a 2/3 vote to forgive a traitor for trying to overthrow the country.

        • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think that the more concerning implication is that states are the ones that determine who should be allowed to run for president or not. This is messy and not cohesive, I don’t think this sort of structure which we may be building is conductive to a healthy democracy. But we will have to see how far reaching these events reach.