• @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    811 months ago

    part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn’t actually recommend removing people from ballots.

    Why would anyone keep an ineligible candidate’s name on the ballot?

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      Dunno.

      Because they’re idiotic sycophants?

      The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations and really no way to keep people from voting for the orange turnip anyhow.

      We all “know” he incited an insurrection. We all know he’s ineligible. But this is an inconceivable and utterly novel legal territory here, people are going to have wonky takes.

      • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        Because they’re idiotic sycophants?

        Is Gavin Newsom an idiotic sycophant? The article is about how he wants to keep Trump on the ballot.

        The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations

        Colorado begs to differ.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          Colorado came to a ruling after investigation; the courts heard the case and had a finding of fact.

          that’s the process at work. I haven’t a clue what game Newsom is playing at. but honestly, I couldn’t be arsed after what he wants. It doesn’t really concern him all that much, really.

        • @mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          011 months ago

          There’s not a consensus among judges.

          Had the Dems done an actual impeachment of Trump, called witnesses and the like, and got a conviction this question would already be answered around the nation. But the half assed it and now we’re here.