‘It is in the public’s interest’: Judge refuses to toss voters’ insurrection clause lawsuit to kick Trump off 2024 ballot, speeding the case towards trial

by wenchette

21 comments

  1. >At least one lawsuit seeking to kick Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment is speeding towards a late October trial after a state judge rejected the former president’s free speech arguments and refused to grant his “special motion to dismiss” on Thursday.

  2. Inmate 1135809 having a bad F5 Friday.

    Edited to proper inmate number following second cup of coffee.

  6. The judge’s statement is very reasonable.

    > The issue before the Court is purely an issue of law and does not turn, in any way, on the identity of the intervenor, or his political opinions.
    >
    > The question before the Court, as to this factor, is simple: would the preclusion of a constitutionally incapable candidate from seeking public office enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit on the public?
    >
    > The Court, again, has little trouble finding that it would. It goes without saying that, in the abstract, ensuring that only constitutionally qualified candidates can seek to hold the highest office in the country, particularly when the disqualification sought is based on allegations of insurrection against the very government over which the candidate seeks to preside, seeks to enforce an important right which confers a significant benefit to the public.
    >
    > In short, it is in the public’s interest that only qualified and faithful candidates be allowed to seek public office. The Court therefore finds that this condition is met by the allegations in the Petition.

  7. “The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.[

    [trumps words resulted in violence so is NOT free speech ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

  9. This will go to SCOTUS

    This SCOTUS will almost certainly not kick trump off the ballot in any state

  10. Well, that’d be what negative 9 or 10 electoral votes?

    Every bit helps. Fuck the Orange Insurrectionist.

  11. Getting him off before the primary in handful of states changes everything.

    Colorado, Caliornia, NY, Oregon, Washington, and a few others could very much make the primary wide open.

  12. Coloradoan here, knowing he will not be on the ballot feels DAMN GOOD

  14. I’ve seen a few news articles frame this as depriving voters of their right to choose.

    Newsflash: that was always the intent of this clause. A number of high-ranking Confederates were relatively popular after (and survived) the Civil War, Robert E. Lee being probably the best example.

    The inelligiblity clause was specifically written to prevent voters from choosing to elect Lee (or anyone else from the Confederacy) to Congress, the Senate, the Presidency or be appointed to any of those offices.

    I’ll grant you, it’d be unlikely Lee would get elected President. But to Congress?

    Voters **should not** have the right to vote for or elect anyone who participated in or supported an insurrection against the government of the United States. It doesn’t matter if it’s 1865 or 2021.

  15. So, what this means, if things fall the way they should,, is 2024 will be RFK Jr. (I) vs Biden (D)…..

    Kennedy, Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kenn-edy for me!

  16. Hey Judge never mind public interest the public is fucking riveted. Don may make US history soon as the biggest criminal since Bugsy Siegel

  17. This is going to be a really interesting case. Technically, Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. So how are the judge (or jury) to decide if he’s ineligible b/c of insurrection?

    I presume this is a civil case so does “preponderance of evidence” apply?

    If he’s deemed ineligible, that could put other states in play if there’s a precedent set.

  18. I completely believe that he should be kicked off the ballot here, but just a curious law question: wouldn’t he need to be convicted for this clause to actually be in effect or is it just that they need to prove that he more than likely did this and a full conviction isn’t needed?

  19. Let’s roll with this. Kick every last one of them off future ballots. Dems start your engines.

Leave a Reply