Illinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballot

So, just to be certain, when USA today keeps giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and uses words in this article like, riot, and alleged role, they're carrying water for him right? The man has been found to have had a role andtaken part in an insurrection in multiple cases now. They should just say it.

Man is guilty as sin but just to play devil's advocate for the press: they are subject to libel laws and cannot make definitive statements of guilt/non guilt or else risk being sued.
So on the one hand it's dumb that they aren't telling it like it is but on the other hand I sympathize that they don't want to put their finances on the line to pay the Donald Trump legal fund if he decides to sue.
- You would think journalism would be subject to libel laws, but after seeing Fox and company blast lies for decades, I don't have that confidence.
  Yes, Fox finally got hit with one major lawsuit for one massive lie, but given all the lies they've run, it shows how far past the line you need to go.
- Yes and I would agree if he were before the court for the first time, but multiple judges have already made a determination in those things.
They don't want to be on the bad side of the possible future dictator of America.
- You mean their Republican donors?
alleged role,
Until he's been criminally convicted for it, it's "alleged" in order to avoid defamation and libel cases.
- He was found by a trial and state supreme Court to have engaged in an insurrection. It's not alleged.
That's how these people are taking advantage of our open, democratic system. They're acting in bad faith, but our system has to play along and treat them "fairly" to avoid giving them any potential out or ammunition for them say they're being discriminated against or treated improperly. It's such BS though, we're having to bend over backwards to treat these people with kid gloves while they run roughshod over our democratic system and they will literally not treat others fairly when they get power. This man and all his enablers in Congress/Scotus need to be in shackles already, they're a shit stain on history and they're getting people killed in Ukraine by holding up US aid.
They are just pussies.
- Greedy, don’t forget greedy
Just like the Democrats do for israel.
When was he convicted of insurrection or anything related to that?
- I watched it on TV. Doesn't take a genius to watch the days events of January 6th unfold, and the months prior to know he attempted a coup to stay in power. Why it failed, I don't have any insider knowledge.
  But it's come out that it was a lot more coordinated behind the scenes than what we all witnessed on Jan. 6th. We don't need a jury for that (although there is an ongoing criminal investigation for it)
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/us/politics/jan-6-committee-key-findings.html
- Here you go happy reading: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
  You will find section G. Titled "President Trump engaged in an insurrection" to be of interest.

SCotUS: States are free to regulate their elections how they see fit.

States: Republicans are actually subject to the rule of law and responsible for the crimes they commit

SCotUS: No not like that

Here comes a ruling from Trump's illegitimate SCOTUS in 3...2...

I am less concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that a national party nominee is disqualified from a ballot in a state he'll almost certainly lose than I am with a ruling that some court in Florida or Arizona or Georgia can pull the same shit on Biden.
Very easy to see this become one more trick one-party states can pull to remove popular opponents from the ballot in close election years. And I would be very concerned if an Alito court authored an opinion in which this kind of thing was normalized.
- I'm not afraid of bad faith attempts to ruin democracy as backlash from this decision because bad faith attempts to ruin democracy are coming regardless of the outcome of this particular case
- And so we decide to let tyrants through so that their party doesn’t have made up and twisted precedent to try to disqualify qualified candidates? It’s not like the GOP need or care about precedent anyway. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do.
- What would the argument be for eliminating Biden though? Biden hasn't committed insurrection. Trump has.
1 ½... 1 ⅓... 1 ¼...
They're gonna slow walk all the appeals responses so it doesn't matter which way they rule.

Err - republican primary ballot. This isn't reddit, I know that's what the site's clickbait headline says but can we not adopt their bait tactics?

Damn straight. The unfortunate thing about Lemmy growing is that the click bait fuckwits are appearing every now and then. Hopefully it doesn't continue or a majority of people just downvote this shit.

This is another big win, but Illinois was always unlikely to go Trump thanks to Chicago being hella blue and 90% of the state's population. The interesting moment is going to be when a key battleground state bars him.

Most importantly this contributes to established case law to make it easier to keep insurrectionists off the ballot
- Most importantly this contributes to established case law to make it easier to keep insurrectionists off the ballot
  This will inevitably be challenged, probably along due process lines. And they'll have a point: Who determines if a candidate is disqualified under the 14th Amendment, what process of law makes that determination and who is involved? 14A is unfortunately vague on that front.
  To date, everyone excluded under 14A Section 3 other than Trump has fallen under one of two groups: They've either been a public official of the Confederacy or they've been convicted in criminal court of doing something that definitely falls afoul of 14A Section 3 (including one Jan 6 participant, with the last person before that being charged under the Espionage Act about a hundred years ago). Being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously by a jury after being given an opportunity to defend himself as well as possible is a much higher bar than has been applied to Trump.
  And remember, this isn't about Trump, specifically - whatever is decided will apply going forward, and the GOP will try to wield it against any Democrat they can make a plausible case for. If the opinion of a judge that a candidate should be disqualified is all it requires, well there are plenty of right wing judges out there.
If it holds up, and it's a longshot, it probably changes down-ticket races if people can't turn out for Trump.
- If it were only Illinois, they'd come out to write in Trump's name.
  However, I don't see any way Illinois will fare differently than Colorado.

Uhg. Why is this even a question? WE ALL SAW WHAT HE DID JAN 6TH

But it was the FBI and ANTIFA and George Soros is the architect of the whole thing. They took a beautiful peaceful walk through the Capital and turned it into violence. Free the J6 hostages, they didn't do anything wrong.
I'm tired of all the double speak bullshit defending that attack on the Constitution.
A single term president has caused long term harm to the Republic that will likely last for decades until it does crumble under the fist of a fascist.
Narcissistic word salad is how Donnie used to win lawsuits, and he's hoping it'll work with the Jan 6th thing.

I'm from IL and it's always nice to see the system work for a change. Of course he was never gonna win IL anyway so whatever.

Fuck this orange fuckwit forever and always.

How many states till we can stop pretending a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump?

At least 11 but no more than 40