this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
-5 points (40.0% liked)

Conservative

374 readers
51 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

TLDR: Trump is back on the Colorado ballot.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

This is a terrible understanding of the supreme court. Their job isn't "establish precedent". Their job is to interpret the constitution for modern problems, to analyze and interpret past precedent, and to establish precedent where there is none. It is multi-fold, not a simple one item.

There is already precedent for this, and it shows that conviction is not a requirement for taking a candidate off the ballot like this. The supreme court does not have the authority to make a mockery of past precedent and just make up shit as they go like you suggest. The point of precedent is to have a stable and consistent rule of law, meanwhile you guys just want to throw out the things that would hurt your god emperor.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Well yes, they have more than one job. But one of them is establishing precedent. And this was a 9-0 decision, so its not like its just trumps judges.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't give a shit that it was 9-0. It was a stupid decision regardless of author.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago

9-0 sends a clear message.

It is also consistent with many other recent rulings. Congress do your job.

Roe vs wade was overturned because Congress needs to make a law.

Most the recent decisions have been a pushback to Congress

People who don’t get the roles, get upset because their “side” lost but it’s part of the check and balances.

I support abortion but roe was made up fantasy land.

Same thing with states trying to disqualify Trump. It’s not a power they hold.