• Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    This should be a surprise to nobody; the courts have been largely bending over backwards to accommodate Trump.

    The supreme court just ruled that either the 14th amendment requires an act of Congress, despite no such requirement listed in the constitution.

    Then you have Cannon, who has gone out of her way to rule in Trump’s favor, up to and including the implication that Trump actually is above the law, and has shown she is hellbent on continuing to do so.

    The supreme Court is also throwing Trump another bone by delaying his dc trial by 2 months, essentially giving Trump the win by running out the clock instead of ruling on presidential immunity.

    The stormy Daniels case is of little legal and even less political consequence, as the case is weak already and Trump is not considered at significant risk.

    The GA case is likely to get derailed because Willis couldn’t keep her personal and professional life separate, and her handling of the affair puts her credibility in doubt.

    At least we have the civil judgement. At least, until Trump finds another judge willing to throw that out too.

    • Brad Boimler@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t like trump but if you read the wording it says Congress must act to remove him so that’s why he is allowed on the states are trying to remove him when only Congress has the authority so a act of Congress could remove him but unlikely to happen sadly.

      • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It does not clearly say only Congress has the power to disqualify. It does clearly state that Congress can remove a disqualification of this type with a 2/3 vote.

        The court here has ruled that because of that Congress must act in order to disqualify someone in the first place. Which makes sense to me, I suppose. It’s certainly better than the alternative argument that the presidency is not an officer of the United States. The court seems mostly concerned with the balance of power between the states and federal government in the ruling.

        But most importantly, it’s making it clear that this is not self-executing or self-evident in the same way the constitutional qualifications for the office are (eg age).