• ulkesh@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously. Now we have a sliver of a hope the Supreme Court will affirm and the removed can finally be shut down.

  • SaintWacko@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s good that someone said it, bit since that’s already a blue state it doesn’t really change anything, does it?

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s got to start somewhere. I highly doubt a red state would be the first one to do it, even if they wanted to - can you imagine the backlash they’d get? But if 20 other states have already done it, it’s a lot easier to say “Well, we’ll do it, too.”

    • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m glad it’s on the books at least. Have to start somewhere and set precedents otherwise nothing ever changes.

    • Recreational Placebos@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      This ruling is regarding the upcoming primaries, (although I have to imagine it would apply to the general election as well assuming he gets the nomination) so it would deny him any delegates he would have otherwise won in CO. If enough other blue states barred him from running in their primaries, it could, hypothetically, result in someone else getting enough delegates to win the nomination at the convention, although I have no idea how likely that would be.

  • cum@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh come on, that’s really unfair. I mean haven’t we all committed a little bit of treason and have been impeached a few times?